Can Jesus save us?

OK, OK, it's quite obvious how my Christian brethren will respond to this one: with a resounding Yes! or He already did!, but unfortunately, we have not evidence for that. They may be right, but if they are, it's a guess. I know they like to pull in the Bible (in this case, the New Testament) for "proof", but you can't declare that the Bible's the Word of God, then use the Bible to prove that it is. That's called circular reasoning. Now, if you want to tell me that this is what you believe, then I'm behind you 100%. You are free to believe it, but always keep in mind, it's a belief, not a proven truth (or Truth, for you metaphysicans out there).

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the guy. I'm not all so keen on many of his followers, but what he had to say and the example that he set is precisely what I would expect from a guy in his position. When we look at what the Gospels (those are the first four books of the New Testament for those of you not so familiar with the source texts) have to say, I'm not sure that his death is so much more important than his life. I read it the other way around.

It was Jesus' forerunner (Wegbereiter, in German; that is, literally "path preparer"), John the Baptist, who put it best: "Metanoeite, metanoeite, the Kingdom of God is at hand." (I threw in the Greek word there, because there's no one single, best translation of the word. Coming in from the Latin, we end up with "repent". That is obviously a loaded word, especially for non-religious types (and there is no reason to think that Jesus -- or John, for that matter -- intended to exclude anyone at all). Luther translated it better, in my humble opinion: "turn around" (in German, kehr um (and this fits well with things that Jesus did say later about the Kingdom of God, namely that it was near, at hand, and well, within you). But, when we look at the Greek word itself, apart from any theological or Christological interpretation schemes, the word simply means "change your mind" or, said differently, "change the way you think".

This is consistent with everything else that Jesus said and did. He spent his time with the outcasts of society instead of condemning them and persecuting them; he spoke truth to power; he healed the sick, even when he wasn't supposed to; he fed the hungry and told us to do likewise. This was a guy who practiced precisely what he preached, much unlike just about every one of us.

It would seem that Jesus' mindset was more of I-showed-you-how-now-you-do-it, but it's not clear to me that this message got through. And, if you're not part of the Christian club, well, as far as they are concerned, he's not concerned with anyone who hasn't signed up, much to the contrary of how he actually acted when he was here.

For that reason alone, I think it's doubtful that he'll be rushing in with an angelic cavalry to save the day. And that, it seems, just leaves us with his "Dad" (as he called Him). Next time.

Can "the market" save us?

The answer here is more than obvious: of course, it's no. The market has never been in the business of saving. It's all about the money, and as we all know, money is the root of all evil. Those with enough cash to spare of capture and co-opted the politicians, and the players in the market, the global players, if you will, are all about growth at any price. The market as we understand it these days and the way it is portrayed by its loudest and most enthusiastic proponents is about gaining market share (always at the expense of others), growing (through destruction or assimilation of the competition), and attracting ever more investors; that is, attracting more and more money.

The purpose of business is business, opined Milton Friedman; and the purpose of business is the maximization of profits responded his acolytes. Yes, this is a quasi-religious rite that is played out each and every day in the global market place. I think it's obvious to even the most casual observer that if your primary raison d'être is accumulating money (or wealth, for you purists) than everything, and I mean everything else is secondary, is subordinate, to that purpose. Saving the world, securing the future of humanity . . . those may be noble and inspiring ideals, but they have absolutely nothing to do with “the market” and what goes on there. Friedman went so far to assert that business was wrong to even include social responsibility in its vocabulary. That was for others to worry about, not something that should be detracting business from its true and only purpose. No, business, “the market”, can't save us because it has said straight out that they have no interest in doing so. It's not even remotely part of their mind-set.

Well, science, technology, politics, and business – all players in this world can be counted out. And if nothing in or of this would can do it, it would seem that, in desperation at the least, we need to turn elsewhere to perhaps find our salvation. Where might that be?

Can politics save us?

This is not a trick question. I'm serious. Well, at least I'm serious that the question has to be asked. The role of politics in modern society is – or at least should be – to provide a safe and secure framework within which individuals and groups can live and prosper. Not only should politics ensure that science has the means and wherewithal to pursue knowledge, but also that technology can take the results of science and apply them in ways that benefit all of us. Unfortunately, that's not what they do.

Of late, they have been spending inordinate amounts of time and money on waging wars (both physical, such as in Afghanistan, and moral, such as the War on Drugs), spying on their own citizens (in the name of fighting terror), serving their own interests (the infamous “political revolving door”, their special salary, health care and pension benefits), and fighting amongst themselves (election campaigns, coalitions/oppositions). The little bit they do here and there for the safety, security and well-being of their citizenry is not worth mentioning. Things like a social safety net, livable wages, safe working conditions, and more should be of more concern to them. But it isn't.

Of course, in the grand scheme of things, precisely that which science is telling us and technology is doing nothing about should be high on politics' agenda – such as, setting limits on pollutions, ensuring alternative energy sources and technologies are developed, strengthening the educational system, etc. – but it isn't.

No, it would appear that their mind-set has become one of self-satisfaction and self-serving. The concerns of “the people” take a backseat to financial and economic interests. And that, of course, will be our focus next time.

Can technology save us?

Technology is science's little brother. Big brothers are older, wiser, more imposing, but harmless. Little brothers are all about action, excitement, dynamism, and adventure. And this is precisely why technology can't save us either.

This is not to say that a lot of people don't put a lot of faith in it. Look at all the technological advances we've made, especially in the last century or so: we've gone to the moon, we are exploring outer space, we have amazing prosthetics, we can clone sheep, not to speak of the wide range of miraculous drugs we've invented. But we've also developed nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, we make environmentally unfriendly plastics, we pollute, misuse, destroy, and exploit on a global scale. When we step back and look at the big picture, when we draw up accounts, the ledger is seriously weighted on the negative side. Our standards of living are in general higher, but we suffer from more diseases, have slain untold masses, and are wrecking the environment at a record pace. How is that going to save us?

It's not. Technology is about bigger, better, faster, smarter, newer, snazzier . . . the list goes on. There are pills, machines, gadgets, replacement parts, vehicles, computers and Lord knows what-not to still be invented. The technologist will tell you that technology on the whole brings a lot of good with it, but technologists aren't the ones to point out what they're getting wrong. To them, to be fair, it's imply a matter of finding another innovation, another solution, then the problem's solved. The problem with this way of thinking, though, is that history doesn't bear it out. Ever since we learned to deal with fire, the technological path has been an exceedingly costly one in spite of all the alleged benefits.

No, it's not in the technological mind-set to save us. Granted, they might like to, but they aren't doing it, and in the end, that's all that matters. But what if they were better directed?

Can science save us?

Science can't save us. Well, that's the short answer. And if I already knew the answer, why even ask the question? The answer is that it's not just about whether, it's also about why. So why is it that science can't save us?

First, it is simply too ideologically burdened (it aims to describe, not explain, and certainly not to solve), it has a overly strong materialistic bias (except for a certain class of physicists), and it is far too concerned with itself. Second, science is mostly about knowledge, I suppose ... well, at least it used to be. We would know things, like how the world works, why the sky is blue and more recently that matter and energy are conserved, but who cares? Yes, that's the third reason. What do you do with knowledge? Most of it sits on the shelves of libraries, a lot of can be found on the Internet these days, but what do you do with it. The true scientist really doesn't care. The main thing is figuring it out. To the scientist, just about everything else is simply uninteresting.

There we are. Science is telling us that we hurtling toward The End. It can say, “Hey, you'd better stop burning fossil fuels or creating so much pollution.” but it's not their job, and they certainly don't see it as their job, to tell us how to solve the problem. They only answer questions they ask themselves. Other people's questions are for the most part, distracting.

No, science can't save us. It's not in its mind-set. So, if science itself isn't going to jump in and help, who can or will. And this brings us to technology, which we'll look at more closely next time.

Can we still hope?

To me, its quite obvious that the world's going to hell in a hand basket. This isn't just my youthful pessimism. As I pointed out just a couple of blogs ago, we may have already passed the Point of No Return environmentally. The climate-change deniers will tell you it's all a load of nonsense, the tree-huggers will tell you it's a done deal, but serious science tells us we're damn close to the precipice. You can believe what you want, but I'm going with science. At the moment, it's the most reasonable. Let's face it, primarily because of the deniers and the neo-liberal growth addicts, we're destroying the world faster than the rest of us can keep up. I think it is not unreasonable at all to start thinking about The End.

I mean, who's going to save us? (And this is assuming that we're worth saving at all.) The End means different things to different groups, of course. So-called Christians (especially the born-agains and evangelicals) have one idea about it, and materialists (especially the militant-atheist types, like Dawkins) have quite another. Personally, I think they're both in for a surprise.

There are a number of possible “saviors”: science, technology, politicians, Jesus, or God, just to name the most often mentioned and obvious ones. Maybe the right people in these various areas or the right miracles at the right moment could make the ultimate difference. Maybe ... perhaps ... I don't know for sure. It's something worth thinking about though, so I think that's precisely what I'll do.

In the next couple of posts, then, we'll take a look at the various possibilities, one by one.

Maybe not nuts, but not completely sane either

You don't have to be a cogent observer to notice that most folks like to hear what suits them and tend to reject things that don't agree with their own prejudices. We tend to hang around with people we agree with more than those we tend to fight or argue with all the time. I think we all know that in the long run this doesn't do a lot for us. Sooner or later, we start missing important facts and information, and the quality of the decisions we make starts deteriorating.

This was reinforced in particular by an article I read on what our brain does wrong (allegedly). We tend to emphasize the negative, see meaning in things where there may not be a lot, we overlook the obvious, we place too much value on what we think others think and our attention is easily captured and distracted. Most of these, according to the author, were valuable traits when we were young as a species wandering aimlessly across the savannah, but now that we live in a highly techonologized complex environment, all these once helpful features of our minds are now just a burden. In other words, we have evolved to be the way we are, but we evolved wrong.

I don't know about you, but this conclusion struck me as absurd. It fit right in with the problem I described last time: we believe in something but act differently, we are unreasonable and inconsistent in our behavior. Yes, we -- our brains -- are susceptible to error ... but here is the crux: there's not a thing we can do about it; it's simply how we evolved. I'm sure the article's author had a more positive intent, but anyone really paying attention quickly sees what a two-edged sword this conclusion is. On the one hand, if we can't help it, we're not responsible; we're off the hook. On the other hand, it casts a healthy shadow of doubt upon the accomplishments, the wisdom of our science.

Now, I don't believe the science is completely wrong. This whole idea about suitable genes surviving does have a certain attractiveness about it, but it ignores the fact that whatever gene we're talking about is part of a pool of genes that all humans have. In other words, it ignores the role of others in evolution and even Darwin was convinced at the end that cooperation was a stronger evolutionary force than competition. Unfortunately, the article's author wasn't capable of making these finer distinctions. Where the author really got off track, though, was in the implicit assumption that these behaviors (listed above) are hardwired into our brains; there's nothing we can do about them. This is simply untrue. What all of those features have in common, if you stop to take a closer look, is lack of awareness. We are not consciously present enough in our own lives. We are on autopilot too often. It's time to get back in the game (of life).

Being on autopilot explains a lot about why we are the way we are and how we got into the particular predicament we humans are in. Our preferred way is, of course, the path of least resistance. We simply can't afford that any longer. Whether we like it or not, it's time to wake up and get with it.

Are we nuts?

Yes, negotiating the highs and lows of observing my fellow human beings is not without its risks. Sooner or later, though, all of us observers ask ourselves the very same question: "Are we nuts?" Really, at some point we all start asking ourselves if we humans are mentally unbalanced, or worse.

Think about it:

• we don't listen to reason
• we ignore facts we don't like
• ideology substitutes for thought more often than not
• we question as good as nothing
• we act against our own best interests, and
• when we react, it is usually violently

Those aren't the signs of a happy, healthy individual. It's even worse when birds of a feather start flocking together. It too often ends up looking like a murder of crows, not a gaggle of geese.

To top it all off, as a species it is starting to become clear that we're suicidal as well. You don't think so? What do you call what we are doing to the environment. Denying global warming doesn't make it go away. Merely saying the oceans are really big does reduce the rate of acidification. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't make the water in West Virginia safe. On a global scale, Bill McKibben's 2012 Rolling Stone article, "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math", explains the three numbers spelling our doom in a way that any reasonable layperson could understand: We can't afford a 2^o C increase in the Earth's temperature (as was agreed to in Copenhagen in 2009), but we're already way ahead of schedule (the temperature has gone up 0.8^o C since then); it is clear that the atmosphere can take - best-case scenario - only 565 gigatons more of CO₂ by 2050 to stay under the two-degree mark, but we're already three-quarters of the way there already. The Fossil-Fuel Masters of Disaster, though, have 2,795 gigatons of CO₂ identified in current reserves, and they're doing all they can to find even more. We may not be able to handle a fifth of that, but they're looking for more. C'mon folks, their profits are our deaths. It is really that simple.

America, of course, was long the world's top polluter, but since they've outsourced most of their manufacturing to China, the Chinese have taken over the bad-boy role. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who is the worst in the end, what does matter is what, if anything, any of us plan to do about it. The result of my observations is we're not going to do a damn thing. We're deluded enough to think this is all someone else's problem. To make matters worse, Congress, for example, has single-digit approval ratings, but 75% of the bozos there are going to get re-elected next time around. So much for democracy, eh? (And, by the way, if you think it is substantially different elsewhere, you're mistaken. It's not.)

No, I don't think it's all that unjustified to wonder about humanity's sanity. I just wish I knew how to make sense to crazy people.

Just spinning my wheels

Did you ever have that feeling that you're just not getting anywhere? Like you're stuck in the mud and your wheels are just going round and round, spraying muck, blowing smoke ... but you're not budging an inch? I do, from time to time, and this happens to be just one of them.

A friend of mine got on my case last week about being so negative ... why couldn't I find something positive to contribute? Another was on about me not being specific enough, not providing solutions (as if just anyone can simply identify issues). One of my kids wanted to know why I wasn't more involved. Someone else noted that I was being more quiet than usual. And I suppose they're all right. At least in their own ways.

The fact of the matter is it is difficult being an observer of human nature. Yes, I spend an inordinate amount of time (probably while most of you are sleeping) thinking about what makes humans tick and why. This is always a balancing act on the razor's edge between general and specific. Though too many people don't know it, we humans are all pretty much alike: we share a lot in common, not the least of which is our most fundamental attitudes toward our lives: we'd like them to be as hassle-free as possible but know full well, things will not go smoothly. OK, I don't personally know anyone literally struggling to survive, but I would imagine that that last statement of mine still sums up pretty well what they want. To them, perhaps, it is a dream; to us, however, it is a wish.

The greatest challenge to observers like me, though, is trying to figure out why we insist (at least it appears to me as a type of insistence) on doing things that are in our own worst interests. For those of us in the industrialized, developed West, we know our oil is running out, so we demand even more; we know that fossil fuels are shortening the life span of the planet, and we demand to use more; we know that big money is robbing us of our and our children's future, and we demand they be given even freer reign; we know our governments are abusing and restricting our long-fought-for rights, and we demand that they speed up the process; we know that our corporate overlords are repressing us and squeezing us dry, and we encourage them every chance we get.

I'll be the first to admit it: I just don't get it. There's no escape for any of us, regardless of which catastrophe is coming our way, be it the environmental one, the financial one or the political one. And they're all heading our way.

When I talk of these things to individuals, I get a lot of agreement and lots of good suggestions about what might be done. Yet, when I look out into the world, at our communities, regions, nations or trading blocks, there's not a hint of any of that to be seen. I keep hoping I'm missing something, but I have a nagging suspicion that I'm not, really.

Yep, just spinning my wheels ...

Helpless or hapless?

Lately I've been wondering a lot about whether there really is any hope for the human race. Yes, I know: it sounds simply awful. How can I be so negative? It's easy actually. How can the rest of you be so positive?

To me, some things are just obvious: global warming, peak resources, wealth inequality and unbridled greed, personal agendas and interests, broken systems, too much suspicion, hate and fear, just to name a few of the most obvious. Of course, if we can't, or won't, recognize nor acknowledge them, we can't do anything about them. What is also obvious to me is the fact that we can't go on like this, at least not all that much longer. We're pushing the envelope, but it's not the innovation one, it's the one labeled destruction.

Most of us are, well ... the Germans have a nice word for it ... überfordert. The verb fordern has the basic meaning of "to make demands of", hence too much is being asked of us; we are overtaxed, overburdened, overstrained, and overextended, all at the same time. We have trouble keeping up, not just with the Joneses, but generally. Getting through the day relatively unscathed is considered a masterful accomplishment for most of us. I'm sure most of you would like to think that there's a whole bunch of stuff "out there" that is causing this, but truth be told, the problem is simply "in here" with ourselves. We've got to get ourselves sorted first.

But what does that mean? Am I saying that we all need therapy or something? Well, I'm sure there are some who do, but for the most part, we need to take a moment and think seriously about what it is we truly believe. I know, that sounds rather abstract, and a lot of you are wondering what the hell I'm talking about. To most of you, it's clear what you think and believe, what opinions you hold, which political directions you favor ... at least you think you do, but I'd be willing to bet that you don't.

Oh, I don't doubt that quite a few of you know what you think, but I'd be even more willing to bet that you really don't know why. I say that because my experience has shown that most people don't even think it's necessary to ask the question. Granted, there is no requirement to ask why; no one can force us to either, but if we don't, we run the risk of watching everything around us simply get worse. And things are getting worse, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

When we know (or feel assured as to) why we believe what we believe, we are more grounded, centered, and confident. We can act with more authenticity in the world. Things may be tough, but we know why. There may be challenges, but we have an orientation from which to confront them. Things may appear hopeless, but the chance still remains that we can do something about them.

When we don't know and when we don't even ask why, we reduce ourselves to mere pawns in the larger game. Our opinions will change in simple reactions to external stimuli. We give up our innate human abilities to at least influence our own lives. That, to me, is a good working definition of "hapless".