It is the full measure, goal, or meaning
to human existence to be summed up in one's position (as in one's
job) and one's possessions (principally a plot of land and shelter); in other
words, is the freedom to pursue personal comfort, pleasure, and take
advantage of any personal lucky break that might come one's way, as well
as go after some perceived sense of individual security, (whether
real or just perceived), is this the sum total of human existence?
If the answer to the above question is
yes, and it certainly seems for most it is, it seems logical to ask what
might the consequences be for as many billions of people as there are on
the planet pursuing these goals as relatively isolated individuals and
small families? How will this situation relate to such issues as health,
economic fairness, overpopulation, war, freedom, the environment and so
on? It would seem one could be pretty sure that in a world that is
totally dedicated to the individual pursuit of wealth and pleasure, not
too many people are thinking about anything other than this pursuit and
themselves. And so the human dilemma continues on relatively unabated.
When it is pointed out that this could have disastrous consequences,
there are always some sort of beliefs religious or otherwise, to explain
or rationalize it all away; or there is the completely uncompassionate
point of view that says human suffering doesn't matter, and that if one
suffers it must be one's own fault.
Life is a strongly positive affair attesting to the wonderfulness of life and the power of love.
At the same time the question arises: is there not a need for
fundamental or radical change-both personally and on a societal level? This
question asked by many, both past and present, relates to many issues
such as war, crime,
injustice, freedom, disease, personal happiness, destroying and fouling our
environment, and making decisions now that will affect future
generations (potentially) thousands of years into the future......to
name just some of the issues.
Regardless of the answer to this
question, what if one's culture, or one gender or the other....in a
particular culture decides that discontent, and deep questioning
of the culture and its ethics is politically,
socially or personally "incorrect"? What if one's culture, or one
gender
or the other says: "going
along" is the only respectable, or acceptable response? Obviously,
bringing on fundamental change will be difficult, if not impossible.
The tremendous amount of activity taking
place on the planet at this time (both positive and negative)
attests to human beings tremendous personal ambition and love of life.
This "going along" with things as they are, is not that hard
to do as it basically only requires
personal ambition and love. Obviously this "going along" can
offer a degree of "opportunity" and relative happiness........albeit opportunity
and relative
happiness that is basically within the bounds imagined, prescribed, sanctioned and
permitted by the culture one happens to be living in. It is entirely
possible that a great deal of humanity today, (being culturally conditioned through the pressures and circumstance of
isolation, tradition, group pressure, culture, economics, modern propaganda and media
conditioning), has no idea (or even any interest
any longer) what
life could actually be......or has been for some cultures at various times in
history. And if they are told, they simply refuse to acknowledge the
reality for the obvious contradictions that reality would
reveal about one's own life, and that of one's culture.
Certainly the expectation that all will have a nice comfortable
corporate, institutional or government job that one can do for a certain
number of years, and then retire comfortably is certainly coming to an
end for most.
The kind of change that would offer a
fundamental improvement requires personal
ambition and love for sure, but it also requires a more cultural
approach; in other words group unity,
consensus and a courageous, pioneering spirit. So the
"million-dollar question", or
questions are: is this change possible, and if so, what form should it
take?
What's interesting is when asked if there
should be change, many if not most will answer in the affirmative. However, when it comes to ideas about
what to do, there are few suggestions, except very cursory ones. And if
the ideas put forth are at all significant and fundamental, which
generally translates into revolutionary, there is little courage to
sustain their implementation or at least give them a try. Most
want to stay with the known, comfortable and seemingly secure.
Yet is the "comfortable known and
secure" really
all that comfortable, and all that secure? Apparently, if we can believe what
most say, but the statistics hardly bear this out. Drug abuse,
depression, oppressive economics, ill health, crime, war, destruction of
the environment and on and on. If the immediate response is "I don't want
to solve your problems, I only want to solve my own problems" I believe one is missing a fundamental aspect of the human situation:
we are inexorably
tied together whether we like it (or believe it) or not. This
philosophical battle, often expressed as capitalism versus socialism or
communism has obviously cost millions of lives and
is immature and ignorant. These words, which supposedly represent such high ideals
are all, in reality, huge generalizations and oversimplifications which,
in reality, hide terrible injustice, gross contradictions and outright
falsehoods regarding both capitalism and communism.
The proposal, which follows in this
website defies simple generalizations and characterizations (if one
takes the time to study it and ask questions). It is neither
entirely communistic, or capitalistic and though it is socialistic in a
sense, it is a voluntary socialism amongst those who freely choose to
associate and commit to certain goals and ethics. It is not
socialist in the sense of demanding others live in a certain way, only
that all be given the opportunity to live as they wish as long as it
doesn't interfere with the quality of life of others. If one has studied
various socio-economic theories (and they are all
theories until humanity is without wars and prisons), one
will see various aspects here involving these various different ideas
and practices. If there is one overriding aspect of this
proposal that makes it unique, it is it's dedication to individual
freedom and yet seeing that path to individual freedom as being most
successfully achieved through the sharing all major resources regarding
housing, basic utilities and self-sufficient food production.
