being human in 2011
Partial thoughts after an all-nighter sitting alone in a guard shack...
Nietzsche's "God is Dead" and "The Last Man" theories came at me out of two different books I was reading recently. A recent blog someone shared with me, initially intended to bring up the "friendly" subject of charity during the holiday season, ignited a not-surprisingly heated religion versus secularism debate online. Although I am very fond of the blog's author and admire his conviction, I tried to envision the subject of charity from an intent versus result angle, regardless of the faith behind the works.
The economic influences on cultural survival and international assistance seep into context on a daily basis out here. We've worked so hard in the U.S. to afford ourselves the opportunity to do many things. We live prosperously, then begin to question religion and objective morality, and in the case pertaining to charity, we find ourselves left to choose what we do with our own excess. Within our country, there is certainly an imbalance of resources, man to man, but as a whole nation we are economically poised--or at least we borrow enough money to think we are--to have the extra breathing room to let our minds wander. As a state, we exert ourselves economically, politically, and militarily, either to influence the outside with some ideal, or to defend the home state, our securities, and our aforementioned economic advantage.
Nietzsche's "God is Dead" and "The Last Man" theories came at me out of two different books I was reading recently. A recent blog someone shared with me, initially intended to bring up the "friendly" subject of charity during the holiday season, ignited a not-surprisingly heated religion versus secularism debate online. Although I am very fond of the blog's author and admire his conviction, I tried to envision the subject of charity from an intent versus result angle, regardless of the faith behind the works.
The economic influences on cultural survival and international assistance seep into context on a daily basis out here. We've worked so hard in the U.S. to afford ourselves the opportunity to do many things. We live prosperously, then begin to question religion and objective morality, and in the case pertaining to charity, we find ourselves left to choose what we do with our own excess. Within our country, there is certainly an imbalance of resources, man to man, but as a whole nation we are economically poised--or at least we borrow enough money to think we are--to have the extra breathing room to let our minds wander. As a state, we exert ourselves economically, politically, and militarily, either to influence the outside with some ideal, or to defend the home state, our securities, and our aforementioned economic advantage.
A personal choice will often present itself to either hoard one's earnings or attempt to influence those less "fortunate" in our own country and around the world. Do we find much arguing about religion and philosophy in the third world? In that environment, it seems the winning tribe assimilates and paints over the losing tribe with their culture, faith, and beliefs. There's not much room for sharing and evolving ideas when resources are limited. It took millions of years to go from making a fire to digging irrigation, depending on whom you ask. It's all about survival. Then you observe what emanates from the now well-off parts of the world, and many charitable people and groups, faith-based or not, seem to transmit their message along with their generosity. Even secular humanists. More often than not, they create small artificial bubbles in their target areas to allow "free thought", which eerily takes the shape of the philosophies of the patrons
There is no way to keep religion completely out of the arguments--not yet--but God may indeed be on a very diluted path towards reabsorption into the universe, at least in some parts of the world. Social democracy and the luxury of resources are leading towards progressive advancements that aim to equalize the species. However, the dirty but plain sighted little secret is that social darwinism and the quest for power flourish just as well in any abundant environment, until abundance becomes so relative that it absolutely ceases to exist once it is either locked up or distributed. An individual with excess, residing in a society with excess, must ultimately make the choice on what to do with his/her treasure. It boils down to the "survival" of that individual, their family, their community, nation, or a stranger in some other land... whomever the individual deems most important. He/she has that freedom because of the wealth, real or artificial, bedrocking their existence and their ability to ponder. The question is--for those fortunate to have that choice--who are we living for and why?
Comments
Post a Comment