Posts
I was talking with a few people recently about a subject that has shaped how I view the world. The greatest book I have ever read is still The Will to Power by Friedrich Nietzsche. It explains the framework by which the world operates. To put it succinctly, people don’t really care about each other. We prey on each other, we cheat each other, we have no consideration for each other. It’s sad, but it’s true.
Nietzsche called Christianity a blight on mankind. He proclaimed in definitive fashion that people were not bound by any sense of morality which society imposed upon them. When I was 22 and read this, I was astounded to realize that people could think this way. What a liberating idea. I adopted that philosophy wholeheartedly and slowly got further and further away from the framework under which I was raised. Of course, I fooled myself into thinking that I was still adhering to a Christian set of values. But in reality I made a few token gestures of humanity but despised most people. Back then anger was my main motivation. I was angry at myself, angry at my Dad and angry at the world. It cost me dearly.
I had to hit bottom with a thud to realize that abandoning values granted me freedom but left me in a great abyss. As I slowly reconstructed myself, I discovered that the values I had scoffed at as a young man were the only way to live. To be morally grounded, to see the world as a place that needs to be improved and saved, was the only path to love, and as John Lennon stated, love is the answer.
To apply that sentiment to the practical world is to encounter confounding frustration. The world does operate in an amoral fashion, just as Nietzsche described. Adherents to one religion or another make up the majority of the human population, but people still really don’t care about each other.
The evidence is everywhere. In one of my favorite movies, Billy Jack, the title character says, near the end, I am paraphrasing, you show me one place on earth where people really care about each other and I’ll never do another violent thing. That film was made in 1971. The statement is still just as valid. There are pockets of humanity, there are people who labor for the common good, but they are far outnumbered by those who serve only their self interest to the detriment of others. In many cases, they realize what they are doing and they take no steps to correct themselves.
This brings me to the book I am reading, Hot Flat and Crowded, by Thomas Friedman. I’m only 65 pages in, but so far I have a major point of disagreement with Friedman’s premise. He says in a number of places that the developing economies of the world have every right to enjoy the same type of lifestyle that we have in America. The statement is a celebration of the accomplishments of capitalism, which has clearly been shown to be a faulty system. But do these people have the right to develop their economies in the same foolish, haphazard manner that we did?
The answer to that is no. While we may not have evolved much in the past century, we have learned some painful lessons. The US is mainly responsible for the impending environmental disaster. As Mr. Friedman correctly points out later in the book, the only way for the US to regain its position of economic pre-eminence is to reclaim its moral authority and lead a green revolution to stem or at least mitigate the environmental effects which have been set in motion. I have heard Mr. Friedman’s viewpoint repeated ad nauseum by foreigners who feel entitled to their piece of the expanding economic pie. But in light of what we have learned, do they have the right to be as dumb as we were? Again, the answer is no. In the rush to spread the benefits of wealth among their citizens, foreign leaders are adopting the same polluting technologies which caused the problems we are now facing.
In the US, the enormous costs of leading a green revolution are seen as prohibitive in the current economic situation. If we were to publicly state that our handling of the environment has been disgraceful and that we are urging other countries not to follow our path and adopt more environmentally sound economic growth programs, would it make any difference? The question may be completely moot, because the odds of the US making such a statement can only be stated in astronomical terms.
What does this say about all of us and our world? What are foreigners saying when they follow the US lead in economic growth? Screw the environment; screw the losers who still live on less than $2 a day! We want our pie and we want it now! This is selfishness, this is hypocrisy, this is willful ignorance. It is darkness. It is not a compliment to the human condition. It proves Nietzsche correct, no matter how strenuously anyone may disagree with him.
Where does the future lie? It lies in science fiction. It lies in the kind of utopian vision that has been laughed off for a hundred years. It lies in love. The economic costs are secondary, and pale in comparison to the costs of inaction.
When will people wake up and realize this? I see no evidence of any enlightenment. The forces of darkness and stasis are strong, and they are experts at deflecting blame. I wish everyone luck on their journey and if you have young children, prepare them early to be activists, to respect others and to value love over money. The future of the world lies in the overthrow of the Nietzschean ideal.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Free Susan Atkins
Susan Atkins was part of one of the most shocking crimes of the 20th century. She was originally sentenced to death, later commuted to a life sentence and a life is what she has served. Now she is near death, a mere shell of the woman she used to be and I believe it is time to grant this woman some penance and allow her to return home to die in peace.
Society is very quick to punish. We hand out life sentences and pat ourselves on the back for our evolved system of justice and our humanity. Yet there is something very paradoxical about the nature of this punishment. We kick up dust and have endless arguments about taking a life for a life, but the fact remains that a life sentence amounts to the same thing, just a slower and more painful process.
Anyone who disagrees with me should try being put in prison on an open ended basis with no idea when they will be released. I’m sure their opinion of the necessity of harsh sentences would be changed. At least when I did my time, I always had a release date in the back of my mind. It still didn’t make it any easier.
Economic points are being raised, but if this issued is going to be examined in a vacuum, on a philosophical basis, then economics is irrelevant. The question is about the dignity of life and the compassion we have as a society.
It’s true that Susan Atkins said she had no mercy for her victims. She was young. She came from an abusive situation, and became immersed in a dysfunctional situation. Are we so comfortable and smug that we can allow ourselves to show no mercy towards her after she has served forty years in prison and not feel a single pang of guilt? I have to seriously question the psyche and motivation of someone who feels that way. I read over the first eight years of Susan’s record of her prison behavior and after her initial adjustment period, she was consistently seen as a model prisoner, often being complimented for the calming and positive effect she had on other inmates. Even the families of her victims have acknowledged her good works and the clear change in her personality. Can’t we, as a supposedly impartial society, do the same thing?
If we allow Susan Atkins to return home to die, do we diminish ourselves in any way? I think it has the opposite effect. I think it shows growth. Let us allow ourselves the chance to grow instead of remaining in lock step with the path of least resistance. Susan did not allow her victims to choose the manner of their deaths. Do we need to adopt that same misguided attitude in order to feel safe? Let us more evolved people choose the noble path and allow her to die at home in peace.
Society is very quick to punish. We hand out life sentences and pat ourselves on the back for our evolved system of justice and our humanity. Yet there is something very paradoxical about the nature of this punishment. We kick up dust and have endless arguments about taking a life for a life, but the fact remains that a life sentence amounts to the same thing, just a slower and more painful process.
Anyone who disagrees with me should try being put in prison on an open ended basis with no idea when they will be released. I’m sure their opinion of the necessity of harsh sentences would be changed. At least when I did my time, I always had a release date in the back of my mind. It still didn’t make it any easier.
Economic points are being raised, but if this issued is going to be examined in a vacuum, on a philosophical basis, then economics is irrelevant. The question is about the dignity of life and the compassion we have as a society.
It’s true that Susan Atkins said she had no mercy for her victims. She was young. She came from an abusive situation, and became immersed in a dysfunctional situation. Are we so comfortable and smug that we can allow ourselves to show no mercy towards her after she has served forty years in prison and not feel a single pang of guilt? I have to seriously question the psyche and motivation of someone who feels that way. I read over the first eight years of Susan’s record of her prison behavior and after her initial adjustment period, she was consistently seen as a model prisoner, often being complimented for the calming and positive effect she had on other inmates. Even the families of her victims have acknowledged her good works and the clear change in her personality. Can’t we, as a supposedly impartial society, do the same thing?
If we allow Susan Atkins to return home to die, do we diminish ourselves in any way? I think it has the opposite effect. I think it shows growth. Let us allow ourselves the chance to grow instead of remaining in lock step with the path of least resistance. Susan did not allow her victims to choose the manner of their deaths. Do we need to adopt that same misguided attitude in order to feel safe? Let us more evolved people choose the noble path and allow her to die at home in peace.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
WHY THIS COUNTRY IS DOOMED-The Macro and the Micro
I hope I am being facetious here but I am really worried about the future of this country and it’s not necessarily for the reasons that most people are worried. First let’s look at the macro picture.
Paul Krugman, another NYT writer that I respect immensely, recently had a column talking about the vote on the recently passed Waxman-Markey climate change bill. The bill passed the House by a narrow margin. The reason, as Mr. Krugman points out, is that there are a large number of elected representatives who actually reject the notion that something must be done to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, in other words, the whole notion of global warming. I was flabbergasted as I read this. At this point in time, 2009, when the evidence of global warming is so evident, being reported everywhere, here are men and women who purport to call themselves intelligent telling us they don’t believe in the concept of global warming. How did these people get elected to any position of responsibility? How can you take a single word that comes out of their mouths seriously?
As Mr. Krugman points out, these people aren’t just disputing one argument with another, they are wholly rejecting the idea that a crisis even exists. It’s absolutely unbelievable that stupidity of that magnitude is tolerated in the halls of Congress or anywhere else. If we as a nation are willing to put up with that kind of stupidity, we are doomed. The triumph of fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Someone is so afraid to admit they are wrong that they willfully choose ignorance and denial. That, to me, constitutes mental illness, and it is apparently rampant among our elected representatives.
Now, the micro picture. As I have said before I have a very unglamorous job as an inside consultant for an energy company. In plain and simple terms I am a telemarketer. Fine, hate me if you will. But I am not selling newspapers or magazines, I am selling energy efficiency. In effect, I am giving away money. For nothing, I will have someone come to your business and let you know if we can help you reduce your energy bills. But it is a very hard job, and it’s made harder by the fact that people consider it perfectly acceptable to be rude, and I mean terribly rude. They have a good time being rude.
If they would take 30 seconds and listen, my company could help them insure the viability of their business going forward. But just like the elected representatives they would much rather remain rude and ignorant. Asking them to think is just too much of a burden for them to bear. I don’t when the country took this turn or who raised the people I call, but this is not the way I was raised. My dad, God rest his soul, would have had no problem admonishing me in public if I displayed rudeness to anyone. As an adult, I learned that courtesy and respect are hallmarks of self respect. You cannot expect anyone to show you respect if you so clearly demonstrate that you don’t respect yourself or others. And yet, this is how the people I call conduct themselves. It’s a miracle they make dollar one. And don’t try to tell me that indications of this kind of rudeness aren’t reflected in other aspects of their lives. It has to come to the surface in other unsociable ways.
Now, I know that these people are pounded by cold callers all day and the market we are working in is the busiest in the world. But that is not an acceptable excuse. How do you expect society to function if people can’t at least be courteous to one another? The spirit of civility that used to be the norm in this country has evaporated. Will it ever come back, I don’t know. Maybe the country needs to go through another depression to discover its civil soul. Maybe when everybody is in the same boat and we realize that we all need each other to make this country function again, we’ll remember that civility matters.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. But at this point in time, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future because people prefer to be ignorant. That is actually the most distressing fact. There was a time in the world when you had no choice but to be ignorant. Knowledge was scarce. But this is 2009. The entire world’s knowledge is right at your fingertips. All you have to do is type and click. But people don’t want to do it. Their personal growth is limited by their lack of perception. Their world revolves only around their immediate needs, and change, the only constant in life, is something to be feared and disputed. God help us all.
Paul Krugman, another NYT writer that I respect immensely, recently had a column talking about the vote on the recently passed Waxman-Markey climate change bill. The bill passed the House by a narrow margin. The reason, as Mr. Krugman points out, is that there are a large number of elected representatives who actually reject the notion that something must be done to reverse the buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, in other words, the whole notion of global warming. I was flabbergasted as I read this. At this point in time, 2009, when the evidence of global warming is so evident, being reported everywhere, here are men and women who purport to call themselves intelligent telling us they don’t believe in the concept of global warming. How did these people get elected to any position of responsibility? How can you take a single word that comes out of their mouths seriously?
As Mr. Krugman points out, these people aren’t just disputing one argument with another, they are wholly rejecting the idea that a crisis even exists. It’s absolutely unbelievable that stupidity of that magnitude is tolerated in the halls of Congress or anywhere else. If we as a nation are willing to put up with that kind of stupidity, we are doomed. The triumph of fundamentalism is anti-intellectualism. Someone is so afraid to admit they are wrong that they willfully choose ignorance and denial. That, to me, constitutes mental illness, and it is apparently rampant among our elected representatives.
Now, the micro picture. As I have said before I have a very unglamorous job as an inside consultant for an energy company. In plain and simple terms I am a telemarketer. Fine, hate me if you will. But I am not selling newspapers or magazines, I am selling energy efficiency. In effect, I am giving away money. For nothing, I will have someone come to your business and let you know if we can help you reduce your energy bills. But it is a very hard job, and it’s made harder by the fact that people consider it perfectly acceptable to be rude, and I mean terribly rude. They have a good time being rude.
If they would take 30 seconds and listen, my company could help them insure the viability of their business going forward. But just like the elected representatives they would much rather remain rude and ignorant. Asking them to think is just too much of a burden for them to bear. I don’t when the country took this turn or who raised the people I call, but this is not the way I was raised. My dad, God rest his soul, would have had no problem admonishing me in public if I displayed rudeness to anyone. As an adult, I learned that courtesy and respect are hallmarks of self respect. You cannot expect anyone to show you respect if you so clearly demonstrate that you don’t respect yourself or others. And yet, this is how the people I call conduct themselves. It’s a miracle they make dollar one. And don’t try to tell me that indications of this kind of rudeness aren’t reflected in other aspects of their lives. It has to come to the surface in other unsociable ways.
Now, I know that these people are pounded by cold callers all day and the market we are working in is the busiest in the world. But that is not an acceptable excuse. How do you expect society to function if people can’t at least be courteous to one another? The spirit of civility that used to be the norm in this country has evaporated. Will it ever come back, I don’t know. Maybe the country needs to go through another depression to discover its civil soul. Maybe when everybody is in the same boat and we realize that we all need each other to make this country function again, we’ll remember that civility matters.
I hope it doesn’t come to that. But at this point in time, I don’t hold out much hope for the immediate future because people prefer to be ignorant. That is actually the most distressing fact. There was a time in the world when you had no choice but to be ignorant. Knowledge was scarce. But this is 2009. The entire world’s knowledge is right at your fingertips. All you have to do is type and click. But people don’t want to do it. Their personal growth is limited by their lack of perception. Their world revolves only around their immediate needs, and change, the only constant in life, is something to be feared and disputed. God help us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)