Giving back: revisited

Back in November, outfitted in my semantic warrior armor I went into battle with the evils underlying the expression--give back.

I hit the nail on the head several times and yet I left so much unsettled. In my fervor to expunge the demon behind the words I did not go nearly far enough. Here is the rest of it:

For some time now I've been searching for some universal principle for how humans might better process their understanding of how to live well in this world. There are many a man-made mechanism to choose from as the founding causal agent of so much grief. The whole idea of worthiness and legal tender gets awfully murky and no more so than the words we use to deflect these entanglements.

So I kept moving these words over in my mind like a worry stone. Take from/give back, take from/give back, take from/give back.

What got me started down a satisfying, civilized path was a quip I made on Facebook last year. It was an observation I made about how differently a person is viewed in that time between birth and death. At birth we are welcomed into the world as a bundle of joy. It is expected that for our growth and development we must take nourishment from those who brought us here. Already the fluid line between giving and taking begins to define itself. Rather than continuing to work from inside this originating mentality of love and acceptance, it is made clear that at some point as one comes of age a break must occur and your taking from is now considered an evil dependence. A rite of passage celebrates the time when you will start learning all the many ways in which you must give back, because surely you will want to show how grateful you are for all the blessings bestowed upon you from birth.

So, dear human, you have just officially been outed. There is, in fact, nothing that you will give without incurring debt, not even life itself. Thus begins the cascade of corrective measures we spend a lifetime perfecting. If we're doing it right, we make our own way in the world. If we are careful we can even save for the future and willingly incur debt without fear. If, on the other hand, we are dealt a setback of immediate consequences we may need to accept charity, a word so heavily burdened with reluctant significance that even the depression era bum angrily spouts: "I don't accept charity."

I remember an old roommate once proudly claiming: "I've never been so poor that I couldn't leave town."

Everyone, it seems, has a story about their pride in surviving, winning, thriving, and doing it on as little as possible. I don't mind the applause. I love a great story. But avoiding material poverty isn't an honest method for inducing pride.

What would it be like if we could flip this coin? 

What if the bundle of joy attitude could last your whole life? I'm convinced that we fail to question ourselves about these ideas because we can't admit to our own self-hatred. There seems to be an inherent impulse toward self-loathing and distrust. Do we really believe that without a governance based on the fear of punishment that all humanity would simply run amok? And yet what is the belief in original sin but precisely that? 

If the life-long messages a person was bathed in were ones of love and acceptance even in the face of mistake or wrong doing, how different would the world be? How would this be tied to exchange and legal tender? Instead of every man for himself amid a hierarchy of social classes, what if groups tried to outdo each other in competitions of generosity? It does sound like I'm veering off into la-la land.

In order to make this fundamental change we couldn't even take our cues from the world around us. This is because from the animals we get the pack, the herd mentality and the pecking order--all hierarchies. Humans have never evolved a more effective social structure than what animal nature provides. We accepted it by default. Most of the greatest advice from one human to another is all about overcoming or coping with what is rather than creating what should be. Thus we perpetuate a learned helplessness about our own nature. Such is the burden of intellect and wisdom when confronting base animal instincts. We can describe and prescribe what should be done, but the realization of our emotional ideals remains ever illusive. 

How do we stay in the lofty spaces of our higher selves? Even if we can agree on what they are, protection and self-defense are powerful forces always ready to create a buffer for us. 

Only two choices

I've always been fascinated with the claim that ultimately there are only two emotions: fear and love. You'd have to admit that humanity has never managed to evolve away from fear and move closer to love. 

But this IS the era of the twenty-first century citizen, is it not? If not now, when? 

'Tis the season after all, the one time of the year when we are enticed to believe that another world is possible, but only temporarily, perhaps as a way to allow us safe passage into the new year. 

And with that, dear reader, this citizen is signing off for the year and wishing you a winter full of love. 

'til next year...

Ciao bella,

Marcella

The fragility of complex systems

(I hope you didn't drown in my stream of consciousness during the last post. Now on to those signs of intelligent life.) 

If you've ever wanted an intelligent analysis of the probability of  some key future trends, look no further than the recent Seattle Times column by Jon Talton. He highlights the findings of a report by the McKinsey Global Institute.

Many of the trends in the lengthy bullet list are already happening or are well on their way to becoming reality. Regardless of how business leaders and policymakers react to the disruptions that come from these future events, very few "...account for the fragility of complex systems."

Talton cites several economists who see either a prolonged stagnation or an eventual recovery. For what it is worth he doesn't necessarily side with one or the other in this long-running debate, but one statement that remains questionable is:

"Policymakers must ensure that retraining is ramped up to maintain advanced workforce skills."

So we know that everyone must "...maximize their opportunities while dealing with the challenges." But hasn't the get-more-education-and-you-will-prevail sentiment long since been dismantled by so many who have already tried? The point is, if the predicted changes are happening at such an accelerated speed, how can any class of working individuals maintain their workforce skills?  Talton says business will need to be an early adopter. I agree, and yet business is not very supportive of expenditure on worker retraining. That is left to the public sphere that grows more circumspect about where to place its monetary emphasis.

Who can blame them? We are obviously in a bind between what is already happening, especially in terms of automated knowledge work, and the future displacement of people who have already trained well for a future that will now nullify the validity of their training. This is a cruel trap played out over and over again.

As I was discussing this topic with my husband I couldn't help but state the obvious:

"Bill Joy was right! The future doesn't need to accommodate as many people as will populate it and then what?"

Try as I might not to turn into a 21st century version of Chicken Little, I couldn't think my way out of this conclusion. Mr. Joy had it all pegged back in April 2000.

Do you trust the so-called business leaders? Policymakers? Hmmm, should I learn how to make a drone so I can help Amazon conquer the world in record time? Right to your door in 30 minutes! If speed of delivery by drone deposit is the best innovation our business leaders have to offer, we've got a lot more to worry about than being obsolete.

Survivor's guilt or please don't kick my puppy

It's not that I'm too shy, or don't have anything to say. It is, when you get right down to it, a nagging feeling that I'm just not supposed to be here. I survived the holidays, got back home from a lovely trip out of town, and now it is Monday and I've got survivor's guilt. 

This thing called guilt comes in many different flavors, but they all amount to the same thing. What am I doing here, and why? It is as if my very existence has not been summoned, is not really needed, and by the way, we're not even going to bother asking you to do anything. 

It's sinking in now. This is how the unemployed feel. This is how returning veterans feel. I understand it. I get it. There is only so much self-creation one can do on a daily basis. That is why I steer clear of using catchall phrases like "I'm reinventing myself." Uh, no I'm not, not really. I think I'm OK the way I am. Everything else is simply accommodating what I imagine some social force in the world expects of me. 

I'm losing interest with these imagined forces. The problem is imagination sometimes comes true. You will meet that person who has the audacity to ask: So what do you do all day? I wish I had the balls on the spot to make something up, something exaggerated and ridiculous like I clean cages at the zoo, or I track the accuracy of metro bus schedules within a two block radius of my home, or I provide an ear candling service for pregnant teenagers. Huh? 

The fact is the guilt is there; I see it, but I don't think it is really mine. I'm merely holding onto it on behalf of the people who really deserve to be feeling it and doing something to relieve it. That is how I came to hear words thrown out of my mouth over dinner a couple nights ago. I was making reference to a publication that had as its subtitle Redefining Prosperity. I found myself emphatically saying "I don't think we need to redefine prosperity. We need to redefine CRIME!" 

What I wanted to go on expounding was how corrosive the effect has been of not punishing the institutions and  people therein who created the financial collapse of 2008. That wasn't merely the downfall of companies, stock valuations, careers and livelihoods; it was much more insidious than that. When there are no corrective measures taken, no truth telling, then collectively we forfeit our most important values. 

It is difficult to imagine that a deep sense of right and wrong isn't somehow ingrained in every human being. How many people can watch another person kick a puppy without cringing in horror, quickly followed by sorrow and rage?

Every time I see that smirking grin on Lou Blankfein's face I think: That's who. That's who could kick a puppy. 

The point is there is an unimaginable amount of disconnect between what any one individual holds true as the core of his identity in human society and the actions that are allowed to be taken by these collective assemblages some people belong to called corporations. As if that weren't bad enough, there is another assemblage called the Supreme Court of the United States that has deemed it necessary to give corporations the same rights as individuals. 

I might be considered a conspiracy theorist if this wasn't actually true. I'm absolutely sure I could not make this up all by myself. I'm a clever girl, but there are lines even I could not conceive of, let alone cross. 

And so my sorrow lurks more deeply. I am the guilty party for being a part of this country, for having put my hand across my heart as a child to recite the pledge of allegiance, for wanting to believe there is such a thing as justice, social contracts, fairness. I may still hold out hope for certain individuals, but collectively as an entity called society? Nope. Sorry, that puppy got his ass kicked.