In the realm we call the human experience, nothing makes sense - including the human need for things to make sense. A witness to the Boston marathon bombing was quoted as saying that it didn't make sense. In the coming days, months, or years, it may dawn on her that nothing in her life will make sense, as she nows apparently believes that things must. (It is understandable if her trauma has left her with only raw observations to share at this early point - only sympathy is appropriate and no criticism is intended here.)
I can hear all sorts of arguments against this assertion. One argument might take the position that it makes sense when, for example, fitting consequences manifest for good or bad behavior. For example, a child does his chores and, as agreed, he receives an allowance as compensation for the tasks. It makes perfect sense - from a limited perspective. A very limited perspective.
From a much broader perspective, it makes no sense that the parent or the child are even here in the first place; that they have the privilege of being born at all. They have defied enormous numerical odds that are impossible to calculate just to be able to say they exist. A mathematician might argue that it makes sense, considering someone had to be born. That it was this or that particular individual is beside the point, and so the assertion is ridiculous.
Narrowing the view a bit, away from the extreme, it still makes no sense that any given group of indigenous people, who were living lives of many generations in relative balance with the available resources ("sustainable"), should be supplanted by others whose life patterns are the opposite of sustainable. It would make far more sense, from the perspective of a balanced biosphere, to favor the continued harmonious existence of the former group. A biologist might argue that it makes sense, because parasitic species, who necessarily consume resources unsustainably, inhabit their niches - if only briefly - and are part of a larger balance. Parasites appear and disappear in short time frames, but their existence overall is part of the big picture.
This counter argument has some merit, insofar as it assumes the current, parasitic model for the human race is a 'flash in the pan' in the geologic record. This does make sense, except that the current version of the human race has evolved along with a story that asserts its own divine right to occupy its niche. This accompanying narrative part makes no sense at all. An anthropologist or archeologist might argue that it does make sense, because homo sapiens evolved to a dominant position because of their ability for abstract thinking, or storytelling. Their story must include extraordinary justification for parasitic behavior, because it would otherwise be plain that the parasitic model is unsustainable.
I can hear all sorts of arguments against this assertion. One argument might take the position that it makes sense when, for example, fitting consequences manifest for good or bad behavior. For example, a child does his chores and, as agreed, he receives an allowance as compensation for the tasks. It makes perfect sense - from a limited perspective. A very limited perspective.
From a much broader perspective, it makes no sense that the parent or the child are even here in the first place; that they have the privilege of being born at all. They have defied enormous numerical odds that are impossible to calculate just to be able to say they exist. A mathematician might argue that it makes sense, considering someone had to be born. That it was this or that particular individual is beside the point, and so the assertion is ridiculous.
Narrowing the view a bit, away from the extreme, it still makes no sense that any given group of indigenous people, who were living lives of many generations in relative balance with the available resources ("sustainable"), should be supplanted by others whose life patterns are the opposite of sustainable. It would make far more sense, from the perspective of a balanced biosphere, to favor the continued harmonious existence of the former group. A biologist might argue that it makes sense, because parasitic species, who necessarily consume resources unsustainably, inhabit their niches - if only briefly - and are part of a larger balance. Parasites appear and disappear in short time frames, but their existence overall is part of the big picture.
This counter argument has some merit, insofar as it assumes the current, parasitic model for the human race is a 'flash in the pan' in the geologic record. This does make sense, except that the current version of the human race has evolved along with a story that asserts its own divine right to occupy its niche. This accompanying narrative part makes no sense at all. An anthropologist or archeologist might argue that it does make sense, because homo sapiens evolved to a dominant position because of their ability for abstract thinking, or storytelling. Their story must include extraordinary justification for parasitic behavior, because it would otherwise be plain that the parasitic model is unsustainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The settings page indicates comments can be posted, but others have had trouble in the attempt. Let me know at rjworrall@gmail.com if either have trouble posting, or if you have a comment you would like to send along.