|
39: Where are we leading
ourselves
Since we all influence the course of humanity through the decisions we make, do we know where we are leading ourselves? For example, is it our goal to be a peaceful species or do we want to exist within a constant state of war? Of course, it's easy to just say that we lead a life of peace without really thinking about it. We can just accept someone else's definitions and procedures for peace and then close our minds to any other thoughts. Choosing between peace and war is not an attempt to define a strict course of action. It is just one example of different goals we have to choose from. We have the ability to make our decisions and guide our lives according to our choice of peace or war as our goal. 38: Is war our basic human nature Is a life of peace or a life of war something we individually choose? Some people believe we must always fight within a war of all against all. Our basic human nature has been claimed to be a constant state of war. Scientific evidence is often cited to prove that humans are naturally aggressive, violent and intolerant of others. Human beings certainly are capable of living a life of war and currently do. If our basic human nature forces us into a life of war, how do so many people manage to live a life of peace? Do these people have magical powers allowing them to overcome the forces of nature? Our basic human nature also includes elements of peace. Survival has been achieved peacefully throughout history. Human beings are capable of living a life of peace and currently do. If we really want to put a label on our basic human nature, we should look for something that is common in every human being. The human species has the ability to think about life. Since we all have the ability to think and make decisions, this rare quality partly defines us as a species. A life of war shouldn't be labeled as our basic human nature. War is just one possible reaction to our ability to think. Many people think about life and choose to react peacefully. We all have the ability to choose between a life of peace or a life of war and that is why it is such an important decision to make. 37: Does survival of the fittest force us into war Some people think the survival of the fittest theory means that only the strongest species and individuals survive. Fighting for food and water within a "war of all against all" is claimed to be a natural goal. The notion follows that the winners of this harvest war are superior and represent the natural selection of evolutionary champions. Imagine a family that always eats together. During each meal, there are ample amounts of food prepared so everyone can be adequately nourished. If the family exists in peace, then the family members will allow each other to meet their individual needs. The family will realize that all of the food is required so none of the food is foolishly wasted. Each member of the family will have enough to eat. The family will consume the meal while sharing information, telling jokes and feeling secure. If the family exists in war, the family members will grab the food with no regard for each other. The stronger members of the family will be able to control more food than they need. They will not be concerned if some of their food is foolishly wasted or excessively consumed. Each member of the family will not have enough to eat. The fact that strength can overpower weakness is a natural law. Throwing a rock as hard as we can at someone's head will cause an injury or even death. Since it is a natural law, should we walk around throwing rocks at other people's heads? We also use natural laws in our ability to swim. We can't teach someone to swim by only explaining the natural law of our bodies pushing against the water. A person would thrash violently in the water until drowning by only knowing this one physical law. If we really want to teach someone
how to swim, we will explain how the natural laws are applied.
Swimming is only achieved through the cooperation of an individual
and the water. Body parts push against the water according to
natural law, but the natural laws are applied according to the original
goal of swimming. A tiny change in how we choose to apply natural
laws makes a huge difference between thrashing in the water until
drowning and achieving the wonderful feeling of swimming. In order to survive as a species, do we have to establish dominance over everything else? The survival of the fittest concept does have considerable merit in evolutionary terms. Species are in a constant struggle to maintain a role within Earth's community of life. The word fit doesn't always mean strong. We are only fit for survival if we fit within the balance of a healthy circle of life. The survival of the fittest theory does not mean that the strongest will survive in a competition producing a single champion. If this were true, then our human bodies and Earth would only consist of components that had previously defeated the weaker components of the body. Instead, after lengthy evolutionary struggles, our human bodies and Earth's community of life are full of diverse and fragile components that are all crucial to a healthy existence. In terms of being fit for survival on Earth, should we rely more on our muscles or on our minds? Humanity will be considered "fit" for survival on Earth only if we are wise enough to cooperate within the overall balance of Earth's community of life. We can choose to live in peace. We
can exist as a peaceful species while sharing information, telling
jokes and feeling secure. It is our decision to make. |