Ahead of the curve
In a recent comment, Nils from Planetkyoto writes
When even the idealistic young ecologist is as cynical as the rest of us SOBs, what chance do any of us have?
Fear not readers! I am cynical, yes, but only because I have to know what I am buying in to.
What I have been "testing" with my cynicism is my own motivations. Sometimes I forget why I am here, and what is important. I feel insecure about my own reasons. I try to shield my real, subjective, "heart" reasons with logical arguments about why it is important to take care of the ecosystem. I go so far as to say that a main reason I am here is not for some sappy belief or heart-felt desire to "save the earth", but rather because I don't like to "feel stupid".
Thanks to my cynicism however, I think I have discovered that trying to cover all my bases with logical excuses may be safer for my ego and may help me to feel "accepted" by a few more people, it is probably not the most efficient way to bring about change. I have to admit to myself that much of the reason I am here is simply because I believe it is right and good, and there is nothing to back up that belief. There is no irrefutable logic or science that will prove my belief is not wrong. I just believe.
I believe that there are some really beautiful things out there, and that we should not destroy them -I believe this not for some scientific, logical reason relating to human survival, but simply because trees and birds, and soil and rocks are amazing and worthy of our respect. I believe that life is worth living because of the connections we make to each other and to the natural world we live in, not because of a camera or computer, car, CD, or mp3. I believe that everyone has a right to live a quality life -meaning they have the right to strive to meet their needs as they see fit. Yet, I believe that if we have one obligation to each other, and to the rest of the natural world, it is that we live within the simple rules which govern our entire system (something like thermodynamics). I don't believe that there will ever be a world without suffering and degradation, but I do believe that we should strive for it anyway, and I believe that in doing so more people (though not everyone) will be happier.
I don't have anything to prove that my beliefs are worth a crap in a pot (I just made that little phrase up!). It's just a feeling, but I also believe that until I stop being ashamed of feeling something I can't justify with logic, I will never be able to move forward with that belief, never be able to make something come of it.
Ahhhhhhhhh. Having said that, as vulnerable as that makes me feel, knowing that I can't prove my stance is right, and that my values are the "right" values, I also feel quite liberated. Now I can stop wasting so much time trying to validate my values (although I also know I must never stop questioning my belief) and I can start working toward fulfilling my goals. I can start working toward realizing my vision, my unscientific, unproven vision. I don't need everyone to agree, I don't even need many people to agree. I believe that I have something that can help those who want to be helped, and I believe that as time goes on, more and more people will realize that yes, we do need help. We do need to change our ways. I believe I can be ready for that, and then I will be able to help more people. I believe that people will eventually come to realize this. I guess I believe I am ahead of the curve.
Damn that feels good.
Comments
Now that's some logic I agree with!
Not that it matters if I agree.
Posted by: mandy | May 21, 2005 04:12 AM
I think you might enjoy Peter Singer's Practical Ethics. He sets out a simple, but imo strong, basis for an ethical view which does provide logical support for many, if not all, of the beliefs you are talking about. For instance, I no longer eat meat essentially because I cannot refute Singer's argument against eating meat.
Singer is mainly controversial, I think, because people who have not read him have strong opinions on his work (and perhaps because he courts controversy, seeing that the "celebrity professor" is a pretty lucrative role). I find his version of utilitarianism, and in particular his basic premises for an ethical worldview, to be very useful in articulating why I hold many of my beliefs (which are broadly similar to your own).
Posted by: sennoma | May 21, 2005 06:25 AM
Mandy, you know your agreement means the world to me! I can't go on without it. (unless the topic is hunter-gatherers.)
Senoma, thanks for the tip. Judging from the mixed revues on amazon, it looks like something I would be interested in. I will check it out when I get back to Japan (I dont want any more books to have to cary back!)
Posted by: kevin | May 21, 2005 07:58 AM
On the top shelf of my bookshelf, reserved for the best of the best, is DeTocqueville's "Democracy in America." After noting in the introduction that "This whole book was written under the impulse of a kind of religious dread," he writes (in the 1830s) that ideally, "Each man, having some rights and being sure of the enjoyment of those rights, there would be established between all classes a manly confidence and a sort of reciprocal courtesy, as far removed from pride as from servility. Understanding its own interests, the people would appreciate that in order to enjoy the benefits of society one must shoulder its obligations...each man being equally weak would feel a like need for the help of his companions, and knowing that he would not get their support without supplying his, he would easily appreciate that for him private interest was mixed up with public interest."
So much for idealism. At least three people in Kyoto are driving Hummers.
Posted by: nils | May 24, 2005 02:09 AM
See how easy it is to blame someone else.
Posted by: nils | May 24, 2005 02:11 AM