Saturday, February 28, 2009

~Equilibrium Equality~ Not Just a Myth but a Principle!

The Stanford student is hoping his grandchildren can come out with the same, or something close to, experience he had when servicing. In a broader aspect, this goal is respectable. He wishes most people would be allowed that same mentality, however, I see this as a set back towards trying to eliminate the problem. The “”efforts at a long-term change,” seem to be centered around eliminating problems 50+ years down the road. What I think society has a misconception to begin with is the bureaucracy of the situation; standing up now, encouraging others too also, will lead to quicker results, if not immediate.
This ideal principle that people have the option to do service, have the drive to participate and help, now everyone knows of it, let alone cares enough to even try it out, yet we plan for this big change to happen down the road that can miraculously quash all these problems. No one thinks of the implications of the little things, these small ripples we create, and how, if just a bit more effort was spent, dramatic alterations to our future, or the path we are walking now, would change.
If we could give, and I mean to set up a democratic situation where volunteering, aiding your community, or even just spending time with your family was a necessary and easily obtainable option, I think the means to justify ourselves to help one another would be so close it would hit us in the face. The problem with this thinking is people don’t want to give up their hard-earned work schedules to make less money to struggle and worry about bills getting paid, put food on the table, or the simple commodities like taking a vacation every now and then so they can help others. I know the mentality is kind of harsh, but human beings are greedy. We are a race so infatuated with our own mental capacity that we profit off the ideas and advancements of one another. In my opinion, not too much will change in the near future because of these “needs” and wants of people in all levels of society. We have already doomed ourselves for failure.
Hypothetically, and this has to be “out-of-the-box” thoughts, making greed a primary factor which caused this to happen, my theory is nothing can change with the rise and decline of a lower, middle, and upper class of people. This statement basically says that the ideologies of the poor, the middle, or upper classes we have, ourselves, brought into being, are the crucial linchpin of our demise. Our benevolence is meaningless in the end when a majority of the world is fighting to survive. If change were ever to happen, and it can, the implications and applications would have to me monumental. Our very existence would have to rely on a form of replenishable resource, or sociological advancement that could be a turning point in human evolution. What I am saying is we would eliminate the middle man for marketing foods, energy, or housing, and focus on the knowledge of the world, pushing past anything we currently have and propelling ourselves into the fountain of growth as a species who has surpassed all others.
Broad I know, but you see where I am going with this that the world would need to experience a calamity at catastrophic levels to create the equilibrium point of human compatibility. This is a very high hope, but at the rate we progress, thinking economically, population growth, and the general “well-being” of others, our time of relative cleanliness is going to plummet into a toxic wasteland of our own doing. We are killing our fuel, our home, our principles as human beings and in-turn, will end up dropping off the very chain of existence before this change can happen that will turn us into a newer aspect of life.
Spiritual Involvement to our fellow man is what we need to fight for. And repeat after me!... "OOOOOhhhMMMMMMMMM"

-Sorry I am morbid in my thoughts, I just “calls it like I sees it” lol.


Tzim said...

I've been saying this for a long time now, that something awful would have to happen on a grand scale to the people before any major change will occur. As to being morbid, I've always said that the only thing that will shock the inhabitants to drasticaly change there ways would be mass death, talking hundreds of thousands to you're not the only one. If you've ever read Fight Club, that's kind of what Tyler Durden was going for, except he didn't want to kill people be he wanted to cause that mass shock from his planned catastrophes.

Dr. V said...

I agree that we need to do something now but I don't what a major tragedy to happen in order for this to come about but sometimes it has to happen. For example Katrina, the gov't knew that levies were going to break down but until it happened and people all over the world saw it on T.V. then the bureaucrats finally did something. A little to late. Has it gotten better in NOLA. No, they still have huge problems and the people we worked with over three years ago, are still without their homes. Can we make a difference, yes, by getting the stories out.

Lewis Jr. said...

Very interesting Jeremy. I never knew you had such deep thoughts about societies current living conditions. You make a very interesting point. I agree that unless people are personally affected change is doubtful. I guess we have to rely on Ghandi's perspective that people are naturally good and be the change we want to see.

Lyndsey Grinstead said...

Your blogs always are very insightful, I do agree with you that we have become too involved with our own problems to realize the fact that we "doomed ourselves for failure." But I do agree with what Lewis said, good people do exist and we can't lose hope.