I'm listening to Black Eyed Peas, Don't Lie and Union. Also Creedence Clearwater (did you know they went to my highschool), Who'll Stop the Rain. That song seems pertinent considering all the hurricanes recently.
Here's a poem I encountered that I really like, from William Wordsworth:
CHARACTER OF THE HAPPY WARRIOR
Who is the happy Warrior? Who is he
Whom every Man in arms should wish to be?
-- It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his childish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That make the path before him always bright:
Who, with a natural instict to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn;
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there,
But makes his moral being his prime care;
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human-nature's highest dower;
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives;
By objects, which might force the soul to abate
Her feeling, rendered more compassionate;
Is placable because occasions rise
So often that demand such sacrifice;
More skilful in self-knowledge, even more pure,
As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.
'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
Upon that law as on the best of friends;
Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
To evil for a guard against worse ill,
And what in quality or act is best
Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
He fixes good on good alone, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows:
-- Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim;
And therefore does not stop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honors, or for worldly state;
Whom they must follow; on whose head must fall,
Like showers of manna, if they come at all:
Whose powers shed round him in the common strife,
Or mild concerns of ordinary life,
A constant influence, a peculiar grace;
But who, if he be called upon to face
Some awful moment to which heaven has joined
Great issues, good or bad for human-kind,
Is happy as a Lover; and attired
With sudden brightness like a Man inspired;
And through the heat of conflict keeps the law
In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
Or if an unexpected call succeed,
Come when it will, is equal to the need:
-- He who, though thus endued as with a sense
And faculty for storm and turbulence,
Is yet a Soul whose master bias leans
To home-felt pleasures and to gentle scenes;
Sweet images! which, wheresoe'er he be,
Are at his heart; and such fidelity
It is his darling passion to approve;
More brave for this, that he hath much to love:
'Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
Or left unthought-of in obscurity,
Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not,
Plays, in the many games of life, that one
Where what he most doth value must be won;
Whom neigher shape of danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:
Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth
Or He must go to dust without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name,
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause;
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
Whom every Man in arms should wish to be.
I feel like it might be missing something. Maybe something about the importance of friendship and community. But maybe that could be incorporated into the man's (or woman's) values, seen in the lines '
Plays, in the many games of life, that one
Where what he most doth value must be won;
Yet it amazes me that he can put to words thoughts like these.
I watched a good show recently on the state of health in the world called Rx for Survival: Global Health. I did not know that people can, by a concerted and collective effort, eradicate some diseases (such as small pox or polio). Unfortunately new and deadly multi-resistant strains are cropping up. Research in health is a good investment of money.
I also watched a similar show on the same public TV channel a few weeks prior about the state of world hunger. I didn't know before then that we've (collectively, from a rational standpoint) had it within our means to end world hunger (or at least put a serious dent in it) since the time of JFK. I've always thought this was something over-idealistic people wished for.
A certain researcher featured on the show quantified his work as dollars spent per lives saved, and it was estimated to be something like one life per dollar, or perhaps four dollars. Regrettably, his research facility was in constant need of funding. (What gains such a facility produced!) From what I remember, for one year's funding, it required roughly the same amount as the cost to build one bomber. This irritated me to consider that if our priorities were even a little less skewed towards military and protecting ourselves, we could be saving thousands upon millions of lives. If I look at myself, I stand guilty, since I often slip into a state of focus on myself when, by giving that focus to others I'd be helping them. It is not to neglect or denigrate oneself, but simply to think about others (well-being) more often (more frequently, more consistently, for longer periods of time). Just as I can shift my focus from myself to others, government can do the same for this country.
Research in producing environmentally sustainable agricultural techniques is also a good and practical way for governments to spend money. In addition, there are some obvious and easy steps governments can take towards fixing the bottlenecks that stand between the food that is produced and it actually getting to people in need.
Lastly I watched a show on global warming (same channel once more, ah ha). Environmental sustainability I also view as a remarkably wise investment, considering the havoc nature will begin to wreak if the earth's regulatory mechanisms fall out of whack. Consider that the cost to fix natural catastrophes will soon outweigh any of the short term gains businesses needed to make or that the economy required to remain stable. Even if you consider that a business must cut costs by ruining the environment, it is infinitely more worth it for the environment to be spared and for that business to go out of business. From a humanistic standpoint, it may not be infinitely more worth it, but I'd still say that people (especially those of us whose decisions affect these matters) could at least care enough to be smarter in what we do. And if the businesses don't care, then they deserve to go out of business. Even if I or my family were part of such a business, I'd rather see the business fail than see us continue selfishly in a manner that jeopardizes lives and the health of others in the long run.
But in the above reasoning, when do you let something that is failing actually fail? What if it happens in small increments, while there always remains a presence of hope? How could you betray that hope by letting yourself fail, even if it temporarily costs others? Put another way, where would you draw the line? Maybe what's most important is that you do draw a line. Otherwise, what might end up happening is that you'd suffer the fate of the frog that's boiled. You know the story - the frog is placed in a pot of lukewarm water. The water is very gradually heated and the frog never detects the change until it's too late and it is boiled. What is nobler still though, than drawing a line, is making a statement by one's actions, and with the resources that one has, which helps solve the problem, or at least a problem.
Obviously I don't live by such a statement as the one two paragraphs above. I hardly do at all. It does show the extent I feel about this matter though. I always have a problem with pinning responsibility on any one entity. The only person I can with certainty claim as responsible is myself. I hope that I'd be willing to face the music for what I've truly done. I'd like to make a comment however. In general the people who cause trouble may not be the ones who can do anything to change the situation. The people who can do something to change things are often remote enough from the problem that they won't have to care about it in their lifetime. Or perhaps they really aren't aware of it. And this is bad when the problem is such that, once it occurs in someone's lifetime, it will be too late to fix, like a Pandora's box. If it gave no warning signs at all, we wouldn't have much hope. Humanity in that case would be like a baby learning to crawl, that ends up crawling off a cliff. We already tempt our destruction with the existence of nuclear weapons thousands of times more destructive than the atomic bomb. Fortunately, I'm optimistic and believe that there is hope. I believe the ones who matter most in such an equation are the ones who have the power to change things but don't necessarily care. Their authority is ultimately dependent on the people around them. (This is because, I don't think you can morally have authority over something without being invested in it yourself. Even if you exist independently of it's survival, if you wish to claim authority, you have to be invested in it. If not, it would fight or reject you.) Therefore, if and when opinion shifts, like an avalanche, it would force them to adapt to a different set of practices which means a greater consideration for the environment. This is just one way I can imagine things might go. A pessimist might say opinion could very well shift only after there's no one left to hold an opinion. | 