An Oft Overlooked Command

There is a lot of news lately about our military, and I want to focus on something that many in the military (as well as outside of it) fail to respect enough: the necessity of knowledge. There are too many people placing emphasis on "just following orders" or "just doing my job", rather than understanding what that means and whether or not they are justified in doing it. This is an extension of the general ignorance and malaise in society, a cop-out of having too much to know or understand. This is never a reason, only an excuse. Frankly, it's easier to have someone else do the thinking, but that isn't what life is supposed to be. Life isn't about easy; it's not easy to be a student or a parent, or beautiful, or healthy, or anything else. We are endowed with intelligence for exactly this reason: to not be used or hurt and so that we are not taken advantage of. All of which happen to some extent when we are not in control of our own lives, when we abdicate or subjugate our intelligence. We have brains so that we can overcome obstacles and apply control, rather than force. Just swinging the stick isn't enough, one must understand why, and if there is a way to not have to swing the stick at all, that is even better. That is where true intelligence, and therefore true humanity, lies.

Why I Am as Valuable as You

I would like to examine the worth of a human from a purely scientific viewpoint, from which everything is measured and judged by empirical (based on observation of fact) evidence. Therefore, at it's most basic, we have a strong reason to allow everyone to be themselves and support their needs so that they live well. Every human is deserving of respect, each equal to the other, because we all carry the preservation of our kind within ourselves. Any one human can be the answer to a problem facing all and the continuation of humankind. From a recessive gene to a novel invention, some breakthrough or innovation that comes from an unlikely source, we know that these things happen. No one knows which traits will be adaptive, what will be needed to survive in the future, or when we may be called on to answer such a problem. The more diversity we have available, the more likely we will be able to continue as a species and persevere in the face of catastrophe. Instead of trying to limit our differences, or wanting to determine what "kind" of person is acceptable or desirable, we should focus on how all live and the elevation of each to their potential so that we are capable of answering any such crises of survival. Our solutions will otherwise prove insufficient and we will fail as a whole species to make any necessary adaptation, what we think of as the hallmark of humanity. On the other hand, there can be no survival without resources: space, food, clean water, the basic necessities. If there are an unsustainable number of humans alive, that does not allow for a solution or meeting the needs of those who are already alive. We cannot demand that others suffer or give up what they need so that there can be more people, or more of a certain group of people. When we cannot provide for those already alive we are not fulfilling the first promise: to allow all to reach their potential. When people do not have their needs met, they cannot be expected to think beyond how to meet their needs. That does not allow for invention or innovation, nor encourage higher-order thinking that is needed for overcoming larger problems. We need to be able to provide for all to preserve all, that is basic and obvious (although I am stating it here, so that we are sure to be clear and on the same wavelength). So, it seems we need a balance-which is not much of a surprise, as so much of life is balance. We need to maintain our diversity while keeping the overall population at a level that does not overwhelm the resources available.

Join the Club

There seems to be a pervasive attitude, an opinion, that influences many cultures and religions worldwide. I am referring to the belief in the defect of human-ness, the idea that we need to prove ourselves worthy of something. Instead of accepting each other as humans, to believe in the natural worth of anyone, we are taught to suspect and question everyone's worth-even our own. What does that say about us, about our beliefs and opinions regarding ourselves as a species? We somehow think that there is no universal right to some very basic things, we are actually willing to deny another human's right to exist. We cannot accept that everyone, by dint of being human, are owed these things: health, education, food, shelter (not an exhaustive list). What is it we have to prove, and to whom? How can we know, and when will we ever be sure? Why is this, why is being human not enough? I would love to hear your comments and answers, as ever.

The Cult and Culture of Cars

In so many ways, the automobile has taken over our lives, even beyond when we are in one. This can be seen not only in the way we design cities and states with roads and parking for cars in mind, but also in the way we think of where we live; in relation to friends and work, for example. Really the basic function of the automobile is to make travel a less onerous task. Yet it has become an extension of our selves, another symbol and, in turn, another way to judge others. It has, in such a short amount of time, come to where it seems all our cultural personalities and institutions can be expressed in terms of cars and traffic. This extends to art and entertainment certainly, but also language, societal expectations, and self esteem. The very idea of not using or having a car has become ludicrous or foolish, although I am glad to say there are people trying to counter that. We don't just move further away from our family and the places we were born, we use cars to escape from the world. By getting in and turning up the stereo, by taking a long and destination-less drive, or just by going really fast, we are trying to get away from the rest of humanity that causes us so much upset. We complain about all the other drivers...please examine the hypocrisy of that thought. We all get out on the road together and think that none of the other drivers should be there.

Thank you for examining that; it is, of course, just a symptom of the selfishness of capitalism and competition so prevalent in culture today. However, these tie so closely with traffic and the auto as to be indistinguishable. Yet we should ask ourselves the basic questions: "How does this help us?", "Is this really good for us?", and "Can we do better?" The competitive approach to driving is what inspired this post, because it seems rather than improving the way we get where we are going, cars are just another way to "beat" each other. There are "sports events" entirely devoted to and consisting of cars and trucks and things that go vroom. In everyday life there are those who try all sorts of ways to "win" in traffic. The person who dodges and weaves around others, another who shoots off to the next traffic light, and especially those who drive as though no one else is on the road. I don't believe this attitude or circumstance is intentional, that we set out to create it. However, we can and need to overcome what has happened, not just to be safer on the road, but to instigate change in other parts of our lives, which suffer from the same basic problem.

I recently heard about a book that seems to fit with this subject, which I am excited to read, called Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us) by Tom Vanderbilt.

Why Do My Peers Hate Me?

The rejection of peer pressure hurts those applying it, as well as the one(s) being pressured. Trying to get someone to do go along with the rest of the group is important for the members of the group, especially if the activity is questionable. Not participating points out the weakness of those who do engage in the behaviour. Resisting demonstrates that not everyone agrees with the group, so it is vulnerable to some other opinion. This is unacceptable to some people, as they need the comfort of others who share their opinion to feel confident. It can be seen as a matter of control: when these individuals feel that everyone is going along with the program, it is fine. The questioning of the groups' plan may be seen as an attack on the structure of the group, the cohesive dynamic which holds the group together. This is not always to do with something illicit, but this drive is more powerful the more dangerous or risky conditions are.

So we have insecurity compounded by feeling scrutinized by peers, leading to feelings of violent retribution for exposing the underlying vulnerabilities of the group. This should be overcome by confidence, with deciding from a place of certainty and integrity, as pressuring someone(s) into doing something is obviously not in the best interests of anyone. Actions of individuals and groups should come from deliberate consensus and valid arguments, not bullheaded or ill considered desires or impulses.