The Moral Mind: The Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives

Palin, Eve and Polar Bears

The Buddhist in me wants to accept the fact that no matter who wins in November, suffering will continue. We must remember that grand change does not occur in four years, or eight years, or one-hundred. Real long-standing change is called evolution, and that only occurs throughout thousands of years. We are humans, and we have been making the exact same mistakes over and over again since the dawn of civilization. Can one elected president really stir up that much change?

The optimist in me wants to believe in hope and change, and that the American public is smart enough to vote for the best candidate. And that good will overcome evil, that things can and will get better.  But the cynic realist in me is beginning to accept more and more that McCain has a very good chance of winning, and if he does things could continue to get worse: my rights as a woman and a human being will be stripped away, the Judeo–Christian god will rule the land, national ID cards will be established, and unnecessary death, war, and destruction will continue.

All I know is that the stakes have never been higher. And never before has a presidential nominee used such a backhanded, conniving, and calculated choice for their VP. Choosing Palin was a strategic choice to rally the feminists, the Hillary enthusiasts, and the right-wing religious fundamentalists. This choice has lit McCain’s campaign on fire; he has effectively upstaged Obama.

Eve Ensler re-awoke me to the atrocities of this political theatre, with this essay which hits the crux of the issue:

Cats and Dogs

<p>

Chock-full of pathos, this video made me want to pull a Molly Shannon and go adopt 20 dogs.

Don’t Forget to Sing and Dance

The Fall of the Rational Species

In ethics today we talked about Paul Taylor’s life-centered environmental ethic. His basic argument is we as humans have no right to say we are any better than other life on this earth, because the criteria we use is rationality. This is unfair because most other creatures do not need rationality to survive. Actually, they would probably not last very long if they did have rationality. But we use this as our litmus test, which is completely unfair. Who decided rationality is what makes a creature so great? Why not use speed, or eye sight, or swimming capabilities as the test? Every species is great in its own way, and this needs to be so. We are interconnected with all other species in a complex web of life. Every creature needs to be good at what they do so we can be good at we do. There is no value to ranking creatures, and thus our whole attitude of dominance over non-humans is just plain wrong. Who says the bird’s life is worth any less than ours just because it cannot think rationally? It’s all a facade. 

Time to Rethink the New Green Era

I don’t think we are going to be here on this planet much longer. It’s only been 100 years since the industrial revolution and look at how much we have obliterated and savagely consumed. We are way in over our heads, and the way the world’s countries are being led, I see no hope for our future as a species.

We (generally speaking of the American kind since we are the leading nation as of now) are far too greedy, far too selfish, far too self-involved, and far too wrapped up in our Judeo-Christian ideological justifications to make any real change. Our president doesn’t give a shit about the environment because of ties to corporate oil and the fact that some invisible man in the sky has told him the earth is here for him to use-and after all, this Earth is only transitory, for his real life will start after death, in a completely sustainable, green, and un-polluted paradise.

So what’s the point of any of it? Well, for one thing we are killing ourselves by our own technology, science, and brain-power. Cancer is an example. So are the diseases and sicknesses we self-induce from our own food. And these things can’t be stopped by individuals. In a post- Inconvenient Truth green era, the ideology seems to be one of individual concern: if we all just did our part, if we all just stopped using plastic bags and rode our bikes more things would get better! I don’t think this is the solution. What is the point of these isolated instances of individuals all across the country when the corporation next door is allowed unrestricted pollution without consequence all under the guise that they are earning money for their shareowners-this is completely unbalanced. Individualism doesn’t work! To solve this problem we must start from the top down. We need leadership in our government, we need state legislature to pass green laws, we need to start holding corporations accountable, and we need established green practices within cities so that individuals have the support and access to live a green life.

We must stop looking down on individuals for not living a “green” lifestyle and instead start holding our government accountable. All people may not have access, money, time, energy, or knowledge to live a sustainable life-that is what government is for. Our government must set up the framework for its citizens to start living sustainably-we cannot do it by ourselves. The “American individual” persona must be retired; it does not work in this new era of global warming and pollution. Our future depends on it. Perhaps it is possible for us to lower our C02 levels and start living sustainably, but some higher ranking action needs to occur. We cannot count on technology to save us. We cannot count on science to save us. And we cannot count on those environmentalists and their bike-riding ways to save us either. Passing on the plastic bag is simply not enough.

We are all copies–embrace it.

Arrogance disappears when one realizes they are merely a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, of a copy…..