Saturday, May 26, 2018

On Contemporary Slavery and "Basic Jobs"


So let's be really honest here: slavery still exists and is still widespread.

The difference between most contemporary slavery and what we typically still refer to as slavery historically, is that nowadays masters pay their slaves in paper instead of food, clothing and shelter etc. By outsourcing the food, clothing and shelter etc. to somebody else, masters can avoid being held accountable for not giving their slaves enough paper to subsist on. Because, you see, no one actually tells the masters how much their slaves need to survive. And if a slave tells them, they probably won't be believed.

The fact that much of our civilization's functioning currently depends on such slavery is no excuse for us to close our eyes to it. As technology improves, slavery becomes increasingly obsolete.
But most people don't understand all of this because of all the lies being told about the nature of poverty. So when technology displaces slaves from their labor, those slaves are discarded instead of being integrated into free society. Since integrating ex-slaves into free society takes more effort than simply saying "you're free, now go do free-person stuff".

And when someone recommends helping ex-slaves displaced by technology integrate into free society by giving them resources they can use for that without any strings attached, they are told that this is bad because if they do not work than they do not deserve any money (or in other words, if they serve no master than they do not deserve to live).

So instead they propose a plan to put the ex-slaves back into slavery, but this time doing useless, pointless tasks that no one needs nor wants them to do. Since that's better than having them get anything for free, right!?

I think this explains the whole pathetic fiasco that is "basic jobs".
Slatestarcodex.com (my favorite blog) goes into more detail on what "basic jobs" is and why it would be such a godawful policy which should never be implemented.

Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Starting From Cerulean

This is a pokemon fanfic I wrote for class. Hope you like it!

-------

It is your tenth birthday, and that means today's the day you receive your first Pokemon! Or it was supposed to be. Unfortunately, you live in Cerulean city, and you got caught in the morning traffic.

When you finally arrive at the Cerulean city gym, you find the gym leader there, who tells you the last starter Pokemon has already been taken.

Having already had to bike for an hour through the morning traffic, you decided if you're not going to get a starter Pokemon, at least you can ask the gym leader for advice to help you better prepare for your Pokemon journey next year.

At some point in the conversation you ask Misty if an all Water Pokemon team would be viable in the Pokemon league.

"Water is the most diverse Pokemon type there is," says Misty. "If you want to challenge the Pokemon league with an all water team, I say go for it."

"What sort of water Pokemon should I pick?" You ask.

"Well, what's your team strategy?" Misty asks back. "If you're going for an all water team, I would recommend choosing Pokemon that perform well in the rain."

"A rain team..." you murmur to yourself. "So I should pick a Pokemon that can learn rain dance for my starter?"

"Not necessarily," says Misty. "There are some Pokemon, like politoed or pelliper, with the ability drizzle. Drizzle summons rain upon entering battle without needing to use rain dance."

You think for a moment.

"What if my opponents use their own weather teams?" You ask. "If an opposing pokemon uses Sunny day that could be hard to deal with."

"Golduck has the ability cloud nine, which eliminates weather effects," says Misty.

"How does it do that?" you ask.

Misty is starting to look annoyed by all your questions.

"Well, why don't I show you. I choose you, Golduck!" she tosses a pokeball and a big blue vaguely psychic-looking duck materializes."

Clouds form over head to block out the sunlight but which are not heavy enough to rain.

"Goooollllduck!" the golduck cries.

"Why is it blue? Is that its shiny form?"

"Actually, maybe you should go on a Pokemon journey and find out for yourself. Now take your starter Pokemon already."

"But I thought you said there were no starter Pokemon left!"

"Oh I'm sorry, did I say that?" Misty laughs. "I lied. There is one more." She hands you a pokeball.

"What is it?" you ask.

"Psyduck. It evolves into Golduck. Enjoy your Pokemon journey!"

You thank her and then you're on your way.

Saturday, March 31, 2018

Free Will?

Free Will advocate: Free Will must exist. How could we have meaningful choices if we are not the sole source of all our acts? If we are not responsible for the choices we make, then we cannot be held responsible for anything! Also, I believe in the social contract/reciprocal theory of morality, which is useful for keeping societies functioning and intact, but not useful for understanding psychology. My goal in this conversation is to advocate getting people to be more personally responsible and to discourage them from doing stupid, unethical illegal things, and also to get them to not make excuses for people who do stupid, unethical, illegal things. Also monotheism-apologetic stuff, but that might be secondary.

Free Will skeptic: Free Will cannot exist. It is like saying "Magic!" or "Phlogiston!" or "Emegence!": a "model" with no internal causal detail which makes no advance predictions. Also, I believe in the maximize flourishing and minimize suffering theory of morality, which is useful for saving more lives and breaking harmful status quos, but not as useful for maintaining friendships or interacting with individuals or smaller groups in a cooperative manner. My goal in this conversation is to advocate for more humane treatment of criminals, and for overhauling the criminal justice system so that it actually cares about rehabilitation rather than focusing so much on punishment.

Me: Past experiences/environment/genetics/whatever other factors => Perception, Thinking and Decision-making process => Future Actions

Where am I in the process described above? Simple. That process IS me. Where different definitions of me exist on a continuum in chronological order. Each definition is a different arbitrary time interval of the process, and only one definition is true at any given point in time. Maybe that doesn't quite cover it, but I'm not a neuroscientist so it's good enough for me for some purposes.

Also, the fact that we live in a deterministic universe where everything could in theory be predicted in advance if you had enough computing power and enough data, doesn't mean that you have no choices. It just means that you don't understand what human decision-making *is* at the level of quantum physics. And you're never going to because no human has enough space in their heads for that. Suffice to say that having the outcome already be predetermined shouldn't bias you towards inaction, since you could just as easily be predetermined to choose to live an active lifestyle and actually try to do interesting and worthwhile stuff with your life as you could be predetermined to lie around in your room all day moping about not having free will.


People ARE responsible for their choices, the universe IS deterministic, and the reasons that you two are having trouble reconciling these two facts is because:

1. You don't sufficiently understand how your own cognition works
2. You don't suffiicently understand how determinism works.
3. You don't have any idea what conscious human decision making might look like in full physical detail at the cellular level in the brain.
4. Free will advocate is motivated by a desire to hold people accountable for their misdeeds. Free will skeptic is motivated by the desire to prevent those misdeeds from happening again or from happening in the first place.

These two desires are not incompatible. But when you two argue about free will, you're talking past each other because you're misapplying ideas from physics and cognitive science to social contracts and criminal law, or you're misapplying ideas regarding social contracts and criminal law to physics and cognitive science.

So basically, it kinda boils down to both of you refusing to admit that you just don't know that precisely, refusing to be content with relying on useful conceptual approximations which appear to be contradictory on the surface for the time being, and refusing to respect the subject-area category boundaries that humans invent in part for preventing exactly this sort of dilemma.

Have I mentioned before that almost everybody in the world is crazy?


Saturday, February 10, 2018

Value, Meaning, Narrative and Altruism in a Reductionist Mathematical Universe


I originally posted the following on WordPress for an ungraded blog post assignment in a rhetoric and community service class. Since the assignment was ungraded, I figured it would be okay to post it here as well. I also edited it a bit too. Hope you like it!

brain+celll.jpg ^Brain cell and Universe. Image source unknown.

The following essay discusses a decent amount of semi-general background information about a variety of subjects. Much of it is commonly known or discussed by people interested in particular fields of knowledge, to the point where I don't know precisely who to credit with it all, even though an average person who isn't familiar with those subjects or hasn't taken any classes in them would not be familiar with them much if at all. This is just my own perspective which I have acquired from many years of reading and learning about a variety of subjects. If anything I say in this essay is factually incorrect, or if there's some information below which comes from a particular source that I have forgotten about and you know what that particular source is, please let me know so I can make corrections and citations. I have taken the Pro-Truth Pledge, so please hold me accountable.

I.
Reductionism. A philosophy that many love to argue against, and which almost no one understands. I bet you're already shaking your head sadly at my naivete. I bet you're thinking, "The world is too complex to reduce to simple math. What of civilization, history, culture, art, friendship, love, or the human spirit? There's more to life than numbers and equations."

Yes, there's more to life than sitting in front of a computer crunching numbers all day. On this we agree. But if everything is made out of math, then that means that the computer is made out of math, and your desk is made out of math, and your chair is made out of math, and you are made out of math. And it also means that everyone who ever lived was made out of math, that culture, art, history, and civilization itself are made out of math. That love and friendship, every human and animal emotion and experience and memory is made out of math. That your mind and soul are made out of math, and so too for every human being who has ever lived.

But if everything is made out of math, what does that mean? For most people, mathematics is a particular subject, one of many categories taught about in school, and there are other subjects that are just as important if not more so.

What are these "categories"? Does the Universe actually care about the distinctions and boundaries that we invent? Humans like to put things into categories, organizing our beliefs into different levels of scope. We have different beliefs about how societies work, how people work, how organs work, how cells work, how molecules work, how atoms work, and how quarks work.

But those different "levels" of organization only exist in the mind. Societies are made of people. People are made of organs. Organs are made of cells. Cells are made of molecules. Molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of subatomic particles, which are made of leptons and quarks. And being "made of" a thing(s) is the quality of being that thing(s). An atom is the subatomic particles it is made of. A molecule is the atoms it is made of. A cell is the molecules it's made of. Etc.

II.
Societies are made of people. Okay, seems obvious enough. People are made of organs. Okay, not so obvious. What about the human spirit/heart/soul? That's not an organ, is It?

The dominant paradigm throughout much of human society is that the soul is incorporeal, that it is an essence or "spark", and not a function of the body.

But Science offers a different perspective. The human mind and heart/soul are actually two systems of the brain, the Intentional System (otherwise known as system 2, or the Mind) and the Automatic System (system 1, otherwise known as the Heart or Soul). The Intentional System is the slow, deliberative, logical part of the brain, while the Automatic System is the fast, perceptual, emotional side of the brain.

Neuroscientists avoid using the word "heart" to describe the Automatic System because there's already another organ in the body with that name, and they avoid using the word "soul" to describe the Automatic System because it's loaded with supernatural connotations. (The word "spirit" faces similar pitfalls.)

But if you subtract all the supernatural connotations (such as continuing to exist in an afterlife or being a divine "spark" or "essence") then what's left of the word "soul" as it is colloquially used directly corresponds to the Automatic System of the human brain, with maybe a few other Intentional System functions or functions that combine both systems added in.

People talk about the soul as if it is something that feels emotions such as love, friendship and compassion, has moral character and/or personality (like, so and so was such an honest soul), remembers the past, dreams of the future, etc. etc.

What all of these things attributed to souls have in common is that they are all patterns of thinking, feeling, or behavior. In other words they are functions of the brain.

People sometimes say that the eyes are the window to the soul. And of course, what organ lies behind the eyes? The thing that happens to be the most complex object in the known universe?

You guessed it, the human brain. 

III.
But wait a moment. The human brain isn't a divine "spark" or "essence". It's a system with a bunch of different parts in it working together. And none of those individual parts seems all that human. Is the amygdala human? Is the neocortex human? Is the hypothalamus human? Where is the human here? Why don't I recognize myself in this machine?

Because that "machine" often can't directly observe it's own internal functioning. The human mind and soul can sometimes have a lot of trouble understanding itself, and ends up making educated guesses about its own functioning based on its interaction with the world around it, or by imagining different ideas and hypothetical experiences and noticing their emotional response.

How do those emotions actually work? You might recognize joy and sorrow, but that doesn't mean you understand it. What is it, where does it come from? How does it connect with the muscle and bones in your arms to make them move when you give someone a hug? What chain of events leads from your emotion of sadness to the biochemical phenomenon of water and other bodily substances being released from your visual sensory-organs?

As stated earlier, the human brain is the most complicated object in the known universe. It is made of trillions of neurons. The neurons are like pixels on a computer, they can be on or off, and concepts are represented by vast networks of neurons, all of which at any particular moment are on or off. The process of a neuron turning on and off is known as an "action potential".

Some of these neurons turn on and off more frequently than others. If you remember some experiences more easily and in more detail than other experiences, it is because the networks of neurons which the better-remembered experiences are represented in are turned on and off more frequently.

Neurons are cells. A cell is generally considered the smallest thing that could still be considered alive, depending on your definition of what counts as life. A single cell, like a neuron, isn't complicated enough to store an entire human being, with all of their thoughts and emotions and memories and desires etc. Just like a single stroke of a paintbrush doesn't paint a picture, since that single stroke by itself is just ink on a canvas. When you fill in all the other brush strokes to paint a picture...what you get is still just ink on a canvas.

However, the color of ink used in each brush stroke and the location of each and every one of those brush strokes mimic the colors and locations of rods and cones in the human eye when that eye sees the same scene in reality which is depicted in the painting. The "pixels" on the canvas correspond to the "pixels" in our eyes, which in turn correspond to the "pixels" in our brain. This is the case even for paintings of hypothetical scenes that we have never personally observed.

What matters isn't whether we've actually seen a particular configuration of colored "pixels", nor whether that configuration itself corresponds to a real phenomenon which can be seen directly. What matters is just that the configuration of differently colored "pixels" on the canvas can be translated into "pixels" in our brains. It means that we can imagine what something would look like if it actually existed and if we saw it directly, even if it doesn't exist and we never see it in real life. And sometimes we have imagined images in our heads which we expect to see in the real world, and we see a different image, a different configuration of colored "pixels", instead.

But the human brain, despite its complexity, has limited image resolution. There is a limit to the amount of detail it can imagine at once, which is why we organize things into categories and different levels of scope, dividing large amounts of detail into fewer chunks for easier storage.

IV.
The "pixels" in our brains, neurons, are not the smallest "pixels". Even the neuron is a system with different parts in it working together, including such organelles as the axon, the dendrites, the nucleus, and the cell membrane. And those organelles are made of a variety of substances moving in particular patterns of direction and interaction with each other. Proteins, DNA, ATP, neurotransmitters and hormones are all molecules. And molecules are made of atoms. And atoms are made of subatomic particles such as electrons, protons and neutrons. And those subatomic particles are made of fundamental particles such as leptons and quarks.

So in theory, you could predict literally any phenomenon, no matter how complex, by investigating the locations and motions of all of the fundamental particles involved in that phenomenon. Because that phenomenon, like every other known phenomenon, is made of the locations and motions of many fundamental particles.

For instance, you could in theory predict changes in the stock market just by looking at the locations and motions of fundamental particles. It would just take an enormous, unfathomable amount of time, energy and "pixels", and by the time you actually finish recording all this data and collecting your results, the stock market will have long since changed again, making your prediction useless.

Or perhaps you wouldn't be able to calculate your prediction until the stars have grown cold and humanity has long since died out. Perhaps the whole universe is finite and doesn't contain enough time or energy to complete your calculation.

But even if that is the case, the prediction can still be true or false, and every single individual bit of data could still collected, even if our brains aren't large enough to contain all that information. Even if its not physically possible for any conceivable brain, whether natural or artificial, to contain all that information. The pixels are all out there, to be translated into brush strokes, even if the canvas is too small to contain that many brush strokes.

V.
When people tell stories, they are translating a series of images, of neural networks in their brains into a code of vibrations in the air, which the listener's brain decodes and translates back into a series of images. (For the purposes of keeping things simple just assume that includes other sensory information besides just the visual kind, even if I keep discussing things in terms of vision).

But as I discussed earlier, the images stored in human brains don't always correspond to real phenomena. Sometimes we can be mistaken about what is true and what is real. Sometimes the images in our minds only partially correspond to real phenomena.

I recently heard an argument along the lines that different minority communities have different narratives about or different versions of history which often get overlooked by the majority, whose own narratives and versions of history dominate public discourse. In the context it was made, this argument was being used in part to implicitly justify a relativistic view of truth, because of the belief that claims of "objective truth" are just a way to force the dominant culture's beliefs onto oppressed minorities.

Truth relativism is the idea that the truth is subjective - that there is my truth, and your truth, but that there is not the truth. This is an example of a map-territory confusion - a failure to disintguish between the image of a phemoneon stored in human brains and the phenomenon itself.

Even if different groups of people believe different versions of history, that doesn't make all versions of history equally accurate, nor does it make any particular group's version of history perfectly accurate and complete.

For instance, a diverse culture with roots in many parts of the world which values the study of world history might be more likely to have a more accurate and complete understanding of their place in world history than an ethnocentric culture which places a much higher value on remembering events which have taken place within its own current borders.

You should notice that I am distinguishing between two different definitions of "history": history as the actual events of the past as they actually happened, and history as the stories people tell or believe about the events of the past.

The truth is, regardless of whether you can temporarily convince a part of your brain to think as if it believes a particular group's narrative vision of history, that doesn't necessarily have any bearing on your willingness to learn from that group, understand them, have compassion and respect for them as fellow human beings and do what you can to help them. You don't have to believe the stories groups of people tell about themselves and their place in society to help them. You just need to be willing to listen to them, and consider why they believe those stories, and understand.

And if you find that a view that is commonly held by a group of people seems to describe reality more accurately than a view of your own which it conflicts with, you can just change your mind.

What you believe about yourself isn't the complete picture. What your friends and family believe about you isn't the complete picture. To understand yourself more fully, you must be willing to consider feedback from yourself and those close to you and also from those you dont get along with, and those outside of your immediate circle of concern. This logic likely applies to groups of people too, not just individuals.

VI.

Beliefs about ourselves, like all beliefs, are just maps, just predictions we make about the territory - the reality we live in of which we too are a part of. (This doesn't include "beliefs" that someone thinks that they believe but don't actually believe.)

Beliefs are ideas. And in a sense, ideas don't truly belong to any one person or group of people. Your beliefs are not your personal property. They are, in an ethical and practical sense if not a legal sense, public domain as soon as they are shared with others. Anything that you believe, someone else could in theory believe as well. Having a belief that someone else thought of first is not infringing on intellectual property. A specific belief or set of beliefs are not something unique to you. They are not part of who you are, nor how anyone is as a person.

A human being is made of far more than their opinions about things. If you changed your mind about something, even if it was something significant, you would still be you.

John Keats, a famous English romantic-era poet once said,

"...Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven:
We know her woof, her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things."

If you didn't see the flaw in the above assertion before, I hope you can see it now.

John Keats was wrong. You don't need to fudge the numbers here. You don't need to look away. Life and the Universe won't suddenly cease to be valuable and beautiful just because you look at them closely enough to see their inner workings.

If everything that exists is made of simple, fundamental particles, a multitude of coordinate points in particular locations in the vast multi-dimensional graphing space of the Universe, that doesn't "reduce" the value and beauty of more complex systems of such points. After all, beauty and value are also real phenomena, and they too must be made of the locations and motions of many fundamental particles.

Just because you don't know how the exact positions and directions etc. of every single one of those particles is altogether the same thing as the phenomena you approximate as "value" and "beauty" doesn't mean that the phenomena you approximate as "value" and "beauty" don't exist.

"Ought" is just another "Is". The world we want to live in, the lives we want to have - describing these is just making an assertion about what state of affairs would correspond to better psychological and other kinds of bodily health for human beings and other sentient life. And all of that could be described in terms of the motions and locations of fundamental particles, in theory.

Of course, it's possible that "particles" are just another approximation, another category humans invented, and that the real Universe is mathematically continuous rather than discrete. But if I start talking about that we will probably be here all day.

Addendum: this post doesn't quite accomplish what I meant for it to accomplish because it doesn't really lay out all the necessary arguments to support reductionism itself, but instead merely counters most of the common arguments against it. Eliezer Yudkowsky does a much better job of explaining reductionism here: https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Reductionism_(sequence)

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

How to Be Politically Correct, Correctly: Gender

The words that we as a society use to label and identify gender are not fair to either of the two most common genders.

They establish one gender as the normal and the default, and strip away that gender's diversity and what makes it special.

And they establish another gender as special and unique, as abnormal, and strip away that gender's common ground.

Hence, I propose that instead of saying "man" and "woman", we should say "werman" and "wiman".

And then we can finally be allowed to use the word "man" as the unisex term that it has been for nearly the entire history of Germanic languages across the world.

Then we will be able to use the word "Mankind" in a song or poem without being accused of misogyny.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/man

https://www.etymonline.com/word/woman

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/08/the-word-man-was-originally-gender-neutral/

Thursday, January 25, 2018

Malice, Stupidity, Habit or...? A Discussion of How to Reconcile Conflict Theory and Mistake Theory

So I recently read this article on Slatestarcodex about two competing perspectives on the nature of governmental and socioeconomic systems, and it was very fascinating. I highly recommend reading it first, otherwise this post might be confusing to you.

Both Conflict Theory and Mistake Theory feel right somehow, and yet both of them result in some rather delusional conclusions. Some significant examples of this include how Conflict Theory is against free speech, and how Mistake Theory assumes that all politicians and elites would make better decisions on behalf of the public if you just made them smarter and/or educated them about how to do their jobs better.

While I'm sure this is the case for some politicians and elites, there are certainly many for whom it is not. Corruption and abuse of power are a thing after all. If anything can be attributed to malice rather than stupidity, surely corruption and abuse of power can? Right?

Hang on, this kind of behavior looks familiar. Didn't humans play these kinds of status games a long time ago in the ancestral environment? Maybe when people seek power, wealth and status at the expense of others, it isn't because of malice or stupidity, but rather instinct or habit?

Or maybe it's something more than that. Being at the top of the social hierarchy means you are freer than anyone else, since ultimately no one else has power over you. And it also means that it's much harder to threaten or harm you, because everybody depends on your favor for resources and as a result you have enough allies and manpower that anyone who tries to threaten or harm you will regret it.

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The higher your social status, the freer, safer and more comfortable you are. And anyone who does not have absolute total power over the rest of humanity is vulnerable to being threatened, harmed or made less free by other humans.

While in theory, that level of freedom, safety and comfort could also be attained by uplifting humanity instead of subjugating it, coordination problems might make uplifting much more difficult than subjugation. An elite who doesn't try to uplift has more resources to spend on continually improving their own socioconomic position through subjugation. If an elite isn't focused purely on improving their own socioeconomic position, then they could potentially put themselves at a disadvantage to others who are.

The reason that the wealthiest people in the world still donate to charity is likely because they have such high incomes that no matter how much they donate they are still at the top of the hierarchy.

Or perhaps in the case of some ultra wealthy people who aren't at the top, they feel like they've gotten as high as they could feasibly get and have decided that trying to attain even greater power would risk the power they already accumulated - therefore they can donate some of their income to charity instead of using it to improve their socioeconomic position, because they are trying to maintain their current position rather than raising it.

Of course many elites, like much of the rest of humanity, are religious and believe that they believe in an afterlife. If they consciously admitted that there is no afterlife and that their very existences were most likely doomed to annihilation, maybe they'd realize that their own long-term safety and well-being depended on uplifting humanity instead of subjugating it.

Under this view, conflict theory is just a special case of mistake theory.

I'm not sure how to test these ideas though. I'm not sure whether they accurately describe the psychology of extremely wealthy and powerful people or not. Anybody know if there's any way to figure out if my ideas here hold any water? What are your thoughts on this?

Please try to falsify my shiny new theory if you can, and let me know how it goes. Thanks!

Monday, January 15, 2018

Here, Have Some More Songs!

Hi. For those of you who haven't read my previous post about this, I've written a bunch of songs within the past few years but I never learned how to write them down in a standard musical format of any kind. I just keep the tunes memorized in my head and write down the lyrics in text documents. I hope to eventually have them performed some day, but in the meantime I'll just be sharing the lyrics. That being said, some of these songs are sung to my own tunes and some of them are sung to the tunes of songs written by other people. Some of these songs are completely original, and some of them are "parodies" in the sense that they're derivative works inspired by, responding to or improving upon songs I've listened to previously, but not necessarily in the sense of being funny.

Last time I shared some of the songs that I have written which I think might be most appreciated by other rationalists or by members of the Pro-Truth movement. I would like to share some more of the songs I've written, this time songs that will be most appreciated by other secular people who are spiritual but not religious, especially rationalists and humanists. That being said, I expect there's a good chance you will still enjoy these songs even if you are religious.



Change the Course of Fate

(instrumental)

A story told
Of times of old
When prehistoric dragons roamed
They fought and died
Tried to survive
In the wild world they called home

Trampled over the land
And flied through the sky
Appeared to rule nature
Though that was a lie
Controlled by their instincts
And not very wise

And they never opened their eyes

Then a shooting star descended from the heavens
On its way to crash into the earth
Struck down the prehistoric dragons
Now their remnants live on in the birds

And now you stand in a very familiar place
Up against the greatest danger you've ever faced
The endless cycle of extinction
The curse of war is finally about to break
Overcome your own worst nature
And change the course of fate

Someday and far away
Your descendants will look back and say
You fought and died
Tried to survive
To change the course of fate

Trampled over the land
And flied through the sky
Appeared to rule nature
Though that was a lie
Controlled by your instincts
And not very wise

And you rarely opened your eyes

Then you looked back at the darkness behind
You looked ahead and foresaw the world's demise
A shooting star that would tear apart the heavens
Unless you made it in time

'Cause now you stand in a very familiar place
Up against the greatest danger you've ever faced
The endless cycle of extinction
The curse of war is finally about to break
Overcome your own worst nature
And change the course of fate

(instrumental)

So little truth
So many lies
So many fools
So few are wise

Such tiny stars
In the infinite night

You're gonna lose
But you gotta try...

'Cause now you stand in a very familiar place
Up against the greatest danger you've ever faced
The endless cycle of extinction
The curse of war is finally about to break
Overcome your own worst nature...

'Cause now you stand in a very familiar place
Up against the greatest danger you've ever faced
The endless cycle of extinction
The curse of war is finally about to break
Overcome your own worst nature
And change the course of fate



Scream of Time

At the dawn of the century
The turning point of history
On the edge of dreams and disasters you stand

And it seems like all is lost
All our futures forever out of reach
But it's not time to lie down and admit defeat

Gotta fight
Gotta win
Gotta survive
The stakes are high
and you're running out of time

Make a plan
Follow through
So you know what you should do
And scream into the sky

Be strong
Be aware
Be prepared
For the future
that's coming for you soon

Don't lose
Don't give up
Don't despair
For the sake of
people everywhere

Make it through into the future
Unleash your scream of time

We've come so far
We've fought so hard
We can't turn back now
We must continue on

No matter what 
the future holds

No matter what lies in our past

The odds are against us
Our flawed minds deceive us
Our world is dying
And time's not on our side

But maybe we can do it if we try

Gotta fight
Gotta win
Gotta survive
The stakes are high
and you're running out of time

Make a plan
Follow through
So you know what you should do
And scream into the sky

Be strong
Be aware
Be prepared
For the future
that's coming for you soon

Don't lose
Don't give up
Don't despair
For the sake of
people everywhere

Make it through into the future
Unleash your scream of time

(instrumental)

For the sake of everyone
we've lost along the way
For the sake of all of us
who still remain
For the sake of everything
For the sake of happy endings

For the sake of all our futures
You gotta fight...
You gotta win...

Gotta fight
Gotta win
Gotta survive
The stakes are high
and you're running out of time

Make a plan
Follow through
So you know what you should do
And scream into the sky

Be strong
Be aware
Be prepared
For the future
that's coming for you soon

Don't lose
Don't give up
Don't despair
For the sake of
people everywhere...

Gotta fight
Gotta win
Gotta survive
The stakes are high
and you're running out of time

Make a plan
Follow through
So you know what you should do
And scream into the sky

Be strong
Be aware
Be prepared
For the future
that's coming for you soon

Don't lose
Don't give up
Don't despair
For the sake of
people everywhere

Make it through into the future
Unleash your scream of time



Reach for the Sun
(sung to a tune similar to that of "One Vision" by Takayoshi Tanimoto)


Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Take control of your evolution
Mankind, survive and reach for the Sun

(instrumental)

Do you know what you dream of
When you sleep through your life on a bed of thorns
Do you know why you opened your eyes
and cried on the day when you were born

Have you ever looked up to the stars
Wondering why they're so bright and so far away
Have you ever tried to fix
This broken world yearning for change

It's not enough to wish
It's not enough to try
You have to win no matter what
If you want to survive

Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Take control of your evolution
And overcome

Nowhere to hide and nowhere to run
Stand tall until the battle's won
Transcend bloody evolution
Mankind, survive and reach for the sun

Can you see how far we've come
Looking back at the world that we left behind
Can you see how far we'll go
Looking towards the Sun in the sky

Why do we fight so hard
Even though we may suffer and die
Why do we fight so hard
So that we may grow strong and survive

It's not enough to wish
It's not enough to try
You have to win no matter what
If you want to survive

Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Take control of your evolution
And overcome

Nowhere to hide and nowhere to run
Stand tall until the battle's won
Transcend bloody evolution
Mankind, survive and reach for the sun

(instrumental)

Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Will you rise to the Sun in the sky
Mankind, survive...

Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Take control of your evolution
And overcome

Nowhere to hide and nowhere to run
Stand tall until the battle's won
Transcend bloody evolution
Mankind, survive...

Out of the darkness and out of the mud
What kind of creature will you become
Take control of your evolution
And overcome

Nowhere to hide and nowhere to run
Stand tall until the battle's won
Transcend bloody evolution
Mankind, survive and reach for the sun

(instrumental)




The Power that Will Bring Us to the Stars
(sung to a tune similar to that of "Tagiru Chikara" by Psychic Lover)

(instrumental)

Looking up to the stars above
To all the wondrous places
You're dreaming of

Many questions
Fill your mind
With the burning desire to find
the answers

Looking to the path ahead
Filled with dangers
and many friends
Have to survive
Overcome
Rise above and continue on

For the sake of everyone
Who we've lost along the way
And for all of us who still remain

WE WILL NOT FAIL

This is the power
that will bring us to the stars
With a bit of luck
and if we don't give up

We can make it

With the strength of our hearts and minds
To the distant future
And the faraway lights

Light up the darkness with compassion and curiosity
It's the power that
will bring us to the stars

Go to the stars above
With the will to protect everything you love
Shining brightly in the night
With the burning desire to fight
the darkness

Go to the path ahead
Make it through the dangers
And meet many friends
Survive
Overcome
Rise above and continue on

For the sake of everyone
Who we've lost along the way
And for all of us who still remain

WE WILL NOT FAIL

This is the power
that will bring us to the stars
With a bit of luck
and if we don't give up

We can make it

With the strength of our hearts and minds
To the distant future
And the faraway lights

Light up the darkness with compassion and curiosity
It's the power that
will bring us to the stars

(instrumental)

Even when all hope seems lost
We'll make it through somehow
We've already come so far
We can't stop now

For everyone who will live to see the day
For everyone whose sweat, blood and tears
pave the way

This is the power
that will bring us to the stars
With a bit of luck
and if we don't give up

We can make it
With the strength of our hearts and minds
To the distant future
And the faraway lights

For the sake of everyone we've lost along the way
For the sake of all of us who still remain

Light up the darkness with compassion and curiosity
It's the power that will bring us to the stars

(Instrumental)

On wings of our own making
We will fly up to the Sun
And with our own power we'll go on...