The Anthropocentricity Of Environmental Conservatism

Many, not by any means limited to those strictly labeled environmentalists, believe it to be a sacredly humane cause to protect dwindling species. But which species are deemed worthy of protection seems so anthropocentric it renders its purported “virtuousness” very suspicious. We readily deem it morally upstanding to protect turtles, birds and many other cute as well as not so cute things, but what about viruses and bacteria which pose problems for “our” longevity?

Many might claim viruses and bacteria are qualitatively different because they are not on the same level as other organisms. And still others will point out the destruction they cause “us”. But ultimately this line of demarcation between what is or is not “worthy” of protection is completely stacked in “our” favor.

Furthermore, there is a stark difference between failing to protect certain species versus taking deliberate actions to eradicate others. Why the animosity toward most viruses and bacteria? And what about “pesky” mosquitoes, which among other things are carriers of malaria? Well, obviously we mean to eradicate them because they pose a threat to “our” survival and well-being and, dare I say, they pose “inconveniences” to our quality of life.

But there are many insects and animals, poisonous snakes for example, that pose problems for “our” longevity but I don't see a global campaign to rid the world of black mambas. Many might naively claim these organisms have just as much “right” to partake in the game we call life as any other organism. In which case viruses and bacteria should also have a “right” to live in order for this argument to remain consistent. Some would go slightly further by arguing that we must “respect” dangerous as well as non-dangerous species because they are part of the balance of “our” ecosystem.

Well, if this is true, why not “respect” the viruses that cause AIDS and malaria? Might it be possible they provide some life-sustaining balance for “our” survival and perhaps other creatures as well? The fact that many people die from these 2 viruses reinforces the utilitarian manner in which nature functions. A relatively small few are routinely sacrificed for the betterment of the whole.

My point is that there seems nothing genuinely “virtuous” about protecting species arbitrarily because it best serves only humanity's needs and desires. Isn't selflessness considered a virtue? Then perhaps we should think less selfishly and think beyond only our needs and desires?

Will someone please stand up for AIDS and malaria! They just want to exist like we do!

Who Doesn't Like Buffet Lines?

Many, especially those of narrow-minded persuasions, claim an “anything goes” approach to religion and truth is akin to picking and choosing from a buffet line. And this is certainly true. But it must be pointed out that even these narrow-minded types are ultimately forced to pick and choose from the same buffet line.

For instance, most Christians do not obsess over choosing what to believe regarding post-tribulation vs. pre-tribulation. But is this not picking and choosing from the buffet line by implying this issue to be superficial and hence unimportant? Maybe it is of utmost importance to God as I am sure a select few would claim? Who really knows? Nobody!

As such, one can only arbitrarily assert that as long as you believe “this” or “that”, the “other” things are superficial and hence unimportant. Religious and other peoples' views on sexuality, acceptable occupations, capitalism, socialism, baptism, political views, environmentalism, racial issues, etc. vary much like all of our plates do in their content as we walk away from the buffet line.

The question is, do these views stem from God or self? If they are from self, this easily explains why so many views are in opposition to one another. On the other hand, if they stem from God, maybe they are all right.

In which case, why do we argue so passionately in favor of "our" individual views if all of them are equally valid? Alternatively, if one view is the pure, unadulterated truth, which one then?

Winning Isn't Everything

Why is it so important which team wins? Why not just accept and embrace whichever team wins? Why can't we all be happy for the winning team? In fact, why limit our happiness for the winning team? Why not be happy with the winning team? Why show partiality? Presumably, each team is just as deserving as the next and, therefore, whichever team wins is the rightful winner. In this way, what is, it seems, is exactly what should be.

Now I am not against winning. I like winning like everybody else, but if I do not, it is of little or no consequence as I still have my identity in myself as opposed to having my identity in being a winner or loser.

I think the insidious effect of this identity in winning or losing (think politics among other things) is it unconsciously encourages the ego to create enemies where they are not. It's that evolutionary mindset hardwired into each of us that tells others you're either with me or against me!

Sadly however, once an "alleged" enemy has been created, it is too late. The "alleged" becomes an enemy by definition. The ego then valiantly “stands its ground” through arguing, fighting, hating, resenting and/or harboring distrust which only serves to perpetuate this friend/foe dichotomy leading to much disharmony and destruction.

The Malady Of Ignorance

Ignorance is not a crime in itself. It does, however, seem to foster it. How?

Ignorance commonly creates hatred or distrust as a by-product. This can then breed any number of crimes.

On the other hand, much of this hatred and distrust breeds no actual crimes. Does this necessarily make it harmless?

I think “secretly” harboring hatred and distrust is very insidious. Jesus taught that “sin” or any other such undesirable action must originate as a thought. Much like those below any hypothetical “line of greed”, it seems many of us have hatreds or distrusts that “evade the radar” as it were.

However, these “thoughts” can actually have a very dangerous effect on society only because they go largely unnoticed. They foster tension that can not be pointed out or “diagnosed”, much like a disease that has no apparent origin.

Would Have, Could Have, Should Have!

Do animals, other than us, ever have regrets? Suppose they do not. In which case, this “thought experiment” just might shed some light on what we humans burden ourselves with so frequently.

 Would have, could have, should have! Certainly this type of thinking can be used to make wiser choices in the future, but how much of our regret is only ever used to make ourselves miserable?

In this sense, regret is nothing but a distraction from experiencing and enjoying the Present moment. Which in the grand scheme of things is all there ever is.

The Paradox Of War

I've never understood the idea of following rules during war as if this was some “Godly” virtue to uphold. After all, the general goal of war is to annihilate the “bad” guys or force their surrender.

When the “good” guys criticize the “bad” guys for not adhering to said rules of war, I can't help but be puzzled. War does not seem inherently moral and therefore I am very suspicious of any claim or insinuation of right(eous)ness within the context of war.

So why would anybody attempt to find right(eous)ness within the context of war? To assert the ego's superiority in right(eous)ness thus providing moral justification for it. But obeying rules makes it very difficult to win when the “bad” guys do not, so it seems as if “dirty” tactics must be employed in order to remain at all competitive.

Many will protest this because it necessarily involves unfair and cruel strategies. This implies there exists some righteous manner in which to approach war. But I do not believe there is. Refer to the beginning of this discussion and notice the circularity of this argument.

And herein lies the dilemma. I am not saying “we” should never go to war. I simply reject the idea of proclaiming or at least implying right(eous)ness within the context of war and recommend doing whatever need be to win if winning is the ultimate goal. Suffice it to say, I don't think any entity would willingly engage in war if victory was not its ultimate goal.

Now I will ask this of myself. If I was in a situation where I had to fight in a war, would I use “dirty” tactics such as using a child as a shield to tip the scale in my favor? I believe strongly I would not. But why would I not as per my prior argument? Because it is not in my nature to do such a thing. My reason for refraining from such “dirty” tactics is not because I am consciously or unconsciously trying to figure out a “righteous” manner in which to partake in the war, rather it is just not in my nature to do such a thing.

Furthermore, if I had to fight in a war, my ultimate goal would not be to win. Rather, my ultimate goal in a war or in life generally is to just "be myself”. That is why I would not likely use “dirty” tactics. And that is also why I would not be a devoted soldier ready and willing to unquestionably follow orders. Albert Speer and other Nazi officers were strongly condemned for using this excuse!

Concerning war, the paradox is thus: wars are only ever fought over conflicting moral imperatives but the mere act of war is so immoral it becomes complete madness to try to “force” moral imperatives immorally!* War is an evolutionary mindset built upon a contradiction. It is the pinnacle of insanity!

*Perhaps it would elicit less disagreement and anger by suggesting that when uncalled for (this itself seemingly dubious in many instances), war is neither "moral" nor "immoral" as opposed to suggesting it as altogether "immoral". The point of restating war thusly is to make clear that those "forced" into an uncalled for war are NOT "immoral" (necessarily, at least), rather they are neither "moral" nor "immoral". Notice this still precludes any entity from ever claiming right(eous)ness within the context of war because it can only be right(eous) when it is moral. Since morality is precluded within the context of war, it can never be said that the action of war is right(eous). It can at best be neither "moral" nor "immoral", at worst, altogether "immoral"**.

**It seems so unfair to deny an otherwise "moral" entity from being so within the context of an uncalled for war. And of course, it is. Much like the entire class "suffering" for the adolescent antics of a few "immoral" classmates, so too do "innocent" bystanders "suffer" when dragged into conflicts they did not ask to partake in. Lest you forget, LIFE ISN'T FAIR!

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black

Many on the conservative “right” exasperatingly claim how the liberal “left” controls the media and by doing so instill nothing but fear in their constituents concerning what the “other” side is doing to destroy society.

But are not the pundits on the “right” claiming Barack Obama will create a fascist, totalitarian society instilling fear in their constituents just the same? It seems the pot is calling the kettle black.

This kind of double standard is inevitable when minds become completely ensnared in political ideology based on absolute beliefs. When it is believed a single perspective can effectively address every difficult issue we face as a society, it is impossible not to succumb to this kind of hypocrisy!