Political
The Better Angels of our nature
Oct 11, 2005 11:13 PM
Lincoln delivered that line in his first Inaugural address. I was thinking about it today, as I was reading about the horrible earthquake in Pakistan, with so many thousands of people affected. The author was mentioning that in the past, various factions would put aside their disputes and stop fighting to help recover from the devastation. And there was a question about whether it would happen this time as well. Or if feelings on both sides have gotten too intense to stop for anything.
Over the last year, we have seen tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and mudslides. And after those tragic events, we also witnessed people helping in many different ways. We have seen the worst in people, and the best. So what is it that prevents us from listening to the better angels of our nature more often?
In 1943, Abraham Maslow proposed a Hierarchy of Needs which is often depicted as a pyramid with 5 levels. He postulated that you cannot move to the higher level without first meeting the level below it. The first three levels are the most important to this discussion, I think: Physiological, Safety, and Love/Belonging. Read the link above for more information about those levels, they do a better job explaining them than I could.
Having set that up, I am not sure I completely buy into the idea. I think it is possible to only partially meet a level's requirements to be able to progress to the next level, but possibly not fully progress. For example, I think even in war-torn countries, where people cannot get enough to eat, they can still experience love. But with basic survival in question, it would not be something that could be experienced fully. I am trying to figure out where in the pyramid charity would fit in. Because I have seen people with nothing give a lot, and people with a lot give nothing (I am reminded of a parable here, but will leave the details as an exercise for the reader to test their Bible knowledge and/or Google-ing skills).
I will postulate, and feel free to disagree in the comments, that the higher up on the pyramid a person is, the easier it is to look outward instead of inward. If you have no food, it is hard to contemplate giving food to others. If no mercy has been shown to you during your life, then how can you know how to show mercy to others? The better angels are drowned out.
What is to be done about this? Hah. If I knew that, I would probably be doing something other than programming web pages. The obvious answer is to help people around the world rise up the pyramid, and make sure the direction is a positive one. Love/Belonging can be family or it can be gangs. Is it possible for a society to reach a tipping point, where a critical mass is reached of enough people high up in the levels to it becomes self-sustaining? Is it possible to tip the other way, and have enough people backslide down the levels so that it pulls down all the people around them? I have no idea. But it does seem logical to me that if enough people are moving upwards, they would be taking their immediate peer groups with them, and vice versa.
Is humanity as a whole going up or down the scale? I don't know. I am not able to step back and take an historical view. I am too close to current events, and they overwhelm the past, and make it hard to objectively compare. We all pine for the Good Old Days, but really, were they that good, or do we just forget the bad stuff? I do know this, though. Even if collectively we are going to Heck in a hand-basket, we can still resolve individually to do what we can to make a positive impact on someone's life. Tell your friends how great they are. Tell your parents, spouses, boy/girl-friends how much you love them. And give your animals a scratch behind the ears.
Over the last year, we have seen tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, wildfires, and mudslides. And after those tragic events, we also witnessed people helping in many different ways. We have seen the worst in people, and the best. So what is it that prevents us from listening to the better angels of our nature more often?
In 1943, Abraham Maslow proposed a Hierarchy of Needs which is often depicted as a pyramid with 5 levels. He postulated that you cannot move to the higher level without first meeting the level below it. The first three levels are the most important to this discussion, I think: Physiological, Safety, and Love/Belonging. Read the link above for more information about those levels, they do a better job explaining them than I could.
Having set that up, I am not sure I completely buy into the idea. I think it is possible to only partially meet a level's requirements to be able to progress to the next level, but possibly not fully progress. For example, I think even in war-torn countries, where people cannot get enough to eat, they can still experience love. But with basic survival in question, it would not be something that could be experienced fully. I am trying to figure out where in the pyramid charity would fit in. Because I have seen people with nothing give a lot, and people with a lot give nothing (I am reminded of a parable here, but will leave the details as an exercise for the reader to test their Bible knowledge and/or Google-ing skills).
I will postulate, and feel free to disagree in the comments, that the higher up on the pyramid a person is, the easier it is to look outward instead of inward. If you have no food, it is hard to contemplate giving food to others. If no mercy has been shown to you during your life, then how can you know how to show mercy to others? The better angels are drowned out.
What is to be done about this? Hah. If I knew that, I would probably be doing something other than programming web pages. The obvious answer is to help people around the world rise up the pyramid, and make sure the direction is a positive one. Love/Belonging can be family or it can be gangs. Is it possible for a society to reach a tipping point, where a critical mass is reached of enough people high up in the levels to it becomes self-sustaining? Is it possible to tip the other way, and have enough people backslide down the levels so that it pulls down all the people around them? I have no idea. But it does seem logical to me that if enough people are moving upwards, they would be taking their immediate peer groups with them, and vice versa.
Is humanity as a whole going up or down the scale? I don't know. I am not able to step back and take an historical view. I am too close to current events, and they overwhelm the past, and make it hard to objectively compare. We all pine for the Good Old Days, but really, were they that good, or do we just forget the bad stuff? I do know this, though. Even if collectively we are going to Heck in a hand-basket, we can still resolve individually to do what we can to make a positive impact on someone's life. Tell your friends how great they are. Tell your parents, spouses, boy/girl-friends how much you love them. And give your animals a scratch behind the ears.
The Onion
Sep 14, 2005 08:27 PM
I love The Onion. It usually makes me laugh. In this case, it seems, the parody has become real life. From January 21, 2001:
Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
Mere days from assuming the presidency and closing the door on eight years of Bill Clinton, president-elect George W. Bush assured the nation in a televised address Tuesday that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."
"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."
Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.
During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.
"You better believe we're going to mix it up with somebody at some point during my administration," said Bush, who plans a 250 percent boost in military spending. "Unlike my predecessor, I am fully committed to putting soldiers in battle situations. Otherwise, what is the point of even having a military?"
Shame is Dead
Sep 14, 2005 08:27 PM
From today's Washington Times:
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday that Republicans have done so well in cutting spending that he declared an "ongoing victory," and said there is simply no fat left to cut in the federal budget.
Mr. DeLay was defending Republicans' choice to borrow money and add to this year's expected $331 billion deficit to pay for Hurricane Katrina relief. Some Republicans have said Congress should make cuts in other areas, but Mr. DeLay said that doesn't seem possible.
"My answer to those that want to offset the spending is sure, bring me the offsets, I'll be glad to do it. But nobody has been able to come up with any yet," the Texas Republican told reporters at his weekly briefing.
Asked if that meant the government was running at peak efficiency, Mr. DeLay said, "Yes, after 11 years of Republican majority we've pared it down pretty good."