This is the year 2017. We have advanced technology so far that with the click of a button, most anything can arrive at our doorstep, “we” being humanity as a whole. In this same time period, we allow for things like famine, homelessness, poverty, war, environmental devastation, and many other vile processes.

As an aside: I think to be able to see where I am coming from and for this post to appeal to you more, you must try to understand my world-view. It is this: Global Egalitarianism. This is defined as: “the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.” with an extension that people includes all animals as well. I wholeheartedly believe that true happiness comes from giving and being of service to others.

It is despicable to me that, as humans, we have the capability to design incredibly utilitarian and beneficial systems but rather than fulfill this potential we facilitate the antithesis to these same ideals. We pillage the planet to fulfill and perpetuate the cycle of consumption. We ensure that this cycle keeps its motion with strategic manipulation of our culture via advertisement, deception, education, and social stratification.

I have been indoctrinated to not care about what is going on around me. I have been misguided, on purpose, to want more and more and feel unhappy with what I presently have. The advocated behavior is to consume everything and not care about the result of that unrelenting consumption.

When you leave a grocery store that has a wealth of food only to be greeted by a starving vagrant that is too poor to participate in the plethora of nutrition, you realize the issue is systemic, not about scarcity.

I am furious that we are not doing more. We must educate ourselves and participate in a radically different system. We must actively protest the current economic system by different means. How?

I am so glad you asked (err.. kept reading.) The way you can bypass the corporate violence is by fostering a healthy community. These interaction can come in many different formats. Gift economies, tool libraries, co-ops, public gardens, NGOs, and collaboration.

This is just the beginning of a larger culture transition.

3 thoughts on “Why aren’t you furious?

  1. Part of the issues is that you see a ‘we’ that doesn’t exist. To solve famine, for example, would mean to feed people who believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death.
    As far as you world view, I don’t agree with it. The why: “all people are equal” This is not true. All individuals are different. You don’t let anyone be a pilot or a doctor, some people are incapable of being good at those demanding jobs. No matter how much people deserve equal rights and to be treated decently they will not be equal as a matter of reality. This lack of equality means that all opportunities will not be equal. That being said the other implied aspect of equal opportunities… equal access to opportunities I can get behind.

    When I leave a grocery store and see a vagrant I ask myself if the system failed the person or if the person failed the system.

    Part of the difference between our world view is the starting point. You see the wealth of value and see that as the starting point for people. You talk of pillaging the planet. My view recognizes that human nature is poverty. Mother nature doesn’t provide. It will starve and kill you. Everything that isn’t the dangerous outdoors is due to exploitation. There are two ways to survive in the world exploiting nature or exploiting people who do. The only reason we have the vast wealth around us is people who have given us their lives work to remove us one more step from the savage natural world.

    This leads me to perceive a different failing than just the economic system. There is also the cultural failing and the individual failing.

    While I do seem to disagree on some of your foundational ideas overall I agree with your conclusion. In addition, I think that the social fabric that has been torn needs to be mended and well-rounded communities (healthy disagreement/diverse experience) need to be returned to the norm.

    Like

    1. “Part of the issues is that you see a ‘we’ that doesn’t exist. To solve famine, for example, would mean to feed people who believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death.”

      The “we” I am talking about is humanity. I believe humanity exists in the obvious sense and as well as the a unified organism that has the capability of immense global impact. The solution to famine would feed many people of different beliefs, agreed. Liberating the ignorant with proper education is another global effort that I agree needs to be in effect. I don’t want to speak for you so I would rather allow you to respond to this than assume things.

      “As far as you world view, I don’t agree with it. The why: “all people are equal” This is not true. All individuals are different. You don’t let anyone be a pilot or a doctor, some people are incapable of being good at those demanding jobs. No matter how much people deserve equal rights and to be treated decently they will not be equal as a matter of reality. This lack of equality means that all opportunities will not be equal. That being said the other implied aspect of equal opportunities… equal access to opportunities I can get behind.”

      All people are equal, in the literal sense, is obviously not possible and the definition suffers because of the variety of uses for the word “equal.” Equal, in the context of egalitarian, means: that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status furthermore being opportunity, access, and rights. This does not say that the capabilities between individuals is equal. Having the opportunity and access and right to strive to be a pilot or a doctor is what egalitarianism advocates, not that anyone can be a pilot or doctor.

      “When I leave a grocery store and see a vagrant I ask myself if the system failed the person or if the person failed the system.”

      Regardless of person to system, system to person the issue involves the system. The reason I emphasize that the system failed the person is the physical reality of the matter. A hungry person is hungry because of not eating food; physical and real things. Now, the reason he did not eat is because he either failed to be able to use the system properly or the system failed his specific situation. The barrier here is access not scarcity and access is a systemic construct.

      “Part of the difference between our world view is the starting point. You see the wealth of value and see that as the starting point for people. You talk of pillaging the planet. My view recognizes that human nature is poverty. Mother nature doesn’t provide. It will starve and kill you. Everything that isn’t the dangerous outdoors is due to exploitation. There are two ways to survive in the world exploiting nature or exploiting people who do. The only reason we have the vast wealth around us is people who have given us their lives work to remove us one more step from the savage natural world.”

      Mother nature does not provide? I fundamentally disagree here. It will starve and kill those not fit to survive nature. The exploitation of the world without the consideration of natural behavior will do two things: one, establish the illusion of wealth and two, evidently starve and kill those not respective of the natural lifecycle. If we cannot figure out a way to balance our way of living with nature, this beckons doom for humanity.

      “This leads me to perceive a different failing than just the economic system. There is also the cultural failing and the individual failing.”

      Agreed.

      “While I do seem to disagree on some of your foundational ideas overall I agree with your conclusion. In addition, I think that the social fabric that has been torn needs to be mended and well-rounded communities (healthy disagreement/diverse experience) need to be returned to the norm.”

      Excellent!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Humanity may be a defined grouped together organism but unified doesn’t seem to be a good descriptor. Specifically the lack of shared values like life, individual liberty, the non-aggression principle, etc. As much as I may be defined by what I am in reality I am also defined by what I chose to do. These choice differences are sometimes too much to overlook when grouping like things.
    Further, there would have to be an order of operations. I can’t morally support those I view as evil when they plan to continue evil. That being said my view of evil and theirs are opposed. So the fight must first be won in hearts and minds. It’s a problem that I understand and see no fault in not having overcome yet. I may wish the disagreeing about core values was resolved but I see forcing the issue as worse. Offering education would be a fine goal and one of the most affordable versions of aid we could give others. (teach a man to fish…)
    Other than this separation of values, I don’t believe that any tribe outside of a social contract is legitimate. Tribalism is a survival trait that I thoroughly reject outside of its legitimate role. Being classified as anything but myself the individual is a faulty way to perceive me. In addition, the legitimate perspective of society is often communicated in the singular sense. “For the good of society” or “for the good of humanity.” It’s making a super-entity that doesn’t exist…. historically used to justify taking away the rights of an individual. Rather than what the proper use of society( a plurality of individuals) would communicate “for the good of all the individuals in the group.” So I have an ingrained aversion to super-entities as they are often used to reduce all individuals.

    “that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status furthermore being opportunity, access, and rights.”
    I get what you are saying here. Again not to be too nitpicky but when you say “fundamental worth or social status” I see earned worth and earned social status as unequal. For example, anyone can attempt to be a pilot or doctor the fundamental worth and/or social status of a person who achieves such is unequal. I put and/or because I’m not sure by what you mean with “fundamental.” This applies to who you seek wise councel from, who you love and marry, all social status (outside common courtesy) is earned.

    The needy vagrant. I’d like a utopian world and I’m not opposed to working that direction. The reason there isn’t scarcity for the thousands of people who shop there is because of the systemic barrier. This is a case where I agree with you in seeing the easy criticism, but I have to go a step deeper and I see that the why is too vital to get rid of without a better alternative.
    Removing the economic system that fills a market full of food for the vast majority seems like a bad way to address the issue for a tiny minority.
    A support system I’ve seen work are those healthy communities/social fabric I’d like to see make a come back. People pick up those who get down and with a care that nothing but an organic system can provide restore the person to operate the system.

    Mother Nature, functionally the environment sans humans and human products will starve and kill you. Add human exploitation and people can live. Exploitation is not without consideration of the consequences. Some exploitation is short sighted and overall damaging. Nevertheless, humans natural state is poverty and it’s only by the sacrifice of countless lives that we live in a world that the elderly can be air conditioned. Everyone with diabetes isn’t fit enough to survive in mother nature. No matter how much I agree with balance I understand that those not fit to survive are doomed far sooner if they don’t choose to survive now at future risk.
    In Canada, there is a strong environmental movement to reduce greenhouse gas. Including an additional price to discourage burning wood during winter. Think about the immune risk trying to decide how cold they can be?
    This is an example of the super-entity demanding a sacrifice of an individual for some imperceptible gain. The purpose of exploitation is survival, first basic needs then wealth to enrich with art, medicine, and education. Sacrificing this exploitation isn’t an option I’d choose for myself or force on another. That being said I am all for transferring it to a better system of exploitation. The measure of better has to include the core function of exploitation and the relative cost of the new system.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s