Diversity

     Living here in a heavily populated area with great diversity, I have been reflecting on civilization. To add to my reflection, Russ and I are watching a "Great Course" on world history, a series of recorded college lectures. I think I can justly say that diversity is essential to the development and progression of civilization. To name just a few elements of diversity:
Gender: without the egg from a female combined with the sperm of a male, there would be an end to reproduction, therefore an end to civilization.
Talents: no matter how willing we may be to try or how hard we work at learning, each one of us will run into skills or jobs we simply do not have the faculties to do very well, if at all. It's helpful to learn at least the basics of as many arts or skills as possible. It puts each of us in a better position to be able to truly value a job completed by someone else if we have an idea what went into accomplishing that job. Also, there are so many different things to be accomplished within any community, it's helpful when the work is divided and everyone does what they are most capable of or interested in doing.
Interests: We would probably still be walking or driving horse-pulled buggies if it had been up to me to invent automobiles. I appreciate them and recognize their value, but I would never have had the interest enough to putter around inventing or improving motors, cars, or so many other devices. I may be capable of learning what I might need to know to work on engines, but since I have no interest in it, it would have been a genuine struggle for me to accomplish much. It's wonderful, and essential to moving forward, that each of us has different interests that we are attracted to and on which to work.
Physical/mental abilities: Now this is one that some would question why having diversity in abilities would assist in the advancement of society. Suppose Hitler's idea had been promoted and only those humans who had the best intelligence or capacity to perform were allowed to survive. First of all, we would all be able to do whatever needed to be done and would rarely make connections with other humans to help with a task. A nation of hermits would not really be an advanced civilization. Secondly, I consider compassion to be essential to a truly advanced civilization. Without it, the citizens are too self-centered to work together for a common goal. If there are no people who struggle physically or mentally, we just figure everyone can do things on their own and we don't even look for ways to help. We avoid compassion altogether.
Personalities: This might also appear at first glance as a characteristic that has nothing to do with the advancement of civilization. However, there is much to be said about having some who are more curious and adventurous, some who are more cheerful and encouraging, some who are studious and careful, some who are quiet and comforting,..... It's really beneficial for us to sometimes get shaken up a bit by the opportunity to see things from a perspective different than our own. When we see things differently than our usual perspective, it usually opens up lots of new ideas, hence the advancement of society.
     I could go on, but I have made my point. Having made the point that diversity is essential to the progression of civilization, I want to add that diversity without limits can destroy society. Every aspect of humans has the potential to destroy if not carefully considered. A simple example: imagine a world full of people all living with the abilities or personalities of toddlers. Different personalities can be beneficial to society but if those personalities are to the extreme in aspects such as anger, revenge, refusal to learn, slothfulness, or envy, society would be unpleasant at the very least. Some abilities, when focused on too strongly, can become destructive. I think we are approaching the limit to human endurance in some extreme, professional, or even Olympic sports. Using artificial means to overcome physical limitations or forcing young children to make Herculean efforts on a regular basis, just to be really good at a sport skill in order to win or make a lot of money is bound to wreak havoc. Every generation thinks they can come up with a new style, a new way of doing things, a new idea which will change the world. Not all of those new ideas are helpful. Sometimes the old, tried and true ways really are the best. If we change things simply to change things, it's not always an improvement and we risk losing ground rather than advancing. I fear eliminating any boundaries to gender identity will cause more harm than good for society. I recognize that there have always been people who felt themselves "different" from the norm. However, when there is no norm, that removes any foundation for ALL humans, not just ones who may feel different. Each human has plenty of struggles with self-identity. If there are no guidelines to recognize, there is no common guardrail to know we're even on the road at all, much less the right road.
     I don't want to degenerate into current political contention. I only wanted to share thoughts.

Destruction or construction

     I have been pondering the flak over this past Presidential election and what the angry division stems from. I realize that labels like Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative places people in easily recognizable boxes but they don't really explain anything. They also tend to end the discussions at name calling and accusations. As I picture the US map with the red and blue labels depicting which states and counties lean which way and ponder the arguments over the electoral college, I realize something. The areas colored blue are mostly urban and red mostly more rural. There is lots of mudslinging that relates to "ignorant country folk" and "stuck-up city slickers" that has gone on for centuries. I must point out, not everybody in the cities is educated and not everybody in the country is ignorant! If we can't get past these labels, we will never understand each other or live in harmony. People who choose to live in more sparsely populated areas have their reasons for doing so, as do those who live in more crowded cities. Although those in cities may claim to have a more "advanced" civilization due to the ready access of educational institutions, art offerings, and diversity, those who live in the country have access to the wonder of nature, the education of how things work, and the peace of having neighbors who generally share the results of weather and agriculture prices. People who live in rural areas are accustomed to mostly taking care of themselves and their families with a willingness to help neighbors when needed. People who live in cities are more prone to think of the infrastructure of their environment as provided by government. They may be willing to occasionally help a neighbor but often need to be more cautious because of the likelihood of scams or criminals.
     I could go on and on about the differences but I want to avoid any potential misunderstandings if someone thinks I am judging one or the other. What I want to emphasize is that there are two different ways to look at government in general. I think the founders who struggled for days on end to come to harmony enough to form a country realized these differences but managed to figure out a way to compromise enough to make it work- for over 200 years so far. There are more people in number who live in cities but more of the country is devoted to people who choose to live more spread out. Those who live in cities are more comfortable with having the government dictate rules because they see it's for the common good. Those who live in the country mainly focus on getting the job done and only looking for assistance or guidance when needed.
     The whole time I lived in New York State, there were rumblings about NYC separating themselves from the rest of the state. Those in the city considered the rest of the state uncooperative and ignorant. Those in the rest of the state thought of the city as a very heavy burden with too many people looking for support from the rest of the state. The issue today in the country is an enlarged version of the same controversy. People in the country are opposed to the government controlling their lives. People in the cities feel there need to be more regulations to prevent actions that are inconsiderate or even destructive. People in the country don't want to pay more to the government to run inefficient programs. People in the city want more money from tax payers to cover the cost of programs for the "common good".
     When there is a war, we tend to circle the wagons so to speak. We come together in the face of a common threat. Right now the war is within the circle. We have become enemies within the country. There are far too many people who are connected only through electronic devices when they rarely speak to their physical neighbors. Too many people spend so much time in their cars they don't have time to get to know people right around them. We have so many activities available to us that we are too busy to be involved in the "common good"- whatever government entity we should be a part of. We don't give opinions and guidance from the beginning but we're quick to squeal when the outcome of the decisions of others is not what we would have chosen.
     So, what do we do? I am not nearly as God-like as I hope to be in the eternities so I don't really have answers. Maybe we should, first, recognize where the controversy comes from. We need to consider differences with respect rather than name-calling. Second, also involving respect, we need to recognize that even if someone has a different idea of how to go about building our country than we do, they are not out to destroy the country. Their idea of how to fix it is just different from our own. We can all say, "But if we do...... this will happen", when we can't ever be really sure. It's like decisions in our own families when there are some who think the outcome will be disastrous and some who think it will work fine. Third, once a decision has been made (the results of an election clear), we need to resist grumbling and looking for fault focusing instead on figuring out what we can do as an individual part of the governed body. We need to do our part to build rather than tear down. We're not dead yet and neither is the country so lets get on with it!

Why do you exist?

     I am totally amazed that very shortly after composing my last blog, I came to this in the book that I am reading:
In 1908, a Harvard philosopher names Josiah Royce wrote a book with the title The Philosophy of Loyalty. Royce was.....concerned with a puzzle that is fundamental to anyone contemplating his or her mortality. Royce wanted to understand why simply existing- why being merely housed and fed and safe and alive- seems empty and meaningless to us. What more is it that we need in order to feel that life is worthwhile?
     The answer, he believed, is that we all seek a cause beyond ourselves. This was, to him, an intrinsic human need. The cause could be large (family, country, principle) or small (a building project, the care of a pet). The important thing was that, in ascribing value to the cause and seeing it as worth making sacrifices for, we give our lives meaning.
     Royce called this dedication to a cause beyond oneself loyalty. He regarded it as the opposite of individualism. The individualist puts self-interest first, seeing his own pain, pleasure, and existence as his greatest concern. For an individualist, loyalty to causes that have nothing to do with self-interest is strange. When such loyalty encourages self-sacrifice, it can even be alarming- a mistaken and irrational tendency that leaves people open to the exploitation of tyrants. Nothing could matter more than self-interest, and because when you die you are gone, self-sacrifice makes no sense.
     Royce had no sympathy for the individualist view. "The selfish we had always with us," he wrote. "But the divine right to selfishness was never more ingeniously defended." In fact, he argues, human beings need loyalty. It does not necessarily produce happiness, and can even be painful, but we all require devotion to something more than ourselves for our lives to be endurable. Without it, we have only our desires to guide us. and they are fleeting, capricious, and insatiable. They provide, ultimately, only torment.....
     The only way death is not meaningless is to see yourself as part of something greater: a family, a community, a society. If you don't, mortality is only a horror.
     This book is Being Mortal written by a doctor, Atul Gawande. The subtitle is "Illness, Medicine, and What Matters in the End". A friend recommended it to me and I would wholeheartedly recommend it to others. It's mostly about considering the end of your life, whenever and however that may occur. But in the process, it also opens up the question of how to spend whatever part of life you are in right now. We have all heard quotes about living life to the fullest living as if you only had 5 minutes/ 5 months/ or whatever short time remaining. The bottom line is, why are you living at all? What is your purpose? Will it matter when you die? To whom will and matter and why?
     There are people who light up a room when they enter and there are people who light up a room by leaving. I hope I cause even just a little joy by my presence and I certainly hope I am never a cause for celebration when I leave. 

Mentality

     I understand that all human beings are different. We come to decisions and develop habits dependent on our individual personality, what we are directly taught at home or in school or church, and what we observe in our surroundings. As the saying goes, "No man is an island" and any decision or habit will have an impact on someone else or even many others. As humans we are inherently members of a community whether we like it or not. The community can be segregated as to household (those with whom we intimately live every day), neighborhood, larger community, nation, and world. We can imagine ourselves in a bubble where we have only ourselves to account to when acting but it's never so. There is a remote possibility that if we were an only child of parents who both died and we have chosen to live as hermit-like a life as we can manage, we may have minimal impact on anyone else. If you are reading this, you obviously don't fit in that category! Like it or not, the fact that we exist comes with a responsibility to consider other humans. I have always found the "golden rule" to be very logical- treat other people the way you would want to be treated. I choose to try to live that way and can only hope others will choose the same.
     But sometimes they don't. I don't want to belabor the point of cruelty, prejudice, abuse, etc. Those choices are obviously anti-social and destructive. I want to bring up a mentality that I have complained about several times in my life. It could be called a welfare mentality or a renters mentality both are basically the same. It involves a decision that, because you find some form of contribution to your community distasteful, you refuse to perform. Renters often care little about the condition of their living space and surrounds because it doesn't "belong" to them. If something needs repair or maintenance, they automatically expect the property owner to take care of it. Indeed, often the property owner would prefer knowing about it and seeing that it's done the way they want it done. However, sometimes the property owner is not local or not physically or financially capable of mowing the lawn, washing windows, shoveling sidewalks, etc. Since we are all different, I suppose there are people who really don't care if the lawn is shoulder high and filled with blown-in trash, or the windows are grimy enough you can barely see through them. But no man is an island. Should it matter if neighbors or people who share the dwelling don't like the appearance of unkempt property?
     Taking it a step further, when there are obvious labors that need to be performed and any one person refuses to participate, the total load becomes larger for everyone who contributes because of the lack of one who doesn't. There are obvious exceptions to the contribution distribution. Very young humans are either incapable or very limited in what they can do to contribute. People with severe limitations, mental and/or physical,  are also very limited in contributing, and that might include the elderly (a different age dependent on the person's genetics). Sometimes people would like to work but cannot find a job as they continue to search and apply. People who have a "welfare mentality" are those who are capable of contributing (to at least some degree) but manage to justify to themselves that their share of the work should be shouldered by others. They may claim they don't care- "What do I care if the lawn is mowed?" or "I actually prefer a messy house." They may claim inability- "I can't work because I'm weak or have asthma or don't do it as well as others....." If they're truly honest, they would simply admit they prefer being indolent. They prefer using their time for more selfish pursuits. Yet they enjoy the results of the labor of others in their community- they walk across the mowed lawn, they buy food with money they did not earn, they more easily find anything they're looking for because someone else put it where it belongs.
     I just don't understand it really. I can analyze it but could never bring myself to act in that way. I try to imagine if I had been raised by other parents or in another culture, could I really just sit by resting or entertaining myself, spending money I didn't earn, letting someone else work without my assistance?? It is simply a foreign concept to me. I don't think I could have been a slave owner. I really don't think I could ever consider my own comfort and wants to be superior enough to those of someone I might allow to work harder than I do on my behalf. We don't all do the same work and actually can't do the same work due to differences in strength and knowledge. But EVERYONE can contribute to the best of their ability and be willing to accept their share of the work load. Everyone is much happier when they feel valued enough by those around them that everyone else is taking at least a similar part of the load.

Don't you want to be better?

     This is a quote I found as I sorted out papers. Unfortunately I don't have much information about it other than it's from Wendell Berry Recollected Essays:
To the virtuous man,... practical and spiritual values are identical; it is only corruption that can see a difference. Morality is a long-term practicality. We have obscured and weakened morality first, by advocating it for its own sake-- that is, by deifying it... and then, as our capacity for reverence has diminished, by allowing it to become merely decorative, a matter of etiquette. What we have forgotten is the origin of morality in fact and circumstance; we have forgotten that the nature of morality is essentially practical. Moderation and restraint, for example, are necessary, not because of any religious commandment or creed or code, but because they are among the assurances of good health and a sufficiency of goods. Likewise, discipline is necessary if the necessary work is to be done... Loyalty, devotion, faith, self-denial, are not ethereal virtues, but the concrete terms upon which the possibility of love is kept alive in this world. Morality is neither ethereal nor arbitrary, it is the definition of what is humanly possible. .. A live and adequate morality is an accurate perception of the order of things, and of humanity's place in it. By clarifying the human limits, morality tells us what we risk when we forsake the human to behave like false gods or like animals.
     This points out, for those who may scoff at religion and its confining rules, that having such limits is for a greater reason than simply obeying a higher authority to avoid punishment. I can add to this logic and truth, that there is a higher power and He can not only give us guidance for a superior way of living, He can also allow us to be forgiven so that all of our mistakes as we bumble along in mortality can be erased- "All thy sins, though they be scarlet, will be white as snow." There truly is a better way than war, abuse, unlimited sexual perversion, greed, pride, covetousness, laziness and all of those things that God calls the natural man who is His enemy.