Seems that we have our two opposite ends of the continuum. Therefore we all fall somewhere in between. None of us is so extreme that we are neither one nor the other, we are mixtures of both. If that is the case then my argument is that we should be more sharing than selfish. Why? First, because there are few resources for everyone to be completely satisfied in selfishness. There just are not enough of everything to go around, unless we share and then we will still not have enough. But at least we will be doing our best since we cannot create our own realities while we all exist in the same one. The argument for not sharing and instead being selfish is that somehow a concept of deserves comes into play based upon our previous history in all paradigms of human interaction. We fall back on the model of competitiveness, motivations and ego in order to justify that we deserve while others don't. Obviously this is a simple answering in our minds when the truth of it is that the complexity is beyond our own disinterested attempts at rationale. To find selfishness acceptable we must keep ourselves linked to the survival of the fittest meme and all of it's pernicious outcomes. Certainly we have evolved from crude animal behavior when we were unable to reason with consistency. We attacked in order to survive as a life being. That is no longer the case in our present evolution. We don't need to assess each other as resources to be used. We can now reason together in order to find commonalities and build upon those. The concept of sharing is reasonable since would any of us in our hearts of hearts declare that some human beings are less a human species than another? Are we capable of accepting all members of our species as equal? Yes, and sharing what we have justifies that and creates a new history for us to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment