The Imperative Revolution - International Social/Political

Polarisation and division must occur prior to any conflict. The most common social divisions are ideologically based, which also makes them the simplest to eliminate; a simple change of mind is all that is required! However, material divisions require material solutions; social inequities are eliminated with social equalities – this is not rocket science! Why has it proven so difficult to establish a fair and equitable system for humankind? The answer to that age-old question is ‘human frailty’ which is a euphemism that covers all the undesirable character traits that stem from human selfishness!

We have just solved the world’s social problems by locating the REAL ENEMY of humankind – SELFISHNESS! The solution is also simple but requires that we replace our less noble qualities, mindsets and behaviours with constructive behaviours.

There is no progress without unity and cooperation.

If we are to survive in a tolerable world the next revolution must necessarily be humanistic and in stark contrast to the DEATH pursuing doctrines of the world’s major religions and political ideologies! We simply need to confront our -- very responsive to change -- negative thought and behaviour patterns. This task is within the capability of every human being, defeatism is just another expression of selfishness!

SELFISHNESS is easily identified as social inequity and conflict. Those who extol or foster these outcomes are the enemies of humankind, which is self-evident! Need we engage in continued conflict for the benefit of the few or would it be preferable to distribute the concentrations of wealth throughout society but especially to those most in need until we achieve a sustainable balance?

It is no secret that ruling elites are the most sordid, criminal elements of human society; we tolerate these liars, killers and thieves simply because they reflect our own negative natures. The solution is of course personal r/evolution. Social revolution follows personal transformation, only then are we able to truly change society for the better.

Today we are witnessing the failure of divisionist formulas. Furthermore, the challenges we all face must be met constructively if we are to survive in a tenable and tolerable world. The only ‘spoils’ available to the ‘victor’ in today’s would be irradiated – conflict is a problem NOT a solution.

The first manifestations of famine are occurring as I write. Prices of the world’s principal grain staples, rice, wheat and corn have risen dramatically due to increased demand and lower crop yields – climate change promises to exacerbate an already precarious situation.

The prognosis for satisfying increased global demand with diminishing finite resources is grim indeed. Our current leaders have no viable solutions; more wars and conflict is the ‘solution’ of dogs fighting over a bone -- surely we are capable of better!

It is clear the human race is facing an evolutionary challenge; one that requires that we abandon our bestial nature in favour of those qualities that separate us from ‘dumb animals’.

We are One or we are nothing!

Let Us Reason Together
by Clint Talbott via reed - daily camera Sunday, Mar 30 2008, 10:28pm

You might expect political discourse today would be more informed, sophisticated and well-reasoned than ever, at least in the United States. We’re literate, learned, savvy and used to swimming in massive volumes of information.

Thanks to the internet, anyone can easily become an authority on anything from the local library budget to the competing congressional proposals on warrantless wiretapping. More than ever, citizens are able to know what they’re talking about, to back up their assertions with facts (culled from original source material), and to state a logical, well-reasoned case for their conclusions.

So why is so much of our public discourse so detached from verifiable facts? And why is so much of it the rhetorical equivalent of a food fight? You can dunk a horse in the fountain of knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

Serious commentators discuss the issue more rigorously. In “The Argument Culture,” Deborah Tannen attributes our often-degraded national conversation to “a pervasive warlike atmosphere that makes us approach public dialogue, and just about anything we need to accomplish, as if it were a fight.”

That reliance on adversarial discourse has, she argues, become “exaggerated,” partly by the news media’s attempts to frame discourse in binary terms — between two polarized extremes that, it is assumed, compose “balance.”

But civic debate requires more than ideological salvos. It requires that we listen to those with whom we disagree, to examine their evidence, to consider their arguments. When a philosophical foe makes a valid point, we are obliged to admit this. Where she errs, we are called upon to explain how.

Through such careful, logical and thoughtful exchanges, the theory goes, the sounder arguments will generally prevail, and society will improve. But to an alarming degree, that is not the nature of our public discourse.

“The truth is that American democracy is now in danger — not from any one set of ideas, but from unprecedented changes in the environment within which ideas either live and spread, or wither and die,” writes former Vice President Al Gore in “The Assault on Reason,” an excellent book.

The simple act of quoting Gore is bound to undermine the arguments presented here. Gore is vilified by vocal foes who deny the rigor (and sometimes even the existence) of thousands of peer-reviewed studies by leading climate scientists. To such people, any argument buttressed by a Gore quotation is self-refuting.

But it is important to admit that people across the spectrum can and do make valid points and have valid perspectives.

Correctly, Gore observes: “Faith in the power of reason — the belief that free citizens can govern themselves wisely and fairly by resorting to logical debate on the basis of the best evidence available, instead of raw power — was and is the central premise of American democracy. This premise is now under assault.”

It is under assault by a host of forces, including the lure of entertainment, the passivity of the public and the disinclination of leaders (on both sides of the aisle) to engage in the thoughtful, careful discourse upon which our system of government depends.

There is no simple remedy for this democratic disease. Perhaps it is enough, as a start, to admit that it exists and to recognize that it is malignant.

© 2008 The Daily Camera

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick