Our Children’s Future

If you’ve arrived on this page to discuss the poor condition of the world our children and grandchildren have to face—welcome. I know there must be many parents who have concerns about this. So, this is my attempt to draw people together, parents or not, to discuss the completely unacceptable conditions of our world and realistic steps we need to start taking to move toward something ‘really’ worthwhile.

Whew! Where do I start? Government, education, medicine, legal, economy, income disparity and more; all needing serious attention. So much needs to be improved that it may seem overwhelming;  maybe impossible. It will take all of us working together to help our failing situation.

I think the easiest place to start is with a simple indisputable fact. Most people in the world live poorly. Talking specifically about the US there is at least 20% of the population trying to get along with way to little. As for me, I’ve always been in the average when it comes to income, sometimes more, sometimes less; and it has been a constant financial struggle. Some people do okay, but they are far from the majority.

So what’s the point to this effort?

The point…is to strike up intelligent conversations with people who are troubled by the poor condition of the world we are leaving for our children and to talk about correcting the wrongs. My claim is that life, using the example of living on the west coast of the US, is nowhere near what it should be.

And what should it be? How about a life that is about living, as opposed to a life that is about working? How about lives that allow parents to have more time to spend with their children; and spouses have more time to enjoy each other’s company? How about communities which feel safe, and, based on statistics—are safe? What if people who don’t work for large corporations could have quality medical and dental care? Wouldn’t it make sense to have government representatives who live like we do? How about if we figure out why crime and violence are ubiquitous and getting worse; then do what has to be done to change that too! Personally, I think it is wrong for retired public administrators to receive retirements which are 400% larger than the average income in America. Our institutions are flawed, and will be, until we get our act together.

I would like to live in a place and time when people try to help each other instead of get over on each other. I’d like to be able to leave something out and not worry about it being stolen. When we hear of a missing child we should all join the search. I don’t like looking at billboards and listening to advertising. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could simply search for advertising for something—if we want it? Our culture is so far off track that it efficiently creates desires in us that others want there. Does it bother you that your children are being subjected to all the propaganda so common in our lives that we don’t even recognize it as such? Isn’t it sad that so many girls struggle with self-image because of the constant onslaught from the media? It seems wrong that one of the most popular high-school graduation presents is ‘breast implants’.

How about we get our heads together and create an economy which responds to us instead of the other way around. Truth is, in spite of what they taught us in school, an economy based on needs and controlled by the majority makes a lot of sense. Is it reasonable to expect an egalitarian, secure, reasonably comfortable lifestyle? In other words; do we owe each other anything; are we right to expect something from each other? The answer to this is—yes! To both questions we must answer—yes, based on Social Contract theory. Some of the well known philosophers have spoken of the Social Contract. They talk of how and why society originated and about the relationship between government and the people. To make one general defining statement the best seems to be; we gain civil rights, not to be confused with natural rights, in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others.

So, it sounds like we owe something and we expect something—sounds like the description of a community in which it is reasonable to expect a fair share. Why not, the reason people pulled together originally was for security and prosperity.

Let’s talk about this!

 

 

Exploitation

I read comments in a local paper on the subject of possible similarities in people’s lack of regard for both the rights of slaves and the rights of animals. The first article I read was from a couple members of the community who suggested, ‘the mentality required for exploiting animals is similar to the mentality required for exploiting humans (slaves).’ In a later edition of the paper another person disagreed with them and responded ‘those who were enslaved were humans and were treated as if they had no rights, while the animals are ‘just’ animals, and in fact have no rights.’ I agree with part of this response; humans should not have been enslaved and abused. I am not minimizing the atrocities done to humans; I am trying to draw attention to the notion that animals have no rights.

Question, is there any similarity in the mentality required for human exploitation and the mentality required for animal exploitation? The dictionary defines slavery as, ‘subjection to a power, force or influence.’ And exploiting is, ‘selfishly using to one’s own advantage.’

Slaves were and are exploited. People learn and teach that slaves are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believed human exploitation (slavery) was condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Animals were and are exploited. People learn and teach that animals are inferior, they have minimal mental capacity, and they are on this planet for the very purpose for which they are being used. People believe animal exploitation is condoned and blessed by ‘God.’

Did this country willingly give up exploiting humans (slavery)? No! Has this country willingly given up exploiting animals? No! Exploiting animals and humans have given many people the wealth, power and/or pleasures they crave. And most people have been taught, and enjoy indulging in the consumption of animal flesh.

In early America people could force others to work on their property without pay; they could build a large plantation and become quite wealthy—at the expense of others (exploitation). You could go out and kill an animal, sell it or bring it home and cook it and eat it—again, at the expense of others (exploitation).

On the other hand you could get a job or build a business, perhaps with much more work and considerably less potential to become rich and powerful. And you could till the ground, plant a garden and care for it for a time and if all went well, harvest a crop of food. The people of this country did not willingly give up exploiting humans, and the people of this country have not shown signs they will willingly give up exploiting animals.

Many people justify the current treatment of animals by saying animals are inferior, they are not as intelligent and have no feelings. This was justification for slavery in early America. Keep in mind, as recently as 150 years ago, it was common knowledge that ‘women had limited mental capacity and could not be creative.’ And people in the medical community still adhere to the chilling notion that infants don’t suffer from pain ; watch a doctor perform a circumcision on an infant without anesthesia and see what you think.

One of the points in the articles I read had to do with whether animals are equal to humans? Whether animals are equal to humans depends on how you look at it; it depends on what ‘equal’ refers to. In the Declaration of Independence it’s stated that all men are created equal; all men have the right to life and to the pursuits of happiness. While this was being written, proclaiming the ideals of an ‘ideal’ nation, it wasn’t true to many, and this hasn’t changed. The men writing this document and making these claims for equality were the butt of jokes which originated in other countries regarding the abject hypocrisy of a people who claimed equality for all, while possessing slaves. The ones who are referred to as the ‘founding fathers’ were dead serious about being treated as equals by the British, even to the point of war and death, but did not sense the need to extend the same courtesy to others. Again, nothing has changed!

I wonder if some day there will be jokes about the people who claim to be humane and compassionate, but kill animals and then consume them. People will exclaim sadness when spotting a dead baby deer or condemn another for forcing a dog to fight or an elephant to perform and then stop at a restaurant and eat part of a cow or chicken that was brutally victimized. Some people will fight with another person to protect a wounded hawk or to protect the habitat of another animal and then go home and eat a pig. And there are some who will leave the room if an animal is being portrayed in a movie as being hurt and go to the kitchen and put a leg or rib cage from a lamb in the oven. There is a word for this type of contradiction in a person’s behavior!

‘They pity, and they eat the objects of their compassion! ~ Oliver Goldsmith, 1700’s

In exploring the equality of animals to humans you will find some interesting things. Animals have emotions, they show the effects of pain when hurt, they are conspicuously exuberant at times and obviously downhearted at other times and they learn from their experiences. We cannot know if their emotions are of the same intensity and meaning as ours, but does it make a difference in a meaningful way? We cannot know if any or all humans experience the same levels and meanings associated with their emotions, but does this make a difference?

As far as ‘equal’ goes, humans can do some things better than animals and animals can do some things better than humans. Think not? Try to arm wrestle a small chimp or try to beat the reflexes of a cat, try to detect a disease using only your nose. Animals are born into the world with little safety and many are immediately required to take care of themselves in every way. Some animals will defend their young at the risk of their own life and some animals, such as cows, will cry out all night when you take away their babies. And a lot of people know animals can be loyal beyond anything you can expect from the human species. Of course, if you were to test an animal to see if it can learn to solve crossword puzzles or simultaneous linear equations they may come up short. But take a pigeon for a long ride and release it, it will come back without the benefit of a map, compass or breadcrumbs—try that with a human!

Animals have lives similar to ours in many ways, but they are not the same. Because of the fact they are not the same as humans most people believe this makes them unequal with humans in the right to life? Is there real justification for this? Is there justification for using and abusing animals? Is there logical, reasonable justification for wearing and eating animals? Or, are there only the unsatisfactory, rationalizations humans make up to defend their actions? Actually, I have heard it said, ‘humans are rational beings—they can rationalize anything they do.’ We will always encounter people who take advantage when they have the power, but when their power is removed, when they are on the receiving end, they immediately beg for mercy.

All too recently it has been believed women are not equal to men and Chinese and Africans are not equal to Europeans. This is what was believed and many people suffered as a result of this belief; many people died as a result of this ‘truth.’ These myths were believed by many of our ancestors and they are still believed by many today; we are just a little more discrete; a little less blatant. Fortunately, I believe some people have ‘learned’ and believe these old ‘truths’ were incorrect and harmful to humans, just as some people believe the old ‘truths’ regarding animals are incorrect. My hope is these people can demonstrate the new truth they have in their minds, with the way they choose to live.

Humans seem to have a need to try to distinguish themselves from all others. Humans think they are better than others based on color, nationality, gender, intelligence, wealth, looks, length of fingernails, species…pretty much anything you can think of. And what this really means is the individual believes they deserve more; they are better than the rest. Or another way of saying it is the others are not equal to them—the others are different, therefore they do not have the same rights.

When people discuss whether animals are equal to humans it is about one thing, just as with slavery—it is about having control over the lives of others for the benefit of oneself—exploitation. Whether it is another color, gender, species or anything else it doesn’t matter. Just as long as it brings benefit to those who want it and are willing to sink low enough, no matter how grotesque, to obtain it. Interestingly, when an entire culture is willing to sink low enough to exploit others, the perception of the egregious behavior is mollified by the sheer number of participants. But the truth is evident in the extent of the damage done to everything and everyone. Like Bertrand Russell says,

“Custom will reconcile people to any atrocity, and fashion will drive them to acquire any custom.”

It seems to me in the people who have been most affected by exploitation, blacks and women particularly, there would be increased sensitivity to all aspects of exploitation. But this doesn’t seem evident to me in the statistics I have seen. This indicates to me that humans do not abhor exploitation; they abhor the exploitation of themselves; their own nationality, their own gender, their own race and so on. Even then it is only because it may impact the individual. Humans don’t really care very much about the exploitation of others . . . any others. We care about ourselves!

It was stated in one of the newspaper comments that animals are just animals. Well yeah, this is what they are. Of course, I don’t mean it in the same way as the person who wrote it. They are horrifically animal like at times and they are very human like at times. But you can say the same thing about humans. The significant difference is the animals cannot choose how they will be—humans can! And animals cannot speak in their own defense—and most humans won’t. People can choose, but not enough do. Many just continue to do whatever they were taught as children, whatever is most comfortable. Sadly, most people use a level of thinking which is not rational when it comes to morality. They just do what makes them feel best, getting away with what they can, regardless of the consequences to anything else. It seems the human trend is to submit to desire rather than conscience.

Much of what people believe to be ‘truth’ in any particular culture is not necessarily based in fact or rational thinking; it is rooted in tradition, it is learned from family and has a huge emotional component. I have found, over many decades, it may be impossible to reason with anyone regarding anything which is learned in this way. This is why we are admonished regarding talking politics and religion in mixed company. Sports and diet can easily be added to this list also. And certainly, to discuss morality regarding animals is treacherous territory, just as was discussing the morality of slavery. President Lincoln, in one of his speeches, asked why it was, regarding slavery, they could not call a wrong thing wrong. He stated if slavery wasn’t wrong, nothing was wrong. I think an intelligent, compassionate individual can make the same claim regarding the exploitation of animals. We should ask the same question today, a century and a half later. Why can we not call a wrong thing wrong?

One of my favorite sayings comes from Thomas Paine ‘A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial illusion of being right . . . ’

People develop belief systems based on what they learn in the early years of their life. Anything learned during the early developmental stages may be very difficult to change, perhaps impossible for most people. And the enigma is whatever you learned to be ‘truth’ is the reference you use throughout your life to determine what is right and wrong. Question—how do you make right choices with incorrect information? It is a loop, and very difficult, nearly impossible to break out of—only a small percentage of people do. It reminds me of some experiments in which they put flying insects into a jar and cover it for awhile. When they remove the lid most of the insects stay inside. They are conditioned, so they continue to do the same thing even though they don’t have to. When I heard one speaker citing this type of experiment he commented that a few pioneers do escape, but most are captive to their own minds. They, like humans, have their reality defined for them and then they live with it, doesn’t matter if it is correct or not.

History reveals that the race, class, gender or species with the power will take advantage of all others in all cases. This is even a problem in a pure democracy in that the majority will always take advantage of the minority, unless checked through a system of protection. But this has been the way of life always. The abuse and use of people and animals for the pleasure of the more powerful has been the norm for the human species. It is all about who has the power at the time, and then who is willing to follow along, doesn’t matter if it is right or wrong. What puzzles me is even when people are aware that what they believe and do may not be right, they tend not to face it if it may create discomfort for them. Those with the power to do so, prey on those who have less power—just look anywhere. And then those who are preyed on—prey on those they can. Sounds like I’m describing the animal kingdom; I’m not!

One person wrote in and responded, ‘Animals are just animals’! By what authority can anyone say this? The answer is ‘arbitrary authority’, arbitrary—human—authority! The same authority which is responsible for atrocities throughout history; the slaughter of Christians and Jews, genocide throughout the world, the suffocation of infants which aren’t boys, the testing of radioactive materials on unsuspecting citizens, the constant stream of lies we are told by governments and corporations—and the list goes on. Who gave the humans the right to do this? The answer is ‘humans’! Just as the new settlers on the North American continent in the seventeenth century gave themselves the right to say the Native Americans, Africans and Chinese were not equal to them. Just as men have said women are not equal to them. Why do they do this? Because they can—it’s just that simple.

The ruling class of people in all nations, including the United States, at all times believes themselves to be better people than the ruled. Just as the man gave himself the right to claim women are inferior to men; not rational, not creative and not strong; people give themselves the right to say animals are not equal and have no rights. Even in the leadership levels of society, the top government officials will refer to the working class Americans, as ‘them.’ We are not quite equal; they think they are superior—and—we keep voting for them.

On the surface most people need to believe the myths; it is necessary to try to justify the incorrect belief of superiority over others; people, animals and the earth. It is necessary so people can live with these warped morals. But, in my lifetime I have come to understand there are some people who feel we need to do better. But societal pressures and family are enough to keep most of them from doing what is right.

Another person once eloquently stated a very revealing truth about humans. He said, “Humans can reconcile themselves to any atrocity.”

If the realities of animal exploitation were to be judged openly and fairly, the support of this practice could be seriously reconsidered by many—especially those who are young enough to not have been brainwashed yet. But it is an integral part of our culture and our economy, as was slavery. A lot of people would surely not want things to change, as they know it would be less comfortable or less profitable for them.

The people of early America, the ancestors of many here today, did not stop slavery. Slavery was sacrificed to this nation’s war to preserve its union. If such a hideous institution as slavery was able to exist in a nation full of so-called religious, freedom-seeking people, how does ‘animal rights’ have any chance at all today? We are emotional beings and we like to be comfortable, and it seems as though it is easier to sacrifice integrity and compassion before comfort. For too many people, in their quest for comfort, the concepts of right and wrong are not as important as are the concepts of legal and acceptable.

Science has informed us the production and consumption of animals is destructive. It is destructive to the animals, the environment and to humans. Fact is at least half of the suffering and death of the American population is related to the production and consumption of animals. And much of environmental degradation is from the production of these animals.

Humans have an almost unalterable tendency to believe, without question, what they were taught as children. Later, these ‘truths’ become the basis from which most adults make their decisions. Everything, every bit of information that stimulates an individual’s nervous system, is then internally modified so it will fit into the individual’s established belief system. This helps me to understand why so many people cannot accept truth when it is presented to them, no matter how well it is supported. But, it makes me wonder how we will ever be able to know the truth when we are not taught it from the beginning, and most cannot overcome what we were taught.

The human species has always been on a roller coaster existence of abusing and being abused. It has been this way and it appears it is going to continue this way. Today we are a little more sophisticated in this country, but here and throughout the world terrible things are happening all the time. I just bring this up to point out we need to change and nothing important will change until we do. I do not believe the human species will ever be able to evolve past its dark tendencies; aggression, anger, conflict, fear, greed and selfishness, until we overcomes the belief we are better and more deserving than anyone or anything else. It is impossible for an individual to be truly compassionate and caring about some things while causing suffering and death to others.

We need to change to become the humans we should be. If we cannot understand and make the right decisions about things as simple and conspicuous as the subject matter here, we don’t have a chance with the complicated stuff.

I feel some sadness for anyone who believes animals are just animals—but even more so—I feel sorry for the animals!

 

Upgrading Civilization

When dealing with traffic-law enforcement there are times when one gets no sense of President Lincoln’s notion that the government is ‘by the people and for the people’. It’s time to make traffic laws more fair, just and democratic, and we have the technology to do so. In a fair and equitable system if one breaks the law and is penalized then everyone breaking the law would be penalized as well—or none would be. This is surely impossible to accomplish, but giving this notion credence raises the bar considerably, giving us a worthy mark to shoot for. The system we have is unfair in many respects and insufficiently democratic for this age. Being of a democratic society, the will of the majority must dictate our laws; and just as important, the majority should determine how the laws are applied.

The basis for this idea is simple; traffic law should apply to all people equally, not just those unlucky enough to get caught. If we drive over the speed limit we break the law, thereby we become criminals, but most are not punished. This system fails us. As it stands it’s grossly unfair, not sufficiently effective and makes us all criminals, prosecuted or not.

Traffic law is for the protection of those using, and those affected by others using, our roadways. But we are penalized arbitrarily by it. Furthermore a good, contributing citizen can be treated the same as those who regularly abuse the system.

With our current system there is no consideration for the conscientious driver and no slack for the occasional misdeed, other than the discretion a police officer may choose to use. Even the police officers must be hurt by this system as it it likely they experience some cognitive dissonance because they are tasked with citing others for what they are guilty of doing themselves.

The most careful and considerate of us  may drive for a decade with no citations then inadvertently drive five miles over the limit and be cited and fined. This is not a just system as it doesn’t discriminate sufficiently between abusive behavior and honest mistakes. There is a difference you know!

Two vehicles may be speeding past the same point one minute apart and only one is cited. Car after car can make Calif. stops and arbitrarily a police officer sees ‘one’ and one is penalized. A rich person and a poor person fined the same for an infraction will experience a different effect from the penalty. In other words, a fine which could buy groceries for the month for a single mother and baby may be pocket change for another. A police officer can choose which people to cite and which not to, which undermines fairness. The legal system gives no credit to the good driver with the clean driving record; one small infraction and you can find yourself being sucked into the system—at least far enough to end up in court. And if you end up in court you are most likely going to pay a fine.

I pulled out of a store parking lot and crossed the street to park at another store. A policeman saw me and cited me for not fastening my seatbelt. My habit was to use my seatbelts as the law requires, but I didn’t think it would be important that time. Putting this into context, I had driven about 300 feet not exceeding ten miles an hour. Considering the relative insignificance of the infraction and my good driving record, along with the fact that I lived in and employed people in the community—made no difference. When I called the police station they told me they gave no preference to anyone—I had violated the law. There was a couple hundred dollar fine in court. The whole thing has a ‘Kill them all; let God sort them out’ quality to it.

I am not suggesting we do away with the laws or even change them at this time, but that we change the way the law is administered. This is not about making the traffic law better this is about treating humans fairly. We must keep in mind that most of the laws are made for us by law makers, not by a popular vote. It is clear in this case, based on the facts of our driving, that the law is not reflecting the will of the majority.

At some point I concluded there must be much better ways of administering traffic law, and this is why I chose to write this. The chance for an improved system to emerge someday strictly depends on how much we desire to live in a world which is more fair and equitable—a world less apt to exploit our good citizens. If we are going to have a chance at improving we must create and support improved institutions.

If you travel the highway regularly you see traffic laws violated and personal safety jeopardized. It is common to see vehicles tail-gating, speeding or changing lanes in a dangerous manner. At times there are multiple vehicles, which seem to be playing risky games. There is a minority which put themselves and others at unnecessary risk, and these need to be dealt with—harshly. But my focus for this essay is for those operating within the context of normal driving, albeit outside the strict letter of the law, while conforming with the majority.

Consider the facts of our situation; many people make Calif. stops and many drive the freeway at 70 or more, instead of 65. So penalizing for this is at least questionable, and most likely—not rational. To be able to recognize this as a mistake in our system requires that we accept that in a democratic society the ‘people’ make the choices, even if by demonstrating what we choose by the way we drive—this is a ‘vote’. It should be up to the bureaucracy to keep up with the people, not the other way around. If we can understand this we can move on to the implementation of a better system. We need a system which accounts for how most of our citizens drive. If most of us drive safely at 70 then some should not be penalized for doing so. If almost all of our citizens make rolling stops then we surely cannot penalize anyone for doing so. But the system does.

In an ideal system any violation of the law would be recorded. But here is where we must begin to discriminate. Whether violations occur within the context and range of normal driving (including driving moderately outside the limits of the law), or in the range of abnormal driving (including driving far outside the average and far outside the limits of the law), would determine how to deal with violations.

The overall change would include more automation and less enforcement personnel. A change of this sort should be relatively easy because cars already have computers. And as long as the vehicle computer system can recognize and record the driver and the relevant aspects of how the vehicle is used, the records would be valid. These records would provide the data for determining which are normal behaviors and which are abnormal. In this system all infractions are noted, but only those which merit such are penalized. And most of this could be done without enforcement personnel because of technology.

As it is, a grandmother driving home from the nursery on a quiet road on Sunday morning will be dragged into court, embarrassed and fined for allowing her car to roll an inch per second at a stop sign. Even changing the stops signs to yield signs would be a vast improvement.

It is readily evident that the system we use misses most violations of the law. We have the technology to improve this institution. Do we have the will?