For Being So Smart, Man Sure Has Made a Mess of Things

In his ceaseless quest for “progress,” man is creating an environment which is ever more inhospitable to man.  Many would call this statement an oxymoron.  The general wisdom is that progress makes our lives better, as embodied by the old DuPort slogan, “Better living through chemistry.”

Unfortunately the general wisdom, while in part undeniably true, has come at a terrible price for mankind.  The environment which sustains us and gives us life as well as our very humanity are being seriously compromised, possibly irreparably.  Let me count the ways - some much discussed, some less so.

Probably the most discussed way in which progress is creating a world inhospitable to man is the destruction of the environment.  The industrial revolution and the adoption of the automobile as the primary and preferred mode of transportation, combined with the rate of population growth and the emergence of newly-middle class populations particularly in China and India, have resulted in an exponential growth in the use of fossil fuels over the past century, especially in recent decades.  

From 1910 to the present, fossil fuel use has increased from a base of 1,000 to 11,000.  In the last 50 years alone, its use has increased almost 300%.  And while coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, does have a much smaller share of the total energy market today, what is rarely pointed out is that the actual amount of coal used world-wide is more now than ever; a 200+% increase since 1965.  

This increase in fossil fuel use is causing a change in the climate/weather parameters that man has depended upon to support his way of life for millennia.  (See my post, “Climate Disorder = Global Upheaval.”)   We are probably already past the tipping point.  The efforts of the international community to reduce carbon emissions may, if successful, slow the process, but it will not stop the process.  The news from scientists is always the same, “We didn’t think it would happen this quickly.”  But it has and continues to.

Beyond the use of fossil fuels, our use of chemicals in every conceivable product is causing mostly unknown damage to man.  Yes, a small number of chemicals have been studied and shown to be dangerous, and they have been taken off the market.   And there has been improvement, along certain parameters, in air and water quality under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. 

But vast numbers of chemicals have been released into the air, soil and water, and absorbed by our bodies, that have not been studied at all.  We simply have no idea what impact they will have.  We do know that illnesses, such as cancer, exist now in unheard of numbers and there is speculation that the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. is the cause for this increase is disease prevalence.  But there is no proof.  

However, a rational person looking at the plethora of chemicals in our bodies, the air, the soil, and water would say that the most reasonable assumption is that these chemicals will have a negative impact on us.  How could they not, given the intricacy of the functioning of the environment and the human body.  And that they therefore should not be allowed unless proven to be safe.  Rather than the other way around, which is how we have operated.  The dictum of criminal law, “innocent until proven guilty,” has no place in this context.

Then there is the issue of technology.  Several decades ago, the development of new technology was touted as the harbinger of more leisure time, a shorter work week.  Instead,  just the opposite has happened.  With each new technological advancement, making it possible to do things more quickly or be available at all times, our lives have become more burdened.  Certainly people in white collar jobs work harder now than they ever did with less time for leisure and for family.  For many blue collar workers, technological progress has brought unemployment as their jobs have been eliminated by increasing automation. 

But there is a darker side to the impact of technology resulting from the use of smartphones and tablets in combination with the development of social media.  It’s obvious in just looking around that most people are connected to their electronic screens every moment when they are not otherwise occupied, and often even when they are.  Whether they’re in a restaurant with friends or family, standing in the subway, walking down a street, or even in the theater … there, those electronics don’t get turned off till the last possible second, and as soon as the lights come up, they are turned on again.

Numerous articles have been written stating that the use of social media has become an addiction and that the social skills of people, especially the young, who are obsessively absorbed with their electronics have been negatively impacted.  Their interpersonal skills have been weakened.  They shy away from real relationships and instead see their social media “friends” as relationships.  They are removed from whatever they are doing, they aren’t really there.   This so closely tracks the definition of autism that I recently wrote a post, “The Increase in Social Media and Autism - Coincidence or Causal?”  But few people seem to be paying attention to this threat.

Another topic that is rarely discussed is the impact of the automobile and tourism on our lives.  For centuries we have made our homes in cities, towns, and villages.  These were vibrant places … even the smallest village … with life and human interaction typically centered around the local grocery/general store or stores, sitting on porches and chatting with passersby, or otherwise being part of a community. 

Now tourism and the automobile have created a double whammy that has rendered almost every place, with the exception of the largest cities, either a perversion or shell of their former selves.  In the decades following WWII, many cities and towns suffered economically.  Those that could turned to tourism as a way to pour fresh blood into the local economy.  But due to the increased use of credit cards and the marketing prowess of the internet, tourism has in the last decade become an all-devouring monster for many communities.  

Yes, it brings in people and dollars, stores are no longer empty, but the cost to the lives of the people who live there has been great.  Whether it’s Charleston, Savannah, or Asheville, to name just a few, towns are now overrun with tourists.  And these are not mostly tourists who have a love of history, who want to savor the charms of the past.  It’s hard to know what drives them, but mostly they seem to be out for fun and a few minutes of enrichment.  With hordes of such tourists, who seem to have no respect for the place they are visiting, the beauty and pace of life that was, is no more.

Other cities and towns, who continued to prosper and grow after WWII, developed suburbs in response to population growth and the availability of the automobile.  With the new residential development came shopping malls filled not with local stores but chains. 

As a result of this growth, and people’s love of driving, even people who still live in cities or towns started driving out to the suburbs to do their shopping because they wanted name brands/chains.  And the stores in the new malls were larger, had a greater selection of merchandise, often at lower cost, than the smaller stores that existed in town.  So not only did many people with disposable incomes move out of the cities, but those that remained stopped shopping there.   

And so slowly, the small local stores that had been the hub of life in the cities/towns went out of business.  I experienced this first hand in my home town of Reading, PA.  When I was growing up in the 50s and on into the 60s, downtown Reading was a vibrant place.  That’s where people went to shop.  You knew and talked to the store owners, sales personnel, the butcher, etc.  But by the 80s, the suburbs and shopping malls had grown so much that downtown Reading collapsed.  It was no more.  Literally.  Now it has been turned into an office center.  

And this is not just an American experience.  A recent article in The New York Times noted that the same phenomenon has happened in France where many of the older cities/towns are filled with shuttered shops as people flock to the outskirts to shop in the new shopping malls.

So the progress offered by the freedom of the automobile together with that offered by the use of credit cards has resulted in a catastrophe for many cities and towns.  They are devoid of the life that they used to have.  The new suburbs are also devoid of this quality of life.  They aren’t towns in the old sense of the word; there is no commercial nucleus around which the towns exist and function.  It’s all sprawl.  Everything is totally car dependent … you can’t walk anywhere in post-WWII suburbs.  There is no community.

And so people’s lives have changed, and not for the better.  As an example of poetic justice, the technology of the internet is now threatening those very shopping malls as more and more people are shopping online; it’s convenient.  

In the largest cities, you do still have vibrant neighborhoods.  They have not been impacted by tourism or the automobile.  But here, community life has been drastically altered both by technology and the chase after the almighty dollar.  Everyone is so focused on their electronics and making money, on improving their status in life, that they have little time or energy for other people, even often their own family.  Yes, people still get together to have fun.  And parents and children cross paths at home.  But that seems to be all that it is.  There’s no energy for a deeper investment or interest in others.  

This is not nostalgia.  This is an assessment of how our interaction with each other, our sense of community (beyond rooting for the local sports franchise), has diminished.  And with that we have lost something very important as human beings.  We have created an atmosphere that is barely fit for human life.  For to be human is to interact with others, face to face on a personal level. 

So what does mankind have to show for all the “progress” we’ve made in the past few centuries, especially the last one?  We certainly have more wealth.  We have more creature comforts, a higher standard of living.  Household chores have been made easier.  Illnesses have been cured and people live longer.   These are not minor achievements. 

But in this Faustian bargain, we have set in motion an upheaval in our environmental habitat that will have major but unknown consequences for our lives and well-being.  We have polluted the air, soil, and water around us, as well as our bodies, with a multitude of chemicals, again with unknown but unquestionable consequence for our health.  We have each year created new technological advances, and yet our lives grow harder and the sap of human life is drained from us.  And the ubiquitous automobile together with credit-driven tourism has resulted in the demise of our cities, towns, and villages as places where humanity thrives.

In this post, I have discussed these issues from a very human-centric perspective.  Yet we ignore at our own peril the impact that our “progress” has had on the animals and plants with whom we share this planet and on whom we depend in so many ways for our survival.

I’ve written several posts on how we might find our way back to a more meaningful life.  (For example, see “Healing Our Nation, Healing Ourselves.”)  But given human dynamics, it seems highly unlikely that we will change direction barring some huge catastrophe which makes everyone stop and reassess our way of living.

The Responsibility Crisis

There is a crisis in the United States (I cannot speak of other countries) of a failure to take responsibility for the impact of one’s actions on others.  This crisis occurs at all levels … the individual, family, business, government.

What lies at the core of this crisis?  The “me” syndrome.  

Man has, of course, always had a side of him which is self-centered.  Hence the exhortation of all religions and spiritual practices to think of others, not just oneself.  

But during the progressive phase of American politics, starting with Teddy Roosevelt until the Reagan years, there was societal peer pressure to consider the impact of our actions on others.  That was the basis for the government’s regulation of industry which had been rapacious, totally unconcerned with its impact on its workers or the general public.  That was the basis of the institution of the Federal income tax.  These measures did not negate self-interest, but placed on the balance scale the greater good, the interests of the average person.

When JFK was inaugurated, he asked Americans, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.”  That was the very embodiment of the progressive perspective of shared social/civic responsibility.  Contrast that to what Reagan said in the 1980 Presidential debate, “Are you better of today than you were four years ago?”  This was all about “me.”  

For the “me” generations that followed Reagan, this became the perspective with which all things were viewed … “Is it good for me?”  Whether it was good for anyone else became irrelevant.  This is how, even on the Democratic side, we got stuck in identity politics.  It’s all about whether something is good for me.

Over the ensuing decades the weight on the balance scale of “me” v “others” has become ever heavier.  Politically it has gotten to the point where our country is beyond being deeply divided, where there is only rage, no compassion, towards the “other.”  And so our very democracy is threatened.  It also threatens the environment and our most basic social institution … the family.

Let me provide some examples, beyond the obvious political ones, of how this crisis pervades all aspects of our life.

1.  The individual level:  The most obvious place to look for examples here are man’s interaction with the environment.  While indigenous people have always been very aware of their interconnected relationship with the environment and have treated it with respect, that is not true of “civilized” mankind.  

In the early stages, it was only those who moved into cities and thus lost contact with the land who thought nothing of the pollution that came with civilized life.   The impact of this thoughtlessness was the Plague, which devastated Europe on and off for centuries.  

Since the industrial revolution, however, the impact has been the steady destruction of the environment … the pollution of the air and water and the cutting down of forests.  The scale of this combined with the huge growth in the world’s population due to advances in hygiene and medicine have resulted in what is being called “global warming” or “climate change” … neither of which phrase is satisfactory … which will drastically change life as we know it within several generations.

One cannot just blame industry for this.  Every individual that consumes what industry produces is an integral part of the problem. We continue to produce mountains of non-recyclable trash that get dumped into land fills.   Gas-guzzling cars, SUVs, and trucks continue to be big sellers.  Indeed, our very continuing to drive is part of the problem.  I live in New York, a city with a usually efficient and vast public transportation network, and yet the number of cars on the roads is incredible.

All of these actions are an example of people thinking only about themselves, their convenience, their comfort.   What makes their immediate life better.  Not what would be in the greater good.  Or even what is in their own and their children’s long term best interest.

2.   The family level:  As I walk around the neighborhood where I live, I pass by day-care centers where the “parking lots” are crammed full of strollers.  I see nannies everywhere (always people of color) tending to other (white) people’s children.  I see dog walkers taking care of other people’s dogs.  

Now the reader could well say, “Where’s the problem?  This shows that parents want to provide their children with good pre-school opportunities for development while they are away at work.  And they want to provide their pets with fresh air and exercise while they are away at work.”

This is no doubt true.   But our system of substitute parenting or substitute dog-walking can never take the place of the real thing.  Day-care for toddlers, or the use of a nannie, cannot take the place of the love and care and teaching of a parent.  A dog being walked with 4 others on a leash does not get the exercise that a dog gets when he’s walked by his owner, let off the leash to run, play fetch, etc.

We tell ourselves, and society fully agrees, that this is an accommodation that allows both parents to work, which is necessary for their financial well-being as well as woman’s feeling of self-worth.  It is also necessary for the constant expansion of our consumer economy and thus the profit of big business.

But all this is nothing but rationalization.  Denial.  Avoidance.  When two people decide to have a child, that should be accompanied by an acceptance of the responsibility to the child entailed by that decision.  

In my book, Raising a Happy Child, there is a chapter entitled, “To Have a Child or Not.”  It deals with the need to make a conscious decision, after deep discussion, that both parents are ready for their responsibility to the child.  In a later chapter, the specific issue of both parents working is raised.  

I put it this way in the book.  “Although the financial imperative is often inescapable, you should stop and think and discuss with your spouse/significant other how critical it really is. … There’s a difference between keeping food on the table and a roof over your head, and being able to afford discretionary niceties or maintain your career.  When you balance the welfare of your child with bringing in more money or maintaining your career trajectory, which is of greater importance?  … Remember that having a child was a choice you made; your child had no say whether to be born or not.”

Most people unfortunately make even a decision such as whether to bring a new child into the world based on what is in their interest, what is their need.  Certainly for lesser decisions, they also take little account of the need of anyone else, whether a spouse, child, or dog.  Obviously the issue of care for your dog is on a different level, but the same principle applies.  

3.  The workplace level:  It will be no surprise to anyone that the workplace is full of “me” attitude given the atmosphere of competition and vanishing job loyalty/security.  That’s not a good state of affairs, but the harm is mostly to the individuals, not the greater good.

But where the self-centered perspective does do great harm to the greater good is the attitude of big business towards their workers, their consumers, the general public, and the environment.  Through a combination of the nature of the corporate beast and the pressure on corporations by investors to constantly increase profit,  corporations today have one concern and one only … how to improve their bottom line.  

The interests of their workers, consumers, the general public, and the environment have no relevance when making corporate decisions, unless those interests can operate to increase corporate profits.   Thus the greater good and the environment are routinely violated for the sake of corporate profit.

4.  The government level:  Need I say anything here about how self-centeredness by politicians and countries, a lack of responsibility for others, damages the greater good?  Whether we look at the current Republican feeding frenzy brought about by their ascendancy to total power or whether we look at our actions in undertaking the Iraq war, these are just two of many examples of the harm done to the greater good by just thinking what is in my interest.

Nothing will turn this habit-energy around unless we as individuals and our leaders see the damage and danger in making decisions based on the “me” perspective.  That ultimately it is in every individual’s and every country’s enlightened self-interest to take responsibility for the impact of our actions on others.  

Why?  Because if we are doing well, but everyone around us is doing poorly or if the environment is degraded, then that makes the world that surrounds us uninviting if not unstable and dangerous, which in turn makes our lives constricted.  That is not the definition of freedom.

What we need is a massive re-education effort.  Basically, a return to the maxim at the core of every religion and spiritual practice:  do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  It is not only important for our spiritual well-being.   It is important for our practical well-being and freedom.

The Problem Isn't Capitalism, It's Our Society

People often rant against the evils of capitalism … exploitation of workers, people in general, and the environment.  But the problem is not so much capitalism as the social structure in which capitalism has operated. 

In the United States. the structure has been one which exalted individualism and correspondingly had a laissez faire attitude towards business.  It was a conservative social context in which each person was pretty much out on their own.

It was only after the turn of the 20th century, when the excesses of the industrial robber barons became egregious to society, and during the Depression, when capitalism clearly failed to provide for the people, that the government stepped in.  It regulated private enterprise, became an employer of last resort through efforts such as the CCC and WPA that produced lasting accomplishments, and provided various forms of assistance to those in need.  

Those actions indicated a partial change in the social context … what’s been termed the progressive movement … into one where it was felt that government had to play a role to stop the excesses of private enterprise, to level the playing field between employer and worker as well as between producer and consumer, and to help those in need.  All for the common good, in keeping with the Declaration of Independence's dictum that all people have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We still had a capitalist system.  But now there was an overlay of government regulation and action because it was realized that the profit motivation that lies behind all actions in a capitalist system would frequently not operate to protect the common good, meaning the wellbeing of all in society.   It is worth noting that corporations are a creature of the law and are granted their license because of the benefit that society as a whole should derive from their operation, not just for the accumulation of wealth by their owners.

In the years since the Reagan administration, however, the progressive movement has receded and the individualistic, laissez faire society has come to the fore again.  Most recently we have seen the Radical Right push to dismantle most of what the bipartisan progressive movement built to improve our society over the previous 100 years.

But even at its broadest expanse, the progressive movement was not all-inclusive.  We were never a community, except perhaps for a brief period during the Depression.  The difference between a communal society and an individualistic society is that in the former, every person has a role to play and every person is valued.  No matter how simple or mindless their role.  And if someone cannot play a role due to physical or mental infirmity, they are still valued as human beings who are part of the community.

Conservatives used to point almost with glee to the failure of Communist systems, not just economically, but especially as relates to the abuse of their own citizens.  But this is just further confirmation of the point made initially in this post, that it is not the economic system but the social structure that determines whether people and the environment are valued.

The experience of both the Soviet Union and China show, for example, that although ownership and the political/social structure changed dramatically, one elite just replaced another.  While the Soviet Union did in a limited sense live up to its Communist underpinning and provided for all the people, in both countries the political/social structure valued neither people nor the environment; both were exploited, just for a different end … not profit but state power.  Not surprisingly, the introduction of socialist capitalism in China hasn’t changed that.

In our society, and in every country around the world - for there are no communal countries - there are millions of people who are not valued.  Who do not have a place at the table.  And even most of those who are at the table, who help produce the product and are paid for their work, are not valued in any humane sense of the word.  They are just viewed as expendable cogs in the machine.

In short, we live in a society in which, while people may rant about the value of life in certain contexts … abortion, death with dignity, when human action collides with God-given directives …  they really place no value on life.  They have no concern or feelings of responsibility for the welfare, the quality of life, of their fellow citizen.   There is no sense of community.  The social contract is in tatters.

The problem of poverty and homelessness in the US is not due to a lack of resources.  The problem of racism and other discrimination is not one that is inherent in man.  The social problems we face are a direct result of the social system we have built.  And thus the answer to our social problems lies in rebuilding or redirecting our social system and reinforcing the role of government in advancing the common good.

I’m not talking about a utopia.  I’m just talking about a society that is humane, that values the life of everyone who is a member of the society … at a minimum everyone who is a citizen, but ideally everyone who lives here regardless of their status.  And finds a way to implement that humaneness by making everyone feel valued rather than feel like refuse, whether it’s through the educational system, housing, social services, whatever.  

Capitalism and a humane society can coexist and support each other.  They are not mutually exclusive.  But it implies capitalism with a social conscience, not unbridled capitalism such as was evidenced recently by several in-name-only pharmaceutical companies that bought existing low cost name drugs and then raised the price dramatically to an exorbitant amount, endangering people's lives.  It implies capitalism where maximizing profit is not the sole operating goal.

Bottom line, everyone … child and adult … deserves to feel like they are a human being and are valued and respected by others, whether it’s immediate family, peers, or the broader society.  So many people are broken because they have had life experiences that do not make them feel valued and respected.   And so they come not to respect or value themselves.  That not only harms them, it harms society; it is a drag on society.

This is a failure of society.  And only society can fix it.

Creating a Safer World for Our Children

There are many who think that the way to create a safer world for our children is to make sure that we have the strongest military force in the world, a strong police presence in our cities, and the right to carry a weapon in any setting.  In short, to make sure that we have the power to protect ourselves, whether offensively or defensively.

This point of view accepts as immutable fact that we live in a dangerous world.  There is nothing that can be done about it.  It is human nature. 

I would argue, however, that a world of danger is not an immutable fact; it is not an inherent aspect of human nature.  There is instead a different reason why the world is and has been filled with danger.  The sane way forward is not to arm ourselves to the teeth but to ask why there is so much danger lurking out there and what each of us as individuals, groups, and nations can do to make this truly a safer world for our children.

Man’s “inhumanity to man,” whether as physical violence or other forms of cruelty, is without question rife in our world at every level of human interaction … not just between nations or opposing groups, but within the family and in the workplace.  

Terrorist beheadings are a current example of what usually comes to mind when people think of man’s inhumanity.  The holocaust, Rwanda, various acts during wartime, slavery, and lynching are examples from the past often cited.  

But “inhumanity” goes beyond such horrific acts.  Actually more harmful, because more prevalent, are the insidious low level inhumanities that occur on a daily basis in every human setting.  

Lest the reader think I’m overstating the problem, note that inhumanity is generally defined as cruelty towards another.  And cruelty in turn is defined as: “behavior that causes physical or mental harm, pain, or suffering.”  Even an unkind remark can be cruel, regardless whether the intention was to inflict pain, although typically that is the case despite protests to the contrary.

Some may condone the idea of a just war between nations and the ensuing cruelties that inevitably result, but cruelty between members of a family, between individuals, or between members of different groups within a civilized nation should not be acceptable.  Why?  Besides the fact that it’s inhumane, such cruelty creates a world full of people with damaged psyches and, with regards to groups, also shreds the fabric of society.  This is unhealthy both for the society and the individual.

Why is cruelty so pervasive?  In two earlier posts, “The Root of All Abuse and Violence - Insecurity,”  and “Insecurity as the Cause of Social Conflict and International War,” I posited that the source of inhumanity lay with the insecurity that virtually all people suffer from, not as a fact of human nature but as a result of learned experience.  Working in concert with this insecurity is the perspective we are taught from an early age that the world is made up of us and them.  Whether the “us” is family, nationality, race, or whatever, we all are taught that this is a basic fact of life (see my post, “The Destructive Impact of Our Us v Them Perspective.”).

Clearly, there is ample evidence on the ground for people to develop an us v them perspective.  And there is ample reason to be insecure.  Indeed, these are both self-perpetuating states.  But if we continue to live according to these perspectives, we are condemned to living in a world of constant conflict and psychological suffering.

But how to stop this when almost everyone in the world is in the grip of these negative forces?  With regard to insecurity, in my book, Raising a Happy Child, I discuss how to stop the vicious cycle of insecure parents raising insecure children, who go on to become insecure parents …  It has to start in the home.  If parents are made aware of the issues and how these forces negatively impact both themselves and their children, I believe that many will choose to adopt the lessons set forth in the book in order to provide themselves and their children a better, happier life.

The same is true regarding the ubiquitous nature of the us v them perspective.  It is learned, just as insecurity is learned.  As the Rodgers and Hammerstein song from South Pacific goes, “You’ve got to be taught, before it’s too late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught.”

It is up to us to stop teaching our children to view the world in this way.  In Raising a Happy Child, I posited that parents needed to step outside their insecure selves so that they could provide their children with the nurturing they needed in order to grow up feeling secure, regardless what they experienced in the larger world.  In the same way, parents need to step outside their own us v them perspective so that they can provide their children with a healthier perspective.

Because the us v them perspective has been fostered by virtually all authority forces in society, including and even especially the force of most organized religions, changing this paradigm of human behavior will be perhaps even more of a challenge than raising happy, secure children.  But we must try.  

And don’t say, “I’ll do it if they do it first.”  Because then we are doomed.  Each of you as parents and leaders must do what is right, regardless.  You must have the courage to take the first step.  It will bring you, your children, and your country no harm if you move forward, with eyes wide open.

Luckily, there is a different perspective at hand that would bring about a very different outcome from the conflict that we experience as endemic … that we are all one.  This is not some religious pablum or new age recreational-drug-induced nonsense.   This perspective is based on hard scientific fact.  Yes, it happens to be a major tenet of Buddhism, but I would note that Buddhist thought also foresaw the principles of quantum physics.

Let us begin with humans.  The most widely accepted theory of human evolution is that we all have a common ancestor in a single human in Africa roughly 60,000 - 200,000 years ago.  About 50,000 years ago, man began his migration out of Africa to the various parts of the planet, either replacing or interbreeding with other related species.  And the reset, as they say, is history.

We are thus in fact all one.   We may look different, speak different languages, have different customs, but we are all one in that we all descended from a common ancestor.

Another way of seeing the inherent oneness of us all is the immigration experience.  Not just individuals but waves of people from different cultures and races have moved to a new place, such as the United States.  Their children typically grow up to speak the language of their new home and adopt the culture of their new home.  They still look “different,” but are Americanized and become part of the fabric of our nation.  

If people were inherently different, this would not be possible.  If sometimes they don’t follow this pattern, it’s not because they are incapable of assimilating, it’s because they choose not to; they don’t want to become one. 

A famous quote from Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice also makes the point of our oneness, “If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge?”  In all respects we are all one.

“Ah, but this is all irrelevant,” the reader may say.  “If someone is seeking to kill me or steal my possessions, it makes no difference if that person and I are biologically one.”   

True.  But the point is that if both you and that person were taught early on that you were both one and that there was nothing to fear from the other, and you treated each other with respect as equals, this person would most likely not be trying to kill you or steal your possessions.  We must start somewhere to change the historical dynamic.

Let me give a practical example, close to home, of the damage caused by the prevalent us v them perspective and the potential impact if we were taught that we are all one.  150 years after the Civil War, we are still a country deeply divided by race.  Despite all the laws on the books that guarantee equality, and despite the enormous progress made by many African-Americans especially over the last 50 years, there can be no question that we still live in a very unequal and divided society.  Whether one looks at education, housing, jobs, or income, the average black American is far below the average white American.  As a result, our country as a whole has suffered in many ways.

Why has this status continued?  While some responsibility must be taken by black Americans themselves, the overpowering factor is that white America does not view black Americans as one with them.  They may be American citizens, they may fight our wars, they may go to school with us, but they are felt to be different; they are not one with us; they are not equal.  And so the inhumanity of the treatment of black Americans at the hands of white America … collectively … continues.  

If, however, white and black Americans were taught that we are all one, backed up by real changes on the ground … and this is not accomplished simply by integration … this inequality would end within a generation.   Black Americans would then indeed have equal opportunity in education, housing, and  jobs and income equality would improve because both institutional and individual discrimination would end.

In looking at history and current events, as well as our personal experience, one sees that whenever a people/nation, a group, a person, or a member of a family feels that they are not shown respect or treated as an equal, they will in whatever manner they can usually rise up against those who they feel are treating them in this manner.  

Whether looking at the troubles in the Mideast, or the plethora of ethnic, racial, and sectarian conflicts around the world, both past and present, while they are typically viewed as being power struggles … which in one sense they obviously are … they are really about one side, or both, feeling that they have not been treated with respect or as equals.  Those are the real issues; if they had been treated with respect and as equals, there would be no power issues.  Power issues arise from inequality, whether on the part of the victim or those who seek to maintain the status quo.  

When one thinks of the conflict so often found within families, whether between spouses, between parents and children, or between siblings, the feeling of not being treated with respect or as an equal is again the core grievance.  One may talk about sibling rivalry or adolescent rebellion or whatever, but it all comes down to this rather straight-forward analysis.

So we have ample proof of what happens when we do not follow the lesson that we are all one, and instead see the world as us v them.  The benefits I claim for the opposite approach are I must admit only conjectural as the world has not seen a “we are all one” philosophy in place at any time.  But I have no doubt.  

But even if one agrees with my position, one cannot ignore the question of how one gets from where we are to where we want to be.  I noted above that the change needs to start in the home and spread outwards.  I don’t think such change could come top down from the political establishment because any political leader advocating such a policy now would never get elected, or if in office would find himself suddenly without support; the powers that be would be too threatened.  However, it is conceivable that an organization of the major religions united to end the us v them mentality could be formed … an outgrowth, for example, of the Global Freedom Network … which would make a real difference.

Such a change, except within the intimate setting of the family, would involve a transition period that would undoubtedly be tricky and full of obstacles, but if the intention was clear and honest and there was open communication, the world could be a very different place within a generation or less.  A reader might ask, “Doesn’t the failure of the United Nations prove that this type of approach doesn’t work?”  I would respond that the UN has failed, other than getting nations to talk, precisely because its creation did not challenge the underlying assumption of us v them.  There is almost nothing “united” about the United Nations. 

But Planet Earth is not solely the province of man.  Whether one believes in God or the natural force of evolution, Earth is home to a host of animals, plants, and inanimate objects to which the concept that we are all one also applies.  As does the importance of adopting that perspective regarding them in order to create a safer world for our children, for how we treat these other participants of the earth’s ecosystem has profound implications for the future.

Animals are sentient beings, just as man is.  Indeed, it is accepted scientific fact that humans evolved from the animal world, specifically apes.  Animals may not have the brain capacity of man, but they have the same senses as man has.  One could indeed apply the passage quoted above from Shakespeare to animals.  

But what has man done?  Man considers animals as lesser beings, put there by God for humans to eat, and so millions of animals are killed, and not just killed but severely abused in the raising process, to satisfy man’s desires.  Further untold numbers of animals are abused in ways that have nothing to do with the food chain.

"But how," the reader may well ask, "does this make the world less safe for our children?"  The most immediate and practical answer is that the raising of millions upon millions of animals for slaughter requires the diversion of huge amounts of vegetable nutrients to this process.  Since raising animals is a very inefficient use of these nutrients … the amount consumed v the amount produced … the world would have a greater food supply if all vegetable nutrients were available to man.  

As the earth’s population increases, this becomes an ever more pressing issue.  And ending this practice would not harm man in any way as studies show consistently that vegetarians are healthier than meat eaters.

As for plants, they may not be sentient beings, but they are highly-evolved living organisms.  In fact, they are in many ways more highly evolved than man.  Through the process of photosynthesis, they take the elements of sunlight and water and create the nutrients that man and animals need to survive.  And plants are at one with humans because we are all formed from the same basic atomic/molecular structure of matter.

“Are you going to argue now that inanimate objects … rocks, water, oil, air … are also one with man?” a reader may skeptically ask.  That answer is of course, yes.  Again, they are composed of the same basic atomic/molecular structure as man and are part of the evolutionary process that ultimately produced man.  The molecule, composed of atoms, is the common building block from which every thing on this Earth is composed.

As with animals, man has treated plants and inanimate objects as being put there by God for man’s use and benefit.  That is in part true, as everything has an important role to play in the ecosystem.  But how to make such use is the question.  While native cultures, such as Native Americans, killed animals and ate meat, they had a very different relationship to animals, plants, and inanimate objects than modern man.  To them, all were part of a spiritual world and that brought an attitude of respect towards all parts of the eco-system.  Things were used only as needed; nothing was abused.

The results of man’s abuse of the natural world, both plant and mineral, are becoming more abundantly clear with each passing decade.  We have polluted the very source of life … the air and water … and have put in motion a change in the atmosphere which is bringing about a change in climate that has the potential to devastate our way of life and the safe future of our children.

If there is a God, this would certainly be a time for him or her to make itself known to mankind in an unmistakable way and to warn us with all of its power that we must change our ways or be doomed.  Short of that, it depends on us mere mortals to right the wrongs of our abuse of each other and everything else on this Earth and start living by the maxim that we are all one.  We owe it to our children.

What Has Man Wrought?

Throughout the ages, man in “civilized” societies has felt that he is superior to all other elements on this planet.  Man to put it mildly has been very full of himself when it comes to his place in the scheme of things.  Western man (which is to say followers of the Judeo-Christian tradition) even saw himself as being made in God’s image.

After all the millenia of hype, the question must be asked, has the advent of man on this planet been of benefit, either to the other elements of the planet or even to man?  What has man wrought?

Before the advent of civilized societies, the natural world functioned in a very symbiotic and pure fashion. There was nothing is this world that was despoiled.  Primitive man, up to and including the Native American Indians, had great respect for all the natural elements and lived in total harmony with them.

With the advent of civilized societies (at least Western ones; I cannot speak to the other early civilizations), and certainly since the industrial revolution, man has despoiled the environment, to a greater extent with each passing year.  “Progress” for mankind has meant degradation or extinction of the natural environment.

And what of man’s benefit to man?  At a minimum, that depends on which side of the power divide you’re standing.  

Some examples.  Starting with the growth of ancient civilizations, the powerful often dominated those they conquered by making them slaves.  Slavery as a business proposition had (and in some parts of the world still has) a long tradition that began before the start of carrying slaves to the new world.  Under the guise of “the white man’s burden” and “spreading God’s word,” European nations plundered and destroyed native civilizations around the world.  In our own country, the American government practiced what can only be called genocide against the Native American Indian.  Certainly, if man was benefiting man, it was only the strong benefiting themselves.

“O.K.,” you may say,  “all of this is true but look at the incredible progress that man has brought to mankind.”  Man has always touted the concept of progress, of an ever-improving life with each technological innovation.  Remember G.E.’s slogan, “Progress is Our Most Important Product” or DuPont’s, “Better Living Through Chemistry”?  The slogans are gone, but contemporary marketing makes the same case through manipulative images and ad copy.

There is no question that man is better off materialistically than he was in the past.  But is he happier?  Is he better off spiritually than he was hundreds of years ago?  I would argue that the answer is probably, “no.”  As he moved from the land to the city, man lost his connection to the land, his feeling of belonging and purpose.  He lost his roots and it has been getting worse with each generation.  Life may have been very hard, but there was a spirituality (not religiosity) to man’s life which provided a feeling of self-worth and an innocent happiness.  

Modern man, whether living in a major city or in the country, is totally a creature of modern culture.  He is manipulated as to what he thinks, what he wants, what he buys.  Whether it’s politics or business, it’s all about marketing, selling.  And because of our culture of competition and consumerism, we are manipulated to always want more and not be satisfied with what we have and who we are.  We have lots of stuff, but also lots of debt.  It is a system which fosters frustration, dissatisfaction, and depression.  

This is not to say that man (and of course in using this term I am including women and children) did not suffer from depression and frustration in earlier years.  But the breadth and depth of it in contemporary life is far greater.

Finally, there is the question of whether man has even benefited those closest to him ... his immediate family.  I cannot say what family life was like in ancient times.  But as man moved from primitive communal societies to “civilized” societies of a non-communal and later capitalist nature, man became an insecure animal, left to his own devises to fend for himself.  

As I argue in my book, Raising a Happy Child, insecure people raise insecure children and the cycle is never ending.  Thus we find ourselves today in a world filled with insecure people.  Regardless how powerful or rich someone may be, deep down that person is typically very insecure.  And whether in the family or at work, insecure people cannot develop strong, healthy relationships.  Certainly not ones based on unconditional love and trust.  Their insecurity has a powerful impact on how they view themselves and the world around them.  That is why our world is so dysfunctional, whether you look at family relationships, the political landscape, or the relationships between nations.

And so, the answer to what has man wrought is much degradation and misery.  We seem to be an evolutionary experiment gone awry.  Although we have advanced in many ways over the millenia, our brains (as opposed to our knowledge) have not advanced or evolved.  We are still functioning with a brain that nature developed for primitive man 150,000 years ago.  And that brain is not equipped to handle the changes that have occurred in human society over those years.  Our ability to think has unfortunately not made us better human beings.

Is there a way out?  A better way?  Yes.  In my book, Raising a Happy Child, as well as my various Buddhist books, I try to present a cohesive, positive answer for my fellow man.

Why Should the Public Pay for Industry’s Costs of Production?

A for-profit business has to figure its costs of production in establishing a price and maintaining a sufficient profit margin to warrant being in business.  This includes all inputs into the production process.  However, for many if not most American businesses, this does not include the costs of rendering all byproduct outputs from the production process harmless to the environment.  

There are certainly measures that are required by regulation, but they are minimal relatively speaking.  When any efforts are made to require more stringent measures, the common outcry from industry is that the measures are too expensive.  And so government typically relents and the pollution or other damage continues, with the environment being damaged, sometimes irrevocably, sometimes to be cleaned up at the taxpayer’s expense.

Before any product is allowed to be processed or manufactured, why isn’t it required that a business provide an environmental impact statement indicating the measures it will take to insure that any potential impact is mitigated to the point that the process is harmless to the environment.  If a business cannot with a sufficient degree of certainty make such a statement, it should not be allowed to proceed.  (The former phrase is in italics because industry routinely makes such bold statements without there being any rigorous research or data backing up the statements.)

The obvious case in point is hydraulic fracking, but the same principle applies to coal mining, electric generating plants, chemical plants, and many other industries where one wouldn’t necessarily think that toxic discharges would be a problem.  No industry should be allowed to despoil the environment.  And the public should not have to pay for mitigation measures that should be considered costs of production.   

If such a system is not put in place and the government/taxpayer ends up paying, then isn’t that a form of socialism that big business and conservatives so abhor?  Why is it only socialism to these people when the government helps those who are in need, but not when government either directly or indirectly subsidizes the cost of doing business?

This is but one more example where corporate interests usually trump all others because of the power they have through the money they donate to politicians and the money they spend lobbying for their point of view.  Those who speak on the public’s behalf are drowned out by the shear magnitude of corporate power over the process.