This I Believe

Although I am writing this on the 10th anniversary of 9-11, I suspect that it will take a while to whip this into some semblance of comprehensibility. As much as it pains me to admit it, the germ of the idea comes from Rush Limbaugh. The pain does not come from any association with Mr. Limbaugh, per se, as much as it comes from the perception that far too many people confuse entertainment with reality. I frequently find Mr. Limbaugh to be quite entertaining, but he and I do not see eye-to-eye on most issues and I feel that his grasp of geo-political reality is far from firm. Nevertheless, he has frequently articulated a concise set of ideas which define his world view (“Peace is not the absence of war,” for example). In fairness to whoever might stumble upon my rambling/blathering/bloviating (pick your descriptor), I feel obligated to respond in kind. The title is blatantly plucked from a series begun by Edward R. Murrow about 60 years ago. It is still extant (thisibelieve.org) and in production.

Anyone who reads more than one or two of my posts will realize that I’m fond of using quotes to make a point. Joe Straczynski, in one of the Babylon 5 episodes, said more than he thought when a character observed “We are all slaves to our history. It is only by understanding history that we can break those chains.” The idea was tossed out as an off-hand comment, so I might be slighting Joe on that. He’s a tad older and, I suspect, a tad wiser since he’s been around the block a few more times. Perhaps it is only my natural density (or my conceit) which leads me  to believe that he did not understand the full ramifications of his idea. While I would love to take credit for it and its pithiness, it would be less than honest to do so. All of that not withstanding:

I believe in people. No matter their race, nationality, language, color, religion or whatever distinguishing characteristic you pick, people are people. They love their spouses, children and parents. They get up each morning and do what they feel they need to do to care for their families and for themselves. They go to bed each night with hope that tomorrow will be a better day than today. They write poems and sing songs. They tell stories and paint pictures. They play, they laugh, they love and, yes, they hate. Each will spend most of their lives trying to identify or define their place within the world. Each tries to leave the world a better place than they found it. Their definition of “better” will probably not comport with yours.

The vast majority will share with whoever might need it. They will try to help an injured creature, human or not. They will be fair and honest with anyone who deals with them fairly and honestly, and even with those who don’t. This is both their strength and their weakness. If they do something with which you do not agree, it is probably because they know different things than you do, not because they are inherently malicious. There will inevitably be a few bad apples in the basket, but most are not. It is entirely up to you to decide whether you see the bad apples or the good ones and the course of your life will be decided by that choice.

I do not believe in institutions. Institutions, by their very nature, say “We are different than them;” “Our way is superior to theirs.” “If you meet our qualifications, you can be part of ‘us’. Otherwise, you must be ‘them’.” Institutions, by their nature, are exclusive rather than inclusive. Institutions do not feel joy or sorrow. Institutions do not feel pain. Institutions do not achieve, although many do fail. Institutions do not help outsiders except to make those outsiders feel obligated to the institution and many times make their own members feel obligated. Institutions are about power, not about freedom. Institutions are wonderful ways of harnessing and directing the potential of individuals, but in the end cannot tolerate individuality. Institutions plant the seeds of their own destruction with every collective action they take. Institutions are not inherently good or bad. While they might wear an individual face, they are collectives, not people.

I believe that people are smarter than they give themselves credit for. The problem is not intelligence; the problem is lack of information. People know what they know, whether it’s accurate information or not. Those who knew that the world was flat and that everything revolved around the earth were not stupid. It certainly looks that way to the casual observer. It was only upon closer examination, checking the finer details, that the geocentric model fell apart. If your life did not depend upon the finer details, then either the geocentric or heliocentric model worked for you. In practical application, neither model was superior to the other. People believe what they believe because the evidence fits their theory. They are not stupid; they simply know different things. If you want them to see the world as you do, then they need to know the same things you do.

I believe that stupidity increases exponentially with the number of people involved. Consensus gentium is a lousy way of determining truth. Individuals, in general, are willing to admit their lack of knowledge. They are also willing to accept as truth any proposition coming from someone they feel knows more about a subject than they do, even when that truth runs contrary to their own experience and observations. People are social animals. As such, they tend to go with the group. The group must include some sort of hierarchy. Unscrupulous individuals will never fail to exploit those lower in the hierarchy for their own ends. Those lower in the hierarchy will blindly follow because they doubt their own intelligence. Get enough people involved and the result is mass stupidity. Not because the individuals are stupid, but because they allow the group to do their thinking for them and the intelligence of the group is a root-factor lower than any individual within the group.

I believe that there can never be peace in the modern world. The root of conflict is want. People want what someone else has or they want whatever they perceive as being a lack on their end. As long as there are those who have and those who want, there will be conflict. It does not necessarily need to escalate into violent conflict (although it will at times), but there will always be conflict between those who have and those who do not. The only solutions to the problem are either for those who do not have to stop wanting or for those who have to stop having. Neither solution will be acceptable to both groups and conflict is the inevitable result.

Those who have wish to continue having. Many do not mind sharing their surplus, but the decisive (or divisive) question is what qualifies as “surplus”. For those who do not have, surplus might be generally categorized as anything in excess of their own. Thus, to a person earning $2000 per month, a person earning $5000 per month would have approximately $3000 of surplus. However, the person earning $5000 per month would not see it that way. By some odd function of accounting, expenses always rise to meet income. Until there is agreement on what constitutes “surplus”, conflict must inevitably occur.