Maybe we just can't change ... then we deserve everything we get

There are a lot of people who -- and quite a few of those I know -- think the world is the way it is because it reflects, what they call, human nature.

Think about it: death, destruction, mindless devastation of resources and the environment, wanton disregard for human life, crime, oppression, lust for power, greed, brutality, glee over the pain and suffering of others, violence of all kinds (verbal, psychological, social, physical), insatiable desires ... everything that turns the world we know into the hell we fear. That's the natural way of things. The world is as it is because it is simply in our nature to be that way. It's in our genes. It defines who and what we are. What an interesting view of one's fellow man. But, it seems to be the dominant perspective. Every time something goes wrong, someone gets killed, someone's oppressed: well, that's just the way we are. We are evil by nature. That's got to be the crappiest of all possible worlds.

In spite of all that's wrong with the world, there are still glimmers of hope: wanton acts of kindness, altruism, compassion, empathy, people willing to sacrifice (sometimes, big) for others, not to mention the sheer breathtaking beauty of just about any place on this planet that hasn't already been despoiled by the other humans who don't give a care about what's going to happen to us. The contradiction couldn't be more obvious. The paradox of life -- especially human life -- couldn't be more apparent. What are we to make of all this?

Given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who don't believe the world is to be despised, and given the fact that there are some -- albeit few -- people who believe there is more potential for good than we're led to believe, and given the fact that there are still plenty of individuals -- albeit few -- who are more than willing to make sacrifices for things generally considered positive, it is difficult to draw the absolute conclusion that the world is the way it is because our nature as humans dictate that it must be so.

This is the part that has always fascinated me.

In a similar vein, I have a few (very materialistic-minded) friends who never tire of reminding me how closely we are related to our not-so-distant simian cousins. This doesn't bother me, to be perfectly honest, for I am thankful and actually happy about our closeness. We're not the same, that's for sure, but we're similar, and this is a good thing. We humans are different -- and that is not to say "better" in any sense of the word, but that's not something my friends have grasped yet. They -- I believe -- want to impress upon me that we are simply, or just, or only, animals. But, we're not. we're different. Very different, and it's this difference that captivates me, that captures my attention, that makes me ask all kind of "why" questions.

For the longest time, we've (and by that I mean, we humans have) interpreted this difference as "superiority". There is a "more" involved, of course: Koko attained the (sign) language equivalent of a three-year-old, but most of us have more comprehensive vocabularies and communication abilities. Great apes have learned the significance and value of fire, but we humans have taken this to ends that are -- I'll be the first to admit -- questionable at best (e.g., what good is nuclear power if it creates waste that can't be disposed of safely). "Better" or "worse" are ethical categories that apparently only we humans are capable of, even if we don't deal with them well. All that interests me, I can assure you, is that there is a difference and that, when all is said and done, that difference obligates. We're not meeting, let alone fulfilling, that obligation.

It would seem, then, that we humans are capable of great (and even, good) things, but we don't often give ourselves the extra push to turn potentially damaging ideas and actions into beneficial ones. It would seem to me, then, that we are not inherently "evil" or "bad" or even "sometimes harmful" by nature, rather, given half a chance, we'll take the path of least resistance and when it turns out to be less than optimal, or even desirable, we'll make use of that other human-only characteristic, namely rationalization: we'll use every communicative strategy and ability we've ever acquired to "make clear" why it had to turn out as it did. In other words, it would seem that we're just fundamentally lazy.

Our animal cousins, for better or for worse, but in accordance with their nature, have to find food, eat, and, as any good biologist will tell you, reproduce in order to keep the species going. They really can't just lay back and say, "Screw it, I'm not foraging today, and I'm not copulating next mating season." We can. There are those who do, I know, but they are not nearly as plentiful as our conservative friends would have us believe (and by that I mean all of my friends who are so upset by how good welfare recipients have it while they have to work overly hard for anything and everything they get.) Generally speaking, I would say, that given the slightest option, most human beings will opt for less than more when it comes to expending energy for gain. I'm sure it contributes more often than not to the sad state of the world in which we find ourselves.

In the lower levels of the society (or social economy) we've created for ourselves, this is viewed as parasitical. In the upper echelons of that same society, this is considered evidence of efficiency. When we stop to think about our behavior, we find rather quickly that we all pretty much act the same but some of us are permitted more leeway in judgment than others. This selectivity of perspective becomes a problem as soon as it becomes a public way of thinking (i.e., political). What's good for the goose is never, ever good for the gander, regardless of what the old saying says. And here we start getting closer to the real problem when it comes to so-called "human nature".

Humans have a notion, if not a concept, of "power". Our animal cousins don't. Whoever is the alpha male or female of the group gets there through very, very different rules than whoever becomes an alpha male or female in human groups. Our animal cousins have very grounded, biological, instinctual determinants at play that we humans have transcended quite a long time ago. We like to point to this or that behavior and compare it to this or that behavior of our animal cousins, but the behaviors, due to the motivations underlying them and the psychological, affective, and mental abilities enabling them, in humans are quite a different thing. And this is, in the end, what we need to recognize and acknowledge: humans are simply different from other animals. Yes, we share a lot, up to 98.5% of our DNA and all that goes with that, but there in that 1.5% difference is more challenge than most of our human compatriots are willing to deal with.

The mere fact that we know that we are oppressing/causing pain to/dominating another makes us different. The mere fact that we are aware of the discomfort/pain/anguish we are causing another makes us different. The mere fact that we can conceive of ways of domination that go beyond mere physicality attests to the fact that we are different from our animal cousins. The actual fact that many people choose the non-oppressive, non-painful, empathetic path in their relations with others underscores the fact that we are, in the end, different. We are capable of being different, even if we most often choose not to be, and choose to be, unfortunately, mere animals.

Irrespective of what our materialist compatriots would like to believe, we humans are capable of "more". And since we are capable, it is incumbent upon us to find out precisely what this "more" is and act accordingly. We can't merely fall back on some nebulous notion of "human nature" and maintain that the world is in such bad shape because we can't do any better, or that our "human nature" prevents us from being better than we are. There is a "more" that defines what it means to be human, and it would serve us well to find out just what that is. But, instead of letting it go to our head (as it has in the past) and using this difference to justify all the death, destruction and devastation we've visited upon the planet, maybe, just maybe, it would be worth our while to think about what that difference means in "being human" and rise to that challenge.

I'm convinced that the sooner we start acting (truly) human; that is, in accordance with our potentialities, not our actualities, the world could -- and would -- become a better place. Who knows, maybe it could become a place worth living in.

But, that would take energy and effort, and what lazy sod is going to invest that?

You can't fix stupid, but stupidity can be fixed

We've got a problem. By "we", I mean those of us who find ourselves in what we like to think of as the 1st World -- and I'm not the first to ask somewhat naively, where's the 2nd one? Yeah, you, almost all of your reading this, and your friends, and your friends' friends, if they have any, and the people around you, like family and neighbors, and all of us who have too much time on our hands, too much money in our pockets, and too little sense to know what to do with either.

Now, before you go off all insulted because you're struggling to make ends meet or you're starting to sweat all the debt you're carrying around or whether there is going to be anything left for your kids or grandkids ... if you're concerned about any of that, you are precisely whom I'm talking to. Your problem isn't insufficient funds, it's insufficient gratitude. The vast majority of human beings on this planet would swap places with you in a heartbeat: and you'd die having to deal with theirs, and they'd think they'd died and gone to heaven. It's a matter of perspective, true, but also relativity. According to popular, widespread, and most oft proclaimed ideology: you chose your problems; the vast majority of humanity had theirs dumped on them by people who care more about themselves than even you do. If you've got a conscience, you'll never make it into the top 10%, let alone 1%. You're not cut out for it. Or sell your conscience. At the moment, however, you're just in the way ... of progress to make a better world or your just another wannabe for those at the top who want, and will eventually, get what you have.

You might get the impression that I'm a bit miffed at the moment, a bit irked, a bit bothered, a bit off-center. And you're right. I am. But, I firmly believe that I have every reason to be. Oh sure, I've cobbled together a fixed-income existence; I don't own anything other than a car of good middle age; I've got family around me, a couple of friends (who at least people who tolerate having me around); I've got a roof over my head, enough to eat and access to the world's largest cesspool of information, the internet. I haven't got a single reason to complain about anything in my life. But I'm also not only not the only person on the planet and I'm not the only person in my immediate environment. I'm part of a larger whole that varies in size depending on time of day, phase of the moon, and societal configuration.

In other words, I lead a relatively normal Western life. And I'm thankful for that, believe me. I'm thankful that I have the wherewithal, the inclination, the talent, the time, the opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you. But, I must admit, I'm rather bothered by the echoes that are finding their way back to me. Like most of you, I've got a real life and an online life, and the online life has to do with social media to a large extent, and regardless of what you think about either in general, I can assure you that, in particular, the online part is causing me more and more concern with each passing day. That's why I'm bringing this up here, with you, with all of you who obviously have an online life as well. The number of people with online lives is growing daily. The "society" that these online denizens are forming, however, is not exactly what I had hoped it would be way back when 95% of the people on the internet lived within 10 miles of my home. Yeah, I've had a chance to watch all this develop, and I'm not all that excited about what I see.

I'm going to out myself right up front: I don't believe the least in "human nature", but I believe unboundedly in "human potential". I believe -- deep, in the very heart of my own being -- that human beings are the living expression of the possibility of all possible possibilities. (That's the optimist heart that beats in my breast.) And I also believe, unreservedly, that the low end of those possibilities is the world we have thought out for ourselves, the world in which we're all -- at the moment -- forced to live. Stated succinctly, we're the biggest of all of G-d's failures. (And thus beats my cynic's heart in that same breast.)

We are, and have shown, that we're capable of the most exhilarating flights of brilliance: fire, the wheel, more-than-sufficient food production, disease eradication, alternative energies and explorations to the stars. At the same time, we have demonstrated that we're capable of the most terrifying horrors imaginable: war, genocide, unimaginable physical and psychological violence, greed, selfishness, self-absorption, and lack of empathy that there are moments when I find myself almost yearning for that last affront to occur so that we all go down the tubes the blinding fire of nuclear annihilation. And therein lies the rub, as the bard so eloquently put it.

You should be aware that all of G-d's children don't have the same intellectual capabilities and capacities. And that's OK as far as I'm concerned. Some of the nicest people I ever had the honor of dealing with weren't the sharpest pencils in the box, as they say, but they were Menschen, in both the true and Yiddish senses of the word. They cared about others, were kind, generous, helpful, supportive, and chock full of empathy and sympathy for the plight of others. I don't consider these people stupid, however. No, to me, stupid is when you think you know something, when you think you are smarter than you really are, or when you let external, non-personal "attributes" drive your actions.

Three of these are particularly dangerous: money, guns, and power. You can be bright, but once money (or in its most fundamental and nefarious form, the love of money) takes over it's good-bye smarts. Money is a prime cause of stupidity. You think your money makes you better, and smarter than everyone else, but it doesn't. It makes you think you're an authority on things you have no idea about (e.g., Bill Gates and world health or education). Guns are also a classic, and they (or the violence they represent) is a key feature of the gangster/Mafioso boss Hollywood has infected us with for decades. The propensity toward violence or violent behavior, the willingness to use it so "resolve arguments" is prototypical of stupidity in general. And finally, power ... often some vague combination of the previous two attributes, or "actual" power, like a political office (here, Bush the Lesser jumps out as poster child for what can happen when the intellectually challenged get it in their heads that they're better than and worth more than others) ... is the worst of all. And it's the one that has the most disastrous effects on the most people.

Even the most superficial gloss over the history of humankind reveals that it has been those awash in stupidity who have been in charge. We don't know who it was who figured out "fire", but we know practically everybody's name who used fire -- in one form or another -- to ensure that hundreds, thousands, if not millions of people had to suffer to satisfy their own egos. And we praise them, look up to them, remember them, and as school-children are forced to memorize their names, but in the end, they were stupid, self-absorbed, self-serving egoists who forced their personal mentation on others. Alexander the Great, the Roman Caesars, the British and other European royal houses, from Stockholm to Madrid, and, most recently, a whole bevy of American presidents (not starting with but particularly egregious since Reagan), have tortured the life out of countless human beings for the greater glory of , and we laugh and gloat and cheer and pat ourselves on the back for being so "great". But why? What's so smart about being able to kill untold human beings at will? Why do we think -- at this point in history, here, at the beginning of the 21st century (since we've agreed on counting years) -- that this is a good thing? Sure, it enables you to sit there in your room; fat, dumb and happy that you can look down upon the vast majority of humankind; but you need to explain to me what about this is good.

Recent history has shown us what's going on. Whether is was Thatcher in Britain or Reagan in the US, or Clinton (who could cover it over better than most), or Blair or Bush the Lesser (if that wasn't the tip-off, I don't know who was) or Merkel, or Cameron or Juncker or Schäuble or Gabriel or Obama or that it's not the bright ones who are leading the way and seeing to it that the proper shots are called. No, among this limited selection of individuals there are those who -- on their own, in a normal conversation -- would come across as half-way intelligent and reasonable, there seems to be the overwhelming propensity, if not compulsion, to blow any and all alleged inherent intelligence to the wind and strut forth as a contender for the crown of Village Idiot.

This -- not the results of neoliberal economic policies -- is what trickles down. We then find the same behavior patterns in the general population, be it in alternative political parties (like the AfD in Germany) or alternative political candidates (like Trump in the US (though Hilary isn't much better) and his followers) or just plain misinformed-and-proud-of-it welfare-bashers, gun-nuts, evangelicals, flag-wavers, sports-fanatics, and small-minded bleaters would rather complain about others than actually do something for or with others to make a difference. And I'm amazed each day at the number of people for whom this description applies.

No, I don't have a very high opinion of the general quality of information available on the internet, but there is a lot of good, sound, reliable information to be found there. But you have to go looking for it, and you have to wade through cybermiles of sludge and jungle to find it. There are good, sound, and inspiring insights to be found there, but you have to be able to weigh and evaluate, compare and contrast, and, well, think, to figure out which they are.

Of course, you have to be willing to explore thoughts, ideas, opinions, and views with which you don't necessarily or immediately agree and you have to be willing to assess their validity, their impacts and maybe even their worth. But that takes both time and effort and, well, with all the important stuff so many of us have in our lives that needs to get done, who is going to ensure they do this as well? But, most importantly, you have to be willing to communicate what you find and discuss it with others, not just with people whom you agree with. You need actively engage other ideas and notions if you are ever to come up with thoughts and ideas of your own. And who, pray tell, is going to be willing to do that? There are some thank goodness, though they are few and far between. There are some who haven't yet given up, even though they are reviled and ridiculed by those who have chosen stupidity and their particular way of life.

The point is that we don't have to be in the messes we're in. We don't have to deal with all the ignorant nonsense which pervades most of our lives. We don't have to allow stupidity to rule our lives ... but we are, we do and we will, because to change any of it, we might just have to change ourselves. So, don't complain about stupid (and all that is wrong with everybody else) if you choose stupidity yourself. And that is the choice too many people are making.

Ideological subterfuging

It could be that I mentioned it somewhen before, but I love neologisms. New words, that is. I love thinking them up, and I love to watch the pained and sometimes even surprised expressions on people's faces when I use them around them for the first time. Oh, I've had downright "battles" with people over such words. They're argument is, if it's not in the dictionary, it's not a word. I say, in Shakespeare's day, they didn't have dictionaries and if they had had them, I'm not sure he would have cared. He is -- and I know I have said this before -- is my absolute hero, idol -- the Master of Masters of the English Language -- as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel even worthy to walk in his shadow, but that's not going to stop me from trying to sneak into the shade from time to time.

There has long been a lot of debate, not necessarily in public, but certainly in certain academic circles, about the relationship between language and thought. Whorf is probably the most widely known name in this regard. He postulated a direct link between language and how we access reality. I tend to think he's got a point, and whether language influences, or even determines, thinking or vice versa is not the real point for me. There is a relationship, undeniably. I am tending to believe it is symbiotic, not unidirectional, nor causal, but I still have to think a bit about that. What I am sure of, however, is that our experience of reality is most certainly influenced by the language(s) we speak.

Even this is, of course, too much for some people. They like to think they've got a complete, comprehensive, and objective grip on things. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can know a lot. We can be right about a lot of stuff. Our perceptions can conform to objectively verified, factual realities, but we never really have a sound "grasp" of things. We only know our experience of things, and that, dear reader, is the definition of subjectivity. You and I have different experience sets, hence we must, by definition, have differences in our perceptions of reality. This is not to say that we can't agree about many, many things, but there will never be a 100% match between your (perception of) reality and mine. That's OK. I can live with that. Unfortunately, there is a large (and growing?) number of people who can't.

Language is certainly one perceptual filter, but never, ever underestimate the power of ideologies (as I've talked about the last two posts) in filtering our experiences. Ideologies, once we believe in them, are personally dangerous in that they are so obvious to us that we fail to question them. We assume that their filtering is accurate. In most cases, we're not even aware that they are there and at work.

So, how does one "protect" oneself? Is there a way to at least mitigate their effects? But of course. There is no problem, no hazard, no disease or illness, no anything that Nature has not provided a cure/antidote/help for. In this case, our own human nature comes to our aid. We humans, believe it or not, are the only living species that can question.

Question everything.