I'm starting to get fed up with cookies, especially having those notices half filling my screen and no option to say NO/ deny them. Some sites do let you say no to cookies and then you can go on to see the site. Most do not. Why not, wasn't that the point of being asked? Otherwise why ask at all if the site is still sticking me with cookies I don't want?

The other thing, are sites that try to make me shut off my ad blocker. Yes, they want to make money, fine. But, how can I decide if I care enough to look at their site before I've seen any of it? They could give people an option to at least see the site before they stick me with a bunch of ads which most likely include cookies, tracking and whatever other junk.

Marketing continues to suck the life out of the Internet, like a parasite.

I posted this to the forums on the Curlie site. As someone who reviews, edits, and lists sites (a lot of them) the cookies and assorted marketing junk really get annoying, quickly. Before you think sites are not asking me to list them... you're wrong. I'm reviewing sites which have been submitted to the directory. I'm not usually looking for sites to list, out of the blue.

Also, last night I was thinking about advertising in general. I've written before that marketing and advertising preys on people, finding weaknesses to sell them stuff they likely could do without. Last night I went a bit farther down that idea.

Marketing and advertising finds ways to make us feel incompetent. "You can't do this without buying that." ... "You can't wash your car without buying this or that product because without it you will do a botch job". You get the idea, I hope. Marketing is training people to think they can not succeed at life on their own. It belittles people and softly bullies them. The whole thing about adulting as a verb is a marketing scheme. There is no reason you can't be an adult. Adults are not omnipotent beings. Why make people needy, unsatisfied, neurotic even unless you have the cure/ solution they need for 3 easy payments of $9.99 a month...

AI is set up to "help" us even more because we are just that incompetent. Why can't people make a cake, fix a toaster, etc, etc, etc, as they did twenty years ago? Of course they can. But, they are trained to believe they can not. Think about the ads you've seen lately. How many have told you (not in so many words) that you can't do something? Ads making men look like clumsy fools. Men are not, in general, clumsy or fools. Children are not uncontrollable wild animals and women are not idiot trolls trying to look like Barbie dolls, or whatever the marketing twists people into so it can sell us stuff.

How will people be living in another few generations? If you're not generating money somehow, in order to buy stuff, will people become a nuisance population? Like an out of control population of mice. Will we be herded up like cattle, as some science fiction has suggested? (Even that will dwindle down as supply and demand fall off). Will we be used as sort of living batteries to power the machines, the artificial intelligence? Our abundance of population will only be useful if we contribute to the economy and then... what if the consumer economy tanks?

What happens when there are not enough human consumers to support the industries, the businesses, and services geared to human beings? How much of what exists, only exists for some form of human consumption? Whether physical, mental, or emotional... so much of what marketing sells is based on having a human population with the money to support it. If things keep going as they are and humans become useless, how will that change everything? Quite a lot, I'd think. Hard to even imagine once you start to think about all the pieces falling out of place.

Life after humans... what would it really look like?

What if people paid in $ for crimes instead of jail time? Like paying a traffic fine, as an example.

Jail time seems unbalanced for the crime committed and jails are crowded. A murderer gets a few years, insurance fraud gets more than murder, all depending on the randomness of Courts, judges, and expensive lawyers. Eating a person you've just killed on a bus... it happened in Canada and he was out in a few years. I've yet to see anyone murdered come back to life but it seems murder is not all that costly in time. Maybe... it could be counted on a different scale. Cash value instead of time served. It's a start.

I think the old idea of work houses could be brought back. Prisoners work in order to buy their freedom, eventually. I don't see that ever happening these days. Like capital punishment, it isn't likely to come back. (Capital punishment and the death penalty are not the same thing. Young people don't know and assume a lot).

So, just fine them and let the credit agencies nag at them for payment. If its good enough for people who haven't committed a crime, other than getting in debt, why not? A little stress and endless calls from credit agencies always tracking them down, isn't too tough a punishment.

I don't think jail time was ever working as punishment anyway. It was supposed to reform people. How can you really ever reform or punish someone for a crime like murder? Other crimes like assault, robbery, etc. as long as no one was killed. There should be a line somewhere. It gets complicated when you decide if "left for dead" is the same as murder/ killing. I think so. Why should a killer benefit from the luck or determination of someone else to live.

So most criminal activity could be set as a dollar amount payable to the Canadian government (or whatever the local government is). Not as a punishment just a heavy fine. A better deterrent than jail. For one thing it will cost the government less than housing, feeding, entertaining them. Making use of credit agencies means the government won't have to hire extra staff, unless it goes through Canada Revenue, which I guess it must at some point. Of course, payments for crimes will not get any tax credits or refunds. That would be silly.

Maybe the government could collect enough to lower taxes. I just keep finding all kinds of good options for this idea.

As land becomes more valuable and there are more people needing burial plots, old cemeteries will be dug up for new bodies to replace the old. Think this is not possible? It is already happening (or soon will be) in Cape Town, South Africa.

Graves have been "moved" all over North America. Old family farms with their family plots, gone. Old local churches with their small cemetery plots, gone. Replaced with roads, assorted buildings. Moving or replacing old graves for new might be a little less heard of, but I'd be surprised if it were entirely new.

I understand the idea about pulling down statues, burning books, and trying to change how history is viewed, but I am concerned about censorship.

Changing a point of view can be done without destruction, like burning books, toppling statues, defacing graves, and so on. People don't need to destroy things in order to change perspective.

The people in history had a different perspective, a different lifestyle. They lived in the times as they were. Their choices were based on what life was like, what they knew and understood about the world. In their world, at that time, they believed in what they were doing.

Times change, attitudes and ideals develop and evolve. That doesn't mean everything about the past is terrible or wrong, or should be destroyed. One negative should not cause the destruction of everything else that was positive and important and good.

A new, different perspective can bring fresh understanding of history, without attempting to vilify people or erase them from history. Talk about people in history, but without censorship or bias. Give people the facts, about the accomplishments and failures of people in history and see them as human beings, as people like ourselves but different.

In time, future people will look back on us, our deeds, ideas, and very likely have a different perspective than we do now. I hope they will also choose to have understanding and view us in perspective. I would not like us to be censored or erased from history because future people don't agree with our ideas or actions.