nANIMOv

People always look to the past to validate present actions. We look to the Bible to tell us what’s right and what wrong. We look to the Constitution. We look to our ancestors. But just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s good. The world is ever changing and our approach to life needs to change with it.

The people who wrote the Bible had no conception of modern problems and neither did the framers of the Constitution. You could argue some things are timeless and absolute, but that to me is just plain lazy. That mindset ignores the complexities of reality.

Example: Climate change is bad. Deforestation is a big contributing factor. Therefore people who cut down trees are bad and should be condemned.

It’s easy to place blame on them and shame them for being morally deficient.

But, what if those people are cutting down trees to pay medical bills for their family? What if, because of circumstances they were born into, they have no other option if they want to survive.

The Bible says not to plant two kinds of crops together or wear blended fabrics. So chances are we’re all heathen or heretics.

Similarly ridiculous “rules” can be found in the Constitution. But the Constitution has evolved as society evolved. And so have interpretations of the Bible.

We try to find answers in ancient texts because it takes responsibility out of our hands and places it into the hands of an immaterial body. It makes sense though. That’s how things work. It’s harder to believe the opinion of a single person than it is the opinion of century/millenia-old collectives. And yes, there is a reason these ideologies are so old, it’s not completely arbitrary. But the reason many of them survived and thrived was because of their ability to adapt with a changing world not fight it. What happens when our interpretations fail to change as society changes? (much of this is a big idea from Homo Deus). From our days as hunter-gatherers to the present, the prevailing belief systems always matched the technologies and cultures of the time. Those that failed to adapt were forgotten or simply exist as memories of primitive societies.

It can be scary to be a dreamer nowadays. Apart from the doubt, the fear, the people telling you that you can’t do it, there is also the uncertainty that there will be an adequate future for you to see those dreams fulfilled. We are on the verge of ecological Armageddon, and whether or not we manage to avoid it, that future will likely look very different than the world we live in now.

But when I say “dream danger,” I’m not saying that the dreams are in danger, rather we are in danger from dreams. Our dreams are very much influenced by the avarice of our society and our culture. Many of our dreams include not just personal growth, but personal economic growth. We want big houses, nice cars, extravagant parties, and exotic vacations. These dreams fuel the very economic growth that threatens humanity and all life on this planet.

This is not meant to be a censure on dreams and aspirations, but when did personal growth become synonymous with wealth? Why do we think we need exorbitant amounts of stuff (which create exorbitant amounts of waste) to be happy ? Those aren’t the dreams of people, those are the dreams of corporations and the religion of capitalism, and we’ve fallen prey to their marketing schemes.

It’s true, economic growth and capitalism has afforded humanity countless benefits, and we would not be equipped to face our modern problems without it. But I think it is time for us to take a step back and take a critical look at the ideas and institutions that truly govern our lives in the 21st century.

Our own needs and emotions are the only ones that we are acutely aware of and that we know exist beyond a shadow of a doubt. Therefore to us, our own choices and actions are completely rational. That’s why it is so easy to find fault in others before ourselves. And then we tell ourselves stories about all those other people. That driver who cut me off is stupid. This waiter is so lazy. My S.O. is clueless and negligent.

The stories we tell ourselves about others are seldom true, and yet those are the stories we usually believe. This often leaves us bitter and angry, but also with a sense of self-righteousness that helps justify the bitterness and anger.

Those stories are more often a reflection on ourselves than the people they are supposed to be about. What if we let people tell their own stories? What if we stopped trying to tell others what they believe? What if we valued understanding and truth over being right? What if we chose to evaluate ourselves, before condemning others?

Perhaps we are afraid to look to carefully in the mirror because we are afraid of what we’ll see.

Yesterday I had a conversation with a couple friends that started out about finance and then evolved into a discussion about long-term goals/ dreams/ values. One of them said that he absolutely does not want kids. His primary goals were to be financially secure and live a long, happy, and healthy life. While my own ideas for my future are not much different, my vision for that future is very different. We are all doing the best we can and we are all trying to do what makes us happy, either in the long run, or the short run, or both.

What does it mean to be happy? Is Jeff Bezos really happier than me? I feel like I’m pretty content right now so, but if wealth is a gauge of happiness, he must be on fucking cloud 11. Obviously, there’s more to happiness than money. The Book of Joy, with the Dalai Lama and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, outlines some guidelines for happiness (“7 Pillars of Joy”), and tends on the side of happiness defined by a lack of want and an inner peace; living with compassion, acceptance, etc. The book I’m reading now, Homo Deus, by Yuval Noah Harari, talks about happiness from a biological perspective. Happiness is a feeling produced by chemicals in our brain. The release of those chemicals can be stimulated in a variety of ways. Certain ways are conservative, others are more turbulent, and some simply unsustainable.

It seems that modes of thinking and attitudes can also influence biological happiness. Two people can respond to the exact same event with very different emotions depending on their mindsets. One may respond a shortage of spicy chicken sandwiches at fast food restaurant with anger and frustration, while another embraces the ordeal as a chance to practice patience and gratitude. But what orients us to one attitude/ mindset over another? Is it past experience? Prediction of potential future events? By what mechanism(s) do our brain cells evaluate outcomes? Is it all just pain and pleasure? Are these questions even worth thinking about? Right now I want to say it’s almost like an optimization problem with various inputs influencing each other and ultimately influencing our choices to maximize our biological happiness and minimize our biological pain/ suffering.

How often do I make a conscious effort to leave a place better than I left it? What does that even mean? When I was little, Mom would always tell us to leave a room cleaner than we found it, whether it be in our own home, or especially someone else’s. What if we were to go beyond tidying up? Perhaps with a sincere expression of gratitude or some random act of kindness. Whether we like it or not, our actions have an effect on those around us, so why not try to spread good vibes.

On my plane ride home from Roanoke, I couldn’t help but admire how beautiful the clouds were. From far away, they can look like they have super defined edges; you can tell where clouds stop and sky begins. On our descent though, as we made our way into the amorphous fluff, I couldn’t identify any single moment as being the moment that we crossed over from the clear sky to the obscure innards of the cloud. The closer you get to the clouds the less defined that border becomes. As it it with most things. From 35,000 feet, everything seems simple and clear-cut, but the closer we get the more we realize the world is not organized into straight lines, or any lines at all, and we’re all just floating around in a giant bowl of metaphorical chowder that has no bowl.

This is why Twitter sucks. Everyone wants to have a viral take or a career-ending “clapback” often with little to no meaningful dialogue. It seems obvious that Twitter is not a place one should go in search of genuine conversation, and yet my timeline is 80% people trying to out-woke each other. What would it look like if people tried to actually understand each other instead of instantly get offended or constantly looking for a comeback that will get them 10k likes and more followers.

Twitter is an echo-chamber. You are flooded with ideas and feedback from people with similar mindsets/ perspectives as you. Validation does not equal truth. Just because a bunch of people agree with you, doesn’t mean you are right. I say we make Twitter a funny-and-cute-only zone, and leave politics and amateur activism out of it, because honestly I haven’t seen a single thread that made me think, “Huh, we as a species really made some good progress here.”

There was a Twitter thread I came across today in which the OP posted two pictures of a friend of his holding hands with his significant other while walking on the beach. The first picture was littered with strangers filling the shoreline, and the second was OP’s edited version where he Photoshopped out all of the strange beachgoers. I am by no means a graphic design/ Photoshop expert, but I did take a class in high school, and if I nothing else, I remember the common transgressions. There’s a special brush (I don’t remember what it’s called) but you use it to “paint” over an area, using a different part of the same image. Using this brush you can easily paint over and hide unwanted or out-of-place parts of an image almost seamlessly. BUT if you’re not careful, you can create a very obvious repeating pattern in the edited version. And OP did just that, and if an amateur like me noticed it you can bet more savvy members of the Twitterverse did as well. However, he seemed quite proud of his work, as he has a right to be.

The comments pretty much all positive. But going a little ways down, one guy zoomed-in and circled some of the more “sloppy” parts. His comment wasn’t mean, he just said to be careful. And oh boy, were people upset at this dude.

Why though? He wasn’t being particularly mean or snarky, he was just giving some feedback (albeit unsolicited). Ok, I kinda get the who offended-on-another’s-behalf thing; people are empathizing. It can suck to hear criticism, even if it is delivered with good intentions, especially on something you are proud of and worked hard on. But feedback is the basis of improvement. And the thing is OP was very gracious about the feedback. He acknowledged his room for improvement and even thanked the “nitpicker” (not that it was necessarily necessary).

On the internet it can be easy to fall into the, pardon my language, “circle-jerk.” Someone does something cute or sweet, you say cute and sweet things. And I swear to God if you say anything else you are a fucking asshole shit.

I understand that sometimes, things should be left alone, and there’s a time and place for everything. And, sure maybe we should, all just keep out mouth shut, and let people be happy. But if nobody says something, how will they know? To me that’s what’s awesome about the internet. It allows people to connect and interact. How we connect and how we interact is completely up to us. Why not make it productive?

I also feel like this means I gotta put my money where my mouth is, so consider this an open invitation to, if you feel so inspired, criticize me. Personally, professionally, academically, philosophically, whatever. My inbox is open. Right now in my head I’m thinking there’s a lot to fix, but if I don’t get any feedback I’m just going to assume that I’m perfect in everyway.