In present-day society, human conflict has spawned a proverbial epidemic, diverting our attention by uncovering daughter epidemics. In order to stop its spread, we must seek to understand and accept the differences within it. The human psyche is intriguing but impressionable; its perception is vulnerable long before it is inquisitive. As youth compete for an important position in society, they begin to rely more on themselves. Such personal development is indeed positive, but it often reaches a point at which its creator is a prisoner to himself. An individual can spend a lifetime explaining his thoughts. Leave the burden of explanation to society; it is the cause and can better explain the effect.
Now acknowledge that bias is born through conflict and attachment. However, the degree by which one is biased depends on his/her interdependence. Accept this and the seeds of progress may be planted. If oneself, family, society, and nation work independently, their abstract equilibrium will never be reached. Dysfunction will erupt, diversity will battle conformity, and disease will paralyze both mentally and physically. Future generations will inherit more problems than solutions. Regardless, the people will attempt to understand a world that is growing fast beyond its years. The clock ticks as the world exhausts. The people stare, the wheels of technology spin, and the people remain needy. The people allow misfortune and pity over integrity and self-activation, and their behavior creates a very potent, new-age phenomenon: a natural diversity within societal order. However paradoxical the concept may seem, it is undeniable that diversity is widening the gap between the understanding and embracing of human nature. Classifying and redistributing its own members, our culture stands for little to nothing.
Independence is becoming an endangered species; the very foundation of our country is in recession. Complete individuality goes against everything society dictates. Current generations stumble over each other creating disorder. The same generations explain disorder by creating more disorder. Our fate is in the hands of a socio-epidemic.
Society is a man running with increasing speed through an air-sealed tunnel in search of additional oxygen. You can quite reasonably tell him he will survive longer if he slows down but he is not likely to do it.---Philip Slater
ReplyDeleteIt almost looks like when given the choice between sacrificing some of our luxuries in life or totally wiping out the human race, people seem content to make the wrong decision. I guess it is easy to condemn a generation you may never meet; I think people just hope they can die before society collapses under its own weight.
I am glad that you put that quote up; I tried to remember who it was a while back but could not. You are probably right to say that some people do not care and are selfish. There are, however, a lot of academics working towards developing more sustainable practices: environmental, business, consumption. I also believe that an increasing number of people are beginning to take a hard look at things rather than sweep them under the rug for future generations to discover. The reason for this is because some of these "things" are starting to be discovered now. Younger members of society have quickly learned the necessity of this shift and begun to embrace it.
ReplyDeleteHere is an excerpt from a book that I started reading a few days after the last Constructive Cynicism, oddly, it says a lot of the same things I was talking about. Perhaps that is why I picked it up...
"The Great Reset" by Richard Florida
" 'There's a cultural change taking place,' John Casesa, a veteran auto industry analyst, told the New York Times. 'It's partly because of the severe economic contraction. But younger consumers are viewing an automobile with a jaundiced eye. They don't view the car the way their parents did, and they don't have the money that their parents did.' Whether it's because they don't want them, can't afford them, or see them as a symbol of waste and environmental abuse, more and more people are ditching their cars and taking public transit or moving to more walkable neighborhoods where they can get by without them or by occasionally using a rental car or Zipcar.
Cars are one thing, but many of the appliances that fill our homes also no longer hold the appeal or status that they once did. After the crisis, 14 percent fewer people said a dishwasher was a necessity compared to before the recession, according to the Pew Survey; 16 percent fewer people said air conditioners, 17 percent fewer said clothes dryers, and 21 percent fewer said microwaves. 'The huge drop is the perceived necessity of clothes dryers, home air-conditioning, and dishwashers is I think partly a response to the economic crisis, but more a response to the bursting of the housing bubble.'"
Part of the problem with the never-stalling consumption rates of natural resources is that there exists little trans-national standardization of these rights to use resources, clean air for pollution, allocating and redistributing rights to emissions, so to speak. The lowest-common denominator effect takes place. This is leading into a whole different discussion in which global politics can come into play. I will just post an essay written in my most recent class Globalization. With respect to this discussion, you might pay particular attention to the section on harmonization.
I honestly don't really see the benefit in being pessimistic about a socio-epidemic. The way I see it, humans are social species and epidemics are limiting factors; and humans, just like every social species, have evolved to secure a niche in response to limiting factors that imprint the gene pool with a selective, survival advantage (such as social attributes like collaborative learning, cooperative brood care & social pair-bonding & social networking.) - the selfish gene theory...
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a socio-epidemic has already transpired because social networking, which was once only assumed within the 'fundamental niche' of human society, has recently become 'realized' in order to maintain social survival; and global implications that threaten the sustainability of our biosphere have already transpired from modern human social networking. Nonetheless, the reason I feel one shouldn't formulate too pessimistic of a forecast for this new age socio-epidemic is because just like a single fire ant, a single human thought, is vulnerable to extinction; but a colony of fire ants, just like a network of human thoughts, is a force to be reckoned with... would anyone honestly disagree?
Take this blog for example... every comment added to this post adds to the potential life-history of this site... socially derived information accumulates in the form of comments such as this; integrates with the ideas, thoughts and memes of the prior, and hopefully generalizes fundamental information into realized information of new utility .. If not, the information memory of this site no longer grows; and it eventually becomes buried deeper and deeper within the "cloud", but is it ever lost? I dare to venture and say no... Although, I do realize that may be too far of a stretch to be considered all that constructive or convincing of an explanation.
Alas, as information technology continues to facilitate the realization of social networks within human dominion, so will our species continue to co-evolve with information technology. Did I just insinuate a Cyborg revolution? Yes, but only for the sake of argument, because I do feel as though it is worth more to be optimistic about our selective selection, and the possible evolutionary implications, than it is to be pessimistic about the limiting factors that contribute.
Information fuses matter and life as much as fission tears it all apart, but an ultimate survivor always prevails - the true definition of conservation... So why not envision something constructive even if it is hard to imagine? Why not imagine a new generation of something like cyborgs redefining the human species? Imagination seems only a quantum leap from innovation; and success or fail, at least innovation continues to inspire sustainability. ;)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteFirst of all, thanks for putting thought into this. This is probably one of the more dark things I have ever written, but that was the era of my life in which I wanted to change the world for all that it could be.
DeleteSo, I'd like to first note that this was originally written in 2005 - some time has elapsed and many things have changed. The social spectrum has refracted in the last 8 years. So , when you say that the social epidemic "has already transpired" - I agree in part. I believe part of it was transpiring as I wrote Inner-national. Social networks, as we knew them in 2007, did not exist like they do today.
Although, I will say that I did not intend to be pessimistic in Inner-national - I would call it cynical or extremist, as you will come to find I like to stage my arguments. But... Can nothing positive come from pessimism? Epidemics are not positive things except that we learn how to inoculate ourselves against them in the future. Self-perpetuating cycles or mechanisms that are not constructive must be brought to light. Among these is the perpetuity of human psychological disorder, where one solution creates a different problem. We create disorders to explain disorder.
Since you note that my blog can be a catalyst for "socially derived" information, I answer GREAT - Bring on the cynicism! Without it, would it draw any water? Would any of this dialogue ever have occurred? Would brimming positivity bring anything but people nodding their heads in agreement? It may well be a quandary to tear something down so that you can build it up, but problems stem from their ORIGIN. Attacking problems at the root allows for more natural, sustainable growth. Of course, this assumes all parties are stable and confident enough to take these cynicisms and turn them into growth. However, given your contribution, I remind myself that chopping down the orchard is far worse than just a few trees.
To add more, I do agree that societies can be forces to be reckoned with. The idea is that NOT ALL people appreciate society for how it became this force to begin with. We are not all family members to this society and, therefore, feel suffocated in it (rather than empowered by its size). Some feel forced to be a part of the society that they feel does not understand them.
What I take from this is an individual's transformative philosophy in which the realization occurs that we are cogs in very big machine. Regardless how well technology connects us, it can be easy to get lost in the shuffle. Take the quote "people allow misfortune and pity over integrity and self-activation" - this reminds us that NOT ALL people are among the survivalists or conservationists. Some people falter and some people fail. Some people succeed and their accomplishments are known to the world.
Here is the difference: The people I am concerned with are those getting left behind. I subscribe to some Darwin, and I still believe that the struggle of human man to find his place in society is at the core of our being; it plagues everyone. This is the epidemic. However negative it may sound, those who identify with it might find comfort in it. There are many out there who do not bleed for others to see but to remind them that they are alive. So, however pessimistic it may seem, it was a very enlightening experience for me.
I still stand by the idea that "independence is becoming an endangered species", as evident by my post on The Hipster Movement. However morbidly written, it should help one to realize that they are a part of a mass not necessarily moving in a positive direction. The idea being to ENACT change where I felt it was needed at the time.
As a sidenote: Overall, I'm not convinced that innovation helps lead to sustainability - the majority of innovation requires more resources than it replenishes or generates. "The clock ticks as the world exhausts" ;>)