The Process of Change is Hidden

Regardless of how we are treated and trodden upon, it is of no use to succumb to the desire to fit in or "go with the flow". No improvement can be made if we all "go along to get along" because we are not demanding any change. Strife, or at least discomfort, are necessary to change things, and certainly to change them for the better. By this I mean that to make dramatic changes, which are often needed as people and cultures will stagnate and calcify over time, these changes are difficult and sometimes unpleasant. It is easy to give in rather than find that other path, one that leads to revolution; here I mean that things move on, they revolve rather than stay in place. Not that a little rebellion isn't necessary also, and what we are trying for is appropriate and requisite actions. The frustration at not being understood or not making progress should be channeled into the drive to change, rather than into self-destructive modes of action. It is counter-productive to be frustrated by attempting to force others to "recognize truth" or change their ways. We can only change ourselves and what we do, and try to convince others through demonstration and reason that there is a better way. This is why Mahatma Gandhi said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." There is not a law passed that can change a person, only by seeing that change is necessary and beneficial will people try to do so. It is uncomfortable to challenge the way things are done, there isn't an easy way to confront the contradictory or self-serving nature of people. This does not lessen the necessity of doing so. Finally, you may not see (or live to see) the results of your efforts, hence the title of this post. There are often subtle things one does not pick up on, especially if we expect to see dramatic signs of improvement. Still, keep at it and believe in the goal and achieving it.

Daministration!

One of the books I am currently reading is "The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule" by Thomas Frank. It is easy to read and about an interesting subject, of course. I am prompted to voice my reaction here, as well as to suggest you read the book for yourself. There are a number of reactions to the basic problems of organization: of coordinating what, where, who, and when. "What does organisation have to do with the government of the U.S.?" you may ask. That is a fair question, but not as unrelated as you may suspect. It is what would have allowed a coordinated and effective response to the hurricane in 2003 that devastated the Southeastern U.S. It would have created the possibility to respond quickly and appropriately to the events in New York City on 11 Sept. 2001, along with many other incidents. Instead, as we are all well aware, these crises (along with many other and lesser occurrences) were bumbled and we are still realizing the consequences therefrom. All this is known and discussed, or at least joked about, amoung most citizens: the ineptitude of the federal government (as well as, in most cases, lesser governmental bodies). To those who have not given up hope for improvement and question why things should be so, however, these events and reactions are a slap in the face. In summary, the book shows how this ineptitude and mismanagement serves the needs and goals of those "in power". No surprise there, since this can explain a great many strange and unnecessary things. It should also be unnecessary for a book to explain why it is not good to cripple and dismantle a government. Yet, here we have it: an in-depth look at the people who have broken the parts of the government that actually worked

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.