The Importance Of Balance

I want to demonstrate why a balanced society needs to be comprised of predominantly “average” members. Suppose we have a dozen groups of 12 hens each and are assessing the egg production of each. We start by recognizing the top hen producer in each group. Then we recognize the top group of the 12. Counting the eggs of the top producing hens from each group will produce far more eggs than counting those from the top group. Now, the question is, what would intuitively seem to be the best way to put together 12 hens in order to maximize egg production?

Many will likely say it would be best to place the top hen from each group to maximize production. But this would be wrong. Why? Because this disrupts “nature's equilibrium". Though this strategy seems plausible, actually what happens is anarchy. The top hens of each group are successful because they are the alpha of their group. Fighting inevitably ensues when all the alphas are placed into a single group! Because of this “subversion from within”, little or no eggs are produced.

Now it is true to say dominance in their respective group was responsible for their success, but dominance itself only functions properly when there are relatively few alphas so as to avoid this “butting of heads”! Herein lies the wisdom of a balanced society being comprised of mostly, dare I say, “meager” members. It is only through interaction with so many “meager” hens that allows the top producer of each group to prosper.

The question is, who wants to be but a “meager” member of society? Very few if any though we can reasonably assume this is what most of us are made to be in order to accommodate “nature's equilibrium". This leads to one of the fundamental problems of any society: most rulers are not good rulers because they are not fit to rule, rather they are only overly motivated to do so. Why? Because as I've said before, nobody wants to be merely “average”.

In Socrates Republic, he very nicely explains why a fit ruler should be interested in, above all, what is best for society as a whole (this being comprised of predominantly “meager” members). In this case, should any ruler be perhaps meager himself so as to best relate to and hence best serve his predominantly “meager” citizens? 

On the other hand, what chance might a “meager” ruler have in possessing strong leadership abilities? As is often the case, hardly ever do things go according to what would be ideal (not the least of reasons being the fact that there is no consensus as to what is ideal anyway)*.

Perhaps the best strategy in life might be to be who you are as opposed to attempting to become who you think you ought to be? The question is, who are you?

*This yearning we instinctively have for society to follow one cohesive and ultimately arbitrary ideal is likely where the "idea" of a perfect God originated. For it gives us a sense that "we" have the right answers to everything and that upon death we will be united in our ways with "perfect God"! Contrast this to the alternative of humbly accepting differences in opinions and convictions, many of which are no less right or wrong than others, and attaining peace with this realization. In this sense, we can humbly accept not getting everything OUR way. Of course Burger King would disagree!

In summary, I think it profoundly wise for each class to recognize the importance of the other(s). Though we spend much of our precious resources antagonizing and infuriating one another with our divergent goals and ideals, it seems necessary in order for nature to balance itself properly.

Technology: Good Or Bad?

Many will likely be critical with my contention that technology is neither good nor bad. For how can it not be good that the lifespan of humans in industrialized societies at least has dramatically increased in just the last century, for example?

It is tempting to judge this as good but ultimately our judgment on any given matter is only ever based on something already known or experienced. For example, if the longest any human lived was known to be only 30 years, we would base our judgment on living approximately 30 years. If one attained this age or beyond, this would of course be deemed good. On the other hand, if the longest any human lived was known to be 200 years, a 30 year lifespan would seem tragically short and deemed bad.

It is enticing for the marginalized to see something “better” and label it good or for the fortunate to see something “worse” and label it bad, but this is only due to disparity. This disparity can be analogous to having something good taken away. Once it is seen what can be, this then becomes the de facto standard and of course there is a desire to attain or maintain this good thing.

But it must be pointed out that this thing is not really good. It is only relatively good. In other words, the thing just is.

I want to further express what I am talking about with what will no doubt be a very emotional topic. Let's suppose that due to medical technology, the infant death rate goes from 1 in 5 to only 1 in 5,000. This is good, is it not? But what if we subsequently came across a civilization that experienced an infant death rate of only 1 in a billion? Is 1 in 5,000 still good? What if your child was one of the 1 in 5,000 that perished?

In this case, statistically it is almost certain your child would have survived if the death rate was only 1 in a billion. As such, might you, or anybody else for that matter, now see this death rate as bad?

One might claim that only 1 in 5,000 is good because it is better than 1 in 5. However, when compared to a death rate of only 1 in a billion, it seems bad. Furthermore, it is tragic when any infant dies but is especially so when it is yours! So whether the death rate is 1 in 5 or only 1 in 5,000 or still more impressive only 1 in a billion, if your child dies, none of these is good. Conversely, if your child survives, none of these is really bad either.

Perhaps we could legitimately declare it good when no babies die. Then again, could infant death simply be nature's equilibrium so as to preserve the lives of the greatest number of babies and more generally, and perhaps more importantly, to preserve Life in general? Of course this principle will no doubt be hard to accept especially if your baby dies.

In any case, might it be suggested that nature seems to obey the principle of utilitarianism even with an incredibly delicate issue such as this?

One could similarly draw an analogy to the idea of promoting longevity as an intrinsic moral good. Should we adopt this imperative?* What if this places such a strain on society that it undermines the health and well-being of everybody?

Would it be better for people to live 1)marginally well for 150 years, 2)moderately well for 100 years or 3)phenomenally well for only 50 years? Once again, are the ravages of old age nature's equilibrium so as to best serve Life in general (the proverbial One)?

In summary, it seems wise to avoid imparting judgments and to just accept what is.


*Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?