Just Thinking

“Mr. Jacobi, I am Belvedere Johansen from the Icelandic Review. We appreciate your attendance here today as who honor our planet and the life that resides upon it.”

“Yes, Yes, what is your question?”

“Do you believe we have the ability to analyze the benefits of technology, while continuing to consider its effects on the planet, while we continue to strive for what we are told will result in a better world, a better life?”

"Are you alright? You appear to not be well."

A better world? A better life? I had to question the premise of what was being asked. What was to be considered. And I concluded we do not spend the time necessary to know what the outcome of technological advancements mean to the physical world we depend on, to sustain life. 

We have become mired in a debate where technologies wants, are allowed unfettered access to the bounty the earth provides, under the guise of advancing the quality of life, while not entering into the equation that those advancements are stumbling in the opposite direction. It is impossible to tether technology to sustainability when profit and politics are used as the gauge by which success is measured.

We have developed a shortsighted approach to success. We no longer ask the question; because we can, should we? When results are conditioned on a short-term basis we do not allow for failure. The systems necessary to regulate advancement have been reduced to the notion of ratios, cost to benefit. We have built in an degree of failure which we are asked to accept in favor of advancing what? Life’s value is based on a periodic insurance table. 

Greed is contagious, in that its allure resides in all of us, " Just a little more." The level of satisfaction aspired too, rarely meets expectation, as want always overwhelms need. It is an integral part of the human equation. Until we are forced by a power greater than our dream of possibilities, we are at a disadvantage, because our minds are programed by exterior stimulus that channels our attention away from the results of our actions towards the concept of progress, change.

The concept of enough is enough has been replaced with the idealism of just, “a little bit more.” Our concept of progress has been corrupted by the idealism of consumption, the driving force in a capitalistic society where sacrifice is encouraged on philosophical and religious level, but abandoned when it dictates personal adherence to sustainability. The two are at odds with each other psychologically as well as functionally.

When being asked to sacrifice for the betterment of mankind, the question is never asked with the relevance of need, but only in the relevance of want. We do not consider who is asking us to sacrifice on a philosophical level, or why? We are conditioned to not ask those questions as they detract from the lure of consumption. The belief that we have only this one life, and therefore what we can achieve in the way of satisfaction is acceptable, if not commendable.

What is meant by sacrifice? I would suggest we are being asked to devote our lives to promoting consumption as a means of survival, while at the same time being told technology will make our lives easier, better. We are being asked to accept our nest being fouled as a means to a better life, that we may not see, but will benefit future generations. This logic mystifies me.

While being asked to endure our life’s physical degradation for the good of future generations, we are in fact giving our placid permission to continue to lessen the chances of future survival. It is an understandable assumption when placed in the context of an unproveable outcome, the hereafter. But the basis for life when questioned, is discarded as jeopardizing our democratic principles of capitalism. 

The biblical quote often used to challenge the contradiction of physical wellbeing and spiritual wellbeing: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his own soul,” is a conundrum we chose not to investigate. It proposes the option of consumption being secondary to a spiritual fulfillment, that on its face is contrary to human psychological investment.

To consider the idealism that the worlds economic machines are run on consumption, allows no escape, for if we were to adhere to the idealism that sustainability encompasses, taking only what is needed for survival, stops not only the economic engines, but the psychological engines that create the concept of, “just a little bit more.”

When we consider the fact that we have allowed the fundamental basis for life to be co-opted for profit, while being asked to sacrifice by those who are not subject to the same requests, we should rebel, but we don’t. To make a difference, we will need to be motivated to take a stand against the basic principles we have allowed the worlds economies to develop, to exploit not only the earth’s resources, but the human resources it has claimed are transient, and therefore accepting of a better life after we have left this one.

Our new form of deception is no longer the eternal search for God, or a spiritual existence, but the immediate need for satisfaction, which has been inextricably chained to success. We are unable to sever the connection between need and want, leaving us with a limited conception of spirituality. 

To make a definitive change, that will impact a future that is not only talked about, but confirmed by action, will take a societal will to accept the fact that spirituality, is here in the form of a physical world.  Earth will continue to sustain life for future generations, if we are willing to sacrifice our wants, and accept the idealism of sustainability.

We will have to ask ourselves, what the meaning of progress is? If the answer continues to be consumption for the sake of economic growth, we will not survive as the resources of our planet are finite, and the unrestricted use of our resources with no concern for consequences, will result in the spiritual prognostications offered over the ages. We will be left with only the spiritual realization of a future, and not the physical elements necessary for human survival, which curtails our ability to spiritually procrastinate about a life after this one.

No matter our spiritual needs we are limited. We may want to prepare for a spiritual future, but need to maintain our physical presence. To accomplish both goals it would seem logical to work within a sustainable means of survival while allowing everyone the freedom to participate in a spiritual realm, and also allow individuals the opportunity to speculate on a spiritual future based on a physical existence.

We have shown ourselves to be hypocritical when it comes to sacrificing for the good of all. It is the fundamental tenant concerning military participation, law enforcement, medicine, teaching, and hundreds of other vocations dedicated to the communal good. Lately we have been exposed to a rebellion against the traditions exemplified during WWII, where everyone was asked to sacrifice for the greater good. Today we see opposition to a thing as simple as wearing a mask to protect others from being contaminated by us. Weather you believe the mask has practical significance personally, it has been prescribed as a tool in responding to an epidemic, which affects us all. 

We have the competency as human beings to muddy our own logic when it is convenient, or beneficial in obtaining a desired result. Socially, because we are predisposed to crowd mentality, which heightens our physical and emotional response, but abandons or alters our logical perspective, we have even greater influence.

We have the increased incentive now, to participate. It is presumed to be, in the best interest of society in general. We of course, are not met with the reticence we should demand from personal and social behavior, when it interferes with our exploitive tendencies relating to our new religion, progress.

“No! I do not believe we have the ability to logically determine the repercussions of our interactions between our needs and our planets ability to provide them, unless we are willing to adapt and react to the predictable outcome.”

“What?  Excuse me; sorry, wasn’t paying attention. This damn itching, burning. I think I’ve got Shingles.”