Life in the industrial age, in a country like America is sooooo mundane and repetitive. Monotony is insanity, I'm convinced of that. Humans are born absolutely unique, yet proportionately similar. We desire change, but, we want desirable change. Also, we want desirable change to happen to us, and for us, but we want change. In our mundane lives, we have to seek out the change, at much risk to our livelihoods. It gets to the point where, just to have some change, we actually find ourselves wishing for UNdesirable change, just to have SOME kind of change happen.

To study history and philosophy was to understand how to use the past, to project into the future. When technology moved along at a snails pace, planning using the recent past, and even the distant past was a reasonable proposition. Now, as technology permeates society, the more effect it has on our daily lives, the more unpredictable our daily lives become. The governments we live under now are antiquated. We keep marching ahead full speed, and nobody has enough control of the beast to back off, and make an evaluation of the situation.

Basic empathy, and humanism come of a very simple idea. We don't need years of book study to understand it. Pretend there's only two people on the planet earth, who live near each other. I know the other can kill me, and I can kill the other. The other also knows this. Now, we can live in fear of what the other MIGHT do, or we can live without fear, but just with the anxiety of the unknown, but it's just a basic fact of life, that if I communicate with the other, and we find common ground, there is comfort.

So, it seems I might be quite an odd humanist indeed. I totally see how other humanists may see me as odd. I have a formulaic view of humanism, which, I think as far as humanists go that's rare, or non existent. What I'm seeing mostly is appeals to history, and appeals to authority, compiled in heaps of information describing "something" called Humanism. My question is this though, is that simple enough to gain adherents without years of study?

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo
fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is
the mistaken belief that, if something happens more
frequently than normal during some period, it will
happen less frequently in the future, or that, if
something happens less frequently than normal
during some period, it will happen more frequently in
the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature).
In situations where what is being observed is truly
random This belief, though appealing to the human mind, is false.