April 09, 2025

Horse 3454 - Dystopias, Dead Worlds, Detritus, Death

As the number of days that I have remaining left in my current job very quickly winds down, my thoughts have once again turned to the realm of literature and the idea of the Dead World. 

I do not mean a Dead World in the sense of a dystopia like 1984, Brave New World, or Fahrenheit 451, but in the sense of Night, Till A' The Seas, Hothouse, Rainworld, Waterworld, or The Gone World. A dystopia tells the story that the world exists but is bad. A dead world, which is either placed towards the end of time or after some hideous apocalyptic event, tells the story where the kosmos itself has either ceased to function or the kosmos which used to function now no longer does so.

Science fiction generally likes to tell stories of worlds imagined; either based upon some glorious and amazing future which will go wrong, or some future which has already gone horribly wrong and someone is trying to cope. The reason for this has to do with the fact that narratives are constructed on the basis that you need conflict in order to move forward, and conflict and complications that need to be solved because that's how stories work. Even children know that all stories have a beginning, middle, and end, and in order for the end to work, the middle needs logical points of order to swing upon.

Dead worlds though in telling stories of worlds imagined, usually come pre-packaged with conflict and complications with either describe how the world got to be that way and/or how to either restore or solve the problem, or how to rebuild the world after if has been destroyed. In some cases, the world is so irreparably gone, that the characters who inhabit it, will come to realise that they like the world are already doomed, and that the conflict and complications are resolved by them coming to realise this as fact.

Why do we like to tell stories like this? Science fiction generally, dystopias in particular, and dead worlds in minutiae, reflects a little of the hopes that we hold, and a lot of the fears that we carry. Humans are highly limited in both space and time, in that they can only live in the hear and now; and although we really hate to admit it, this thing that we call 'life' is merely only temporary and fleeting and can be snuffed out in an instant. Religion in general holds out a hope that this is not all there is, but a dead world in fiction certainly does not. 

The biggest existential horror that we have is that none of us know what it is actually like to die. Dead people almost never come back to report what they have found on the other side of the veil. A dead world though, is when all the people who would have reported what it is like on the other side of the veil are gone, and all that is left is the detritus that has been left behind. In some respects, a dead world is semi-analogous to history, which is a different kind of story telling where the world that has been left behind has not only remained alive but we are left in the alive kosmos to receive the stories of the past.

When my current job dies and I move to a new one, the world that I will used to inhabit will be dead. I will have to carry forward the detritus to some degree but most of the old kosmos will only live as a memory on my head. Almost certainly it will not only be dead but closed to everyone except me and even then only living on in the archives of my mind. I am hardly unique in this. Moreover, when I die and my place remembers me not, even the archives of my mind will be closed; which leads us straight back to that central point of existential horror.

The dead world in principle, holds the mirror up to our existential horror and forces us to stare at it. Good fiction, good scripture, good ideas, good facts, good lore, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all have the property that just like a piece of grit which is trapped inside an oyster, forms a pearl of wisdom. A dead world in fiction makes us to face things like mortality, pain, disappointment, and maybe even our responses to those things like anger, sadness, ennui; and then forces us to either decide what we intend to do with those responses or manufacture new ones.

That is maybe just as big an existential horror. All evidence that we have thus far suggests that being dead is actually pretty easy. Being alive on the other hand, is sometimes hard. When we point the mirror at ourselves, we often have to consider what (if anything), goes on within our interior life. Some people at least from the outside, show no evidence that anything goes on behind blue eyes. Great philosophers try and take the various pieces of the things that they have manufactured as a result of their interior life and build them into some kind of schema. I think that I am too stupid to do this. I like to be entertained by the horror itself.

Additional and Aside:

I do not understand what is actually so bad about living in the classic dystopias.

Mildred in Farenheit 451 although she does try to commit suicide is probably an edge case to contrast Montag. For everyone else in the novel, being constantly entertained and being totally untroubled by the kosmos, seems like a kind of lovely existence.

I do not understand why The Matrix would not give the people who are stuck in the simulation, a lovely time. What is actually to be gained from giving them horrible experiences? If the intent is to keep them unaware and they have literally no other inputs, then wouldn't the The Matrix want to keep them inside? To that end, giving people a lovely existence seems like the best way to do that.

In Brave New World, what would be so bad about being an Epsilon semi-moron? It is in the interests of the people who want you to work in the factories to keep you happy because that way the system perpetuates. If you are actually too dumb to know what is happening to you, then that's probably a semi-lovely existence, isn't it? Likewise if you are an Alpha-plus, wouldn't that also be nice?

Everyone in the Inner Party in 1984 is clearly having a lovely time because they already control everything. Also, most of the proles in the prole sector also seem to be happy enough. It is only Winston Smith who thinks that he has a problem.

Depending on where you are in the classic dystopias, you are either having a lovely time because you have everything you want, or you are either having a lovely time because you have everything you want by virtue of having your expectations blinkered so very much that you don't want very much. Combine all of them, who wouldn't want to be a prole with Mildred, watching the Screaming Clown Show, drinking Victory Gin, and occasionally going on a Soma Holiday... wouldn't it be lovely? 

April 07, 2025

Horse 3453 - Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland?

If I plug in relevant polling data into my swing calculator, then I have results of the May 2025 election as thus:

77 - Labor

68 - Coalition

6 - Others (KAP, Green, IND)

That means that the Coalition claws seats back from the Independents and Greens but that practically no Labor seats move at all.

If there was a swing towards the Coalition, then it is possible that there could be a Coalition but that the current member for Dickson would not be returned. The balance of probabilities for Dickson suggests that Peter Dutton would hold the seat but it would only take a swing of 1.7% for the Labor candidate Ali France, to topple him.

If this unlikely outcome happens, then we are in the unique position of a Leader of the Opposition losing their seat but the party winning government. 

So what would happen in such a scenario?

Section 64 of the Constitution states that:

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter2#chapter-02_64

The Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State of the Commonwealth as the Governor-General in Council may establish.

Such officers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General. They shall be members of the Federal Executive Council, and shall be the Queen's Ministers of State for the Commonwealth.

Ministers to sit in Parliament

After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a Senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

- Section 64, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

As the "Governor-General may appoint officers to administer such departments of State" and they "shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor-General" then there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Governor-General appointing literally anyone and anything in the world to the office of Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has no other definition at Constitutional law other than being a Minister of State. This means that as there is no other definition, then the Governor-General may appoint anyone they like.

If a minister lost their seat at an election they would no longer be a member of parliament. They could still be the Minister, provided that they were then able to attain a seat within 89 days. Likewise if Mr Dutton were to lose the seat of Dickson, then presumably he could contest some other seat in a by-election assuming that a Member of the House resigned, or be appointed to the Senate provided that some other Senator resigned.

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Practice_and_Procedure/Constitution/chapter1/Part_II_-_The_Senate#chapter-01_part-02_15

Where a vacancy has at any time occurred in the place of a senator chosen by the people of a State and, at the time when he was so chosen, he was publicly recognized by a particular political party as being an endorsed candidate of that party and publicly represented himself to be such a candidate, a person chosen or appointed under this section in consequence of that vacancy, or in consequence of that vacancy and a subsequent vacancy or vacancies, shall, unless there is no member of that party available to be chosen or appointed, be a member of that party.

- Section 15, Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (1900)

The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is unusual but not Constitutionally invalid. In the current arrangement of the Albanese ministry, there are 10 Senators who are either Ministers, Assistant Ministers, or Special Envoys. The idea that a Senator is Prime Minister is also not new.

When John Gorton was appointed as the 19th Prime Minister of Australia on 10th January 1968, after Harold Holt's disappearance in December 1967, he became the first and thus far only senator to assume the office of Prime Minister. Granted that he did contest and win the seat of Higgins which Harold Holt previously held, but there was no Constitutional demand for him to do so. Gorton was even Prime Minister without even holding a seat in Parliament for 38 days; which is longer than Frank Forde and John McEwen's time in the office put together.

Nominally the Prime Minister, as the leader of the government, would want to be a member of the House of Representatives because this is where government is formed. However as there is no mention of the existence of a "Prime Minister" and no rule that the Prime Minister can not be a Senator, then this is only by mere convention and tradition. As we saw when Scott Morrison became minister for Health; Finance; Industry, Science, Energy and Resources; Home Affairs; and Treasury, then even within the 20s mere convention and tradition holds only as long as mere convention and tradition holds.

Prime Minister Peter Dutton, Senator for Queensland is not beyond the realms of possibility because out there in the unknown future and if your dare, all things are possible.