“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.”
Abraham Lincoln
In my last two articles I had written about Idealism in the light of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change. I received a number of comments and views. A trend seemed to be prevalent that if you were for climate protection you were an idealist and if were on the other side you were a realist.
I felt that at Copenhagen and outside, amongst the cacophony of noise, between opposing camps, the voice of reason has been lost. There was a debate between two opposing camps. There was no debate between right and wrong. Global warming was discussed purely from an economic point of view.
Take the threat of global warming towards the melting of the ice caps and retreat of fresh water glaciers. While this is greatly debated by all, the common man who needs the natural river flow for his very survival is just ignored in the big picture. The BRIC countries might have reached some vague compromise with the US, however what China and India need to realize is that the reduction in fresh water from the Himalayas effects most of Asia, South Asia and South East Asia which is home to almost 50% of the worlds population. If they do not save their fresh water source they have a huge challenge in front of them.
This is not the first type of argument between opposing camps. The end of the Second World War saw the competition between socialism/communism and capitalism. The end of the cold war saw the quiet demise of communism. Even China has forsaken communism for some quasi capitalism, and Russia has embraced capitalism whole-heartedly.
So while capitalism may rejoice in its seeming victory, the recent global depression highlighted the fragile nature of capitalist structures. The unchecked greed would have been very damaging were it not for the common taxpayer who ended up bearing the burden of the follies of a few. So while a vast majority suffered, a few thrived.
All this just highlights one point that most of us are trapped in an enclosed thought process without the ability or the desire to differentiate between right and wrong. What we need to do is look inward and transform ourselves. As the Buddha said:
“All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?”
If mankind could be compared to Icarus, the similarity would be striking. Just as Icarus made wings of wax to flee Crete and gain Independence, mankind is polluting the world to escape poverty. Unfortunately Icarus had a grim ending, as he rose higher, the sun melted his wings which were made of wax and he plunged to his doom. Will the same befall humanity?
This is not the first type of argument between opposing camps. The end of the Second World War saw the competition between socialism/communism and capitalism. The end of the cold war saw the quiet demise of communism. Even China has forsaken communism for some quasi capitalism, and Russia has embraced capitalism whole-heartedly.
So while capitalism may rejoice in its seeming victory, the recent global depression highlighted the fragile nature of capitalist structures. The unchecked greed would have been very damaging were it not for the common taxpayer who ended up bearing the burden of the follies of a few. So while a vast majority suffered, a few thrived.
All this just highlights one point that most of us are trapped in an enclosed thought process without the ability or the desire to differentiate between right and wrong. What we need to do is look inward and transform ourselves. As the Buddha said:
“All wrong-doing arises because of mind. If mind is transformed can wrong-doing remain?”
If mankind could be compared to Icarus, the similarity would be striking. Just as Icarus made wings of wax to flee Crete and gain Independence, mankind is polluting the world to escape poverty. Unfortunately Icarus had a grim ending, as he rose higher, the sun melted his wings which were made of wax and he plunged to his doom. Will the same befall humanity?
Will he have the sense to differentiate Right from Wrong?
4 comments:
Sunil,
Excellent point.
On terms of ideas, those international meetings usually have an enviroment of political power contest instead of discussing the real problem.
I do not completely agree with Mr. Costa (Alkol) when talking about Brazil's economical initiative on ethanol. Ethanol is the main cause of what Brazilians call "desertificação verde" (green desertification) taking lands from farming activities to produce cane, and (also) do not solve the problem of cars CO2 emissions.
Of course the natural impacts of cane cultures are different from oil extraction and I'm not qualified to go deep in this aspect.
I think Copenhagen summit, just like most part of initiatives so far is not a matter of reason, but a lack of good ideas and intentions.
Danilo Veras
www.gtvadvogados.com.br
Sunil,
you asked me to post my comment on your blog, so here goes...
You're absolutely right. "Isms" create preconceived ideas, ideologies take preference over practical concerns. The problem is, once you believe in one thing, you automatically disregard anything that doesn't agree with that point of view. My own main point of concern is how "isms" try to battle science and logic.
I'm hoping this will be the century in which people will learn to keep an open mind up until the day they die.
It's not that people have lost a sence of right and wrong, it's just that right and wrong are completely different according to one's "ism". But, being confronted with other "isms", people tend to cling on to their own ideology to maintain a sense of identity. You'll believe in something a lot more once other people criticize your beliefs. The more hostile or alien your surroundings are, the more you cling to what reaffirms your identity and ideology.
Keep your mind open and think for yourself, that's my message.
Bob Kardolus
Amsterdam
Different people have different ideas of what is right and what is wrong. These values are tied to ones cultural ethos. The selfish gene leans to selfish interests. Altruism is not only rare; it is on the endangered species list. If you want full cooperation you must sell the idea as beneficial to the party or parties involved.
The current model is to inject a terror component wherein fear is tied to consequences. A classic example that worked for years was MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction.
In your particular case I can think of a specific example. I live in a water rich area and no citizen wants to share this by allowing the United Nations to co-opt our national sovereignty to create a special UN park to protect this natural resource. They attempted to do so.
They lost the battle but I expect any country jealously eyeing another’s natural assets will first try a claimed altruistic litigation and subversion followed by financial sanctions and war.
At this time, we figure our current natural parks system governing this resource is doing its job and we don’t need outsiders coming in and taking over.
Therefore, your reasoning is certainly justified by your ideologies and values just as you can see that mine are.
The Copenhagen climate summit was largely about climate not “water”. For example, China rejected American calls for its emissions to be independently monitored, and was also resisting plans for a worldwide agreement to halve emissions by 2050.
Now why do you think they would disagree? Because the USA is trying to prevent legitimate oil pipeline agreements between China, Iran and Russsia. This kind of political backdoor dealing reaches directly into another nations soverign rights directly affecting their economies and that is the percieved problem.
On the other hand, we could talk about the Kashmir conflict and the potential of India building dams which would cutoff the irrigation in Pakistan as a serious diplomatic issue but I do not think this water rights problem falls under the Copenhagen climate summit.
Whatever our position, “…it seems that human nature will out. Quite often people walk away from a disagreeable conversation rapidly assigning a negative niche or pigeon-hole to the one they may have (outwardly) politely dismissed. This kind of internal rejection is usually because our existing intellectual house has a foundation, walls, roof, doors and windows that shelter us, keep us warm or cool. But of greater significance; only letting in the amount of light (or B.S.) we desire. The merit or (lack of it) put forth in any proposals by those considered as interlopers are rarely fairly weighed in the balances. And considering the cost, who wants to listen to a persistent annoying salesman promoting house renovations when our payment is low and our existing ‘house’ seems to be doing its job?” Pg 23-24 of “Salvage, When Salvation Fails” (2009)
Well I agree but I dream the brief should secure more info then it has.
Post a Comment