Saving the World

[2ndRateMind]

So, I guess this is my mission. Someone has to do it.

 

There are two, clear, distinct, interpretations of this idea. One is religious, the other secular. The religious idea is to convert everyone to Christianity, and, ideally, one's own version of Christianity. The secular notion is simply to ensure everyone gets enough to eat, clean water to drink, housing, sanitation, and primary education and health care.

 

Which, in your opinion, is the most urgent, and why?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

Edited November 26, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Bini]

If you're a religious person, you'll ultimately feel that the most urgent is to save one's soul, and everything else is secondary to that. So that would mean, if you're able to convert someone to X because in your belief this is the first step to salvation, that's probably going to be your first attempt. No amount of food or water will save your soul.

 

If you're not a religious person, you might not even believe in souls, etc. But you might have the desire to give charity to those that need food, water, and shelter. And this might even be more important than ensuring someone has a belief system.

 

Personally, I'm not the converting type, but over the years I have become more aware of those in need. I am more than happy to help financially or with my time, aide those that need food, clean water, and finding shelter. There are so many families and people totally on their own that need help.

[theSQUIDSTER]

How about a quote from a profoundly confused individual ...  lyrics from one of his songs:

 

 

If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change

 

(Michael Jackson's "Man in the Mirror")

 

 

Michael was undoubtedly confused about a great many things in his personal life... but I think he got this one right.  At least that's where it starts.  Personal responsibility.

 

None of us can save the world.  but... Somebody already paid the price for all the pains, wrong, suffering, injustice, etc, in the world.  Michael didn't say anything about that in his song... so... his advice is not an all-inclusive answer.  But when you recognize that you do have a choice to do things... change things about yourself that you could do better... that does affect the world.  

 

But how do I know if my choices are making the world a better place?  What if my choices are making the world a worse place?

Edited November 26, 2014 by theSQUIDSTER

[2ndRateMind]

 

If you're a religious person, you'll ultimately feel that the most urgent is to save one's soul, and everything else is secondary to that...

 

If you're not a religious person, you might not even believe in souls, etc. But you might have the desire to give charity to those that need food, water, and shelter. And this might even be more important than ensuring someone has a belief system.

 

...

 

Yes, I think that is a fair point. Whether to save someone's body, for now, or soul, for eternity. Or is there, here, a necessary confliction?

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 26, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[2ndRateMind]

 

 

But how do I know if my choices are making the world a better place?  What if my choices are making the world a worse place?

 

Be relaxed about this. If your conscience is quiet, then you can be reasonably sure you are on the right track.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

[The Folk Prophet]

Michael was undoubtedly confused about a great many things in his personal life... but I think he got this one right.  At least that's where it starts.  Personal responsibility.

 

MJ didn't write Man in the Mirror.

[Vort]

False dichotomy. "Converting" everyone to the correct flavor of Christianity doesn't magically solve anything. Witness medieval Europe or today's Islamic Middle East or the Japanese Shogun era, etc. On the other hand, we have overwhelming evidence that giving everybody food and shelter does not make society peaceful and prosperous; it just creates a class of dependents who feel morally entitled to receive the work of others, and thus creates its own horrible and intractable problems.

 

"Urgency" is also slippery to define. Why is making sure that everyone has food and shelter "urgent"? Are we concerned about the human race dying off? There are over seven billion of us alive at the moment; extinction is not a present concern.

 

Our concern should rather be for advancing society and civilization -- but these are the traditional areas of concern for religion. Yet we have already seen that religious uniformity doesn't resolve most problems. Even problems that we think would be resolved by religious uniformity are not, such as interreligious strife. If the Muslims don't have Christians or Jews to fight and subjugate, they'll go after each other, Sunni vs. Shi'ite. This is not a religious issue per se; it is human nature.

 

Ultimately, I am convinced that bringing people to Christ is not merely the most effective solution; it is the only solution. But how do we bring people to Christ? In the larger vision, I don't know. In the smaller, local vision, it is to live as a Saint lives and emulate the life and works of Christ. It doesn't mean we have to see everyone converted, but it does mean we have to preach and live the Christian values we claim.

[theSQUIDSTER]

MJ didn't write Man in the Mirror.

 

That doesn't surprise me.  I didn't know that though.   :)   Who wrote it?  Was it a remake of an oldie?  (or... uh... an OLDER oldie?   )

 

Be relaxed about this. If your conscience is quiet, then you can be reasonably sure you are on the right track.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Thanks for your kind sentiments.  My questions were meant mostly rhetorically... But in the spirit of one of President Uchtdorf's recent talks from conference... "Lord, is it I?"  ... Honest, self-examination of our relationship with our Father and His Son, the Savior of all, should be a part of making the world a better place, methinks.

[The Folk Prophet]

That doesn't surprise me.  I didn't know that though.   :)   Who wrote it?  Was it a remake of an oldie?  (or... uh... an OLDER oldie?   )

 

What? Is your Googler broken? 

 

https://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=who+wrote+man+in+the+mirror

 

 

edit: Please note that my Googler is Bing. Heheh.

Edited November 26, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

There's no 2 interpretations of this idea.  There's only 1 idea.

 

The idea starts with the acknowledgement/faith that humans are dual in nature - we are comprised of both Spirit and Body, one intertwined with the other.  The Spirit is eternal, the Body is mortal.  They are not separate and distinct from the other in this mortal state in such a way that sustained negligence of the spiritual sustenance of a person is detrimental to his body in the same manner that sustained negligence of the physical sustenance of a person is detrimental to the spirit.  Both Spirit and Body has to be sustained inseparably with the eternal Spirit looking towards eternal pursuits and the Body supporting its mortal probation.

 

Perfect example is my dad.  He had Stage IV cancer with a survivability expectation of only 6 months.  We flew him to the US against his desires to get him into the clinical trials for Avastin.  With this drug, he was able to suppress the growth of his cancer cells for over 2 years.  We were ecstatic!  But, his spiritual self was wilting even as his physical self was thriving.  Finally, he yelled at my sister, "I want to go home to my family!  You must hate me so much to keep me here!".  So, we had to take him out of the trials to send him back to the Philippines.  He lived a content and happy life for a few more months and died peacefully.

 

The desire for Family sustains the Spirit.  Without it, keeping my dad's Body alive served no purpose.

Edited November 26, 2014 by anatess

[Roseslipper]

Number one or two. when you think about it there both spiritual. Helping the m to save their soul ,as well as helping with their need s if you can. Love is the key.

[Traveler]

So, I guess this is my mission. Someone has to do it.

 

There are two, clear, distinct, interpretations of this idea. One is religious, the other secular. The religious idea is to convert everyone to Christianity, and, ideally, one's own version of Christianity. The secular notion is simply to ensure everyone gets enough to eat, clean water to drink, housing, sanitation, and primary education and health care.

 

Which, in your opinion, is the most urgent, and why?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm True Christian religion is to care for the poor - it truth saving the world is caring for both the physical and spiritual needs.   It is my personal opinion that trying to separate the spiritual and physical is one of the very cleaver temptations of our mortal probation. 

[Blackmarch]

So, I guess this is my mission. Someone has to do it.

 

There are two, clear, distinct, interpretations of this idea. One is religious, the other secular. The religious idea is to convert everyone to Christianity, and, ideally, one's own version of Christianity. The secular notion is simply to ensure everyone gets enough to eat, clean water to drink, housing, sanitation, and primary education and health care.

 

Which, in your opinion, is the most urgent, and why?

 

Best wishes, 2RM

probably the secular one with the spiritual one right on its heels if we want to generalize for the entirety of the human race. if you focus more on area then it will differ on which one is more necessary from moment to moment.

fortunately both are not exclusive and optimally one would address both.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, Vort, I think it is a false dichotomy. Nevertheless, it is one I often come across. So many people think that the spiritual is separate from the political; perhaps because Jesus was such an astute operator His politics are never overt, only ever inferred. And perhaps because religion and politics together are such an explosive mix that these two topics, still today, are banned from discussion in a British army officer's mess.

 

Despite this wise policy, however, if one wants to deal with the truly important things in life, sooner or later one has to confront the questions: who gets what? and who, and by what right, says so?

 

So, I want to propose a tentative answer, and see what you all make of it. The idea is that by ensuring a just and kind world, by meeting each other's needs and consigning want to history, we fortunate wealthy western christian people gain in spiritual capital. By saving the world, we save ourselves. Our spiritual stature can be measured by the extent to which we can perceive injustice in economic matters, the extent to which we abhor it, and, importantly, the extent to which we are prepared to sacrifice our own immediate interests to end it. The same courage, wisdom and goodness - the same love - that enables us to forego our own plenty for the sake of another's necessity, why, these are the very same sort of riches as heaven is made of. And they will only be, can only be, properly appreciated by those that know their cost, having paid it themselves.

 

As for this notion of a class of dependents, accustomed to the idea that their very humanity entitles them to a reasonably dignified existence, free of hunger, preventable disease, and premature death; well, I am inclined to agree with them. Moreover, I have enough faith in the human spirit to believe that this dependency would not be a permanent condition; that freed of the burden of poverty related vicissitudes they would soon enough be as productive as anyone else.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 28, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

So, I want to propose a tentative answer, and see what you all make of it. The idea is that by ensuring a just and kind world, by meeting each other's needs and consigning want to history, we fortunate wealthy western christian people gain in spiritual capital. By saving the world, we save ourselves. Our spiritual stature can be measured by the extent to which we can perceive injustice in economic matters, the extent to which we abhor it, and, importantly, the extent to which we are prepared to sacrifice our own interests to end it. The same courage, wisdom and goodness - the same love - that enables us to forego plenty for the sake of another's necessity, why, these are the very same riches as heaven is made of.

 

As for this idea of a class of dependents, accustomed to the idea that their humanity entitles them to a reasonably dignified existence, free of hunger, preventable disease, and premature death; well, I am inclined to agree with them. Moreover, I have enough faith in the human spirit to believe that this dependency would not be a permanent condition; that freed of the burden of poverty related vicissitudes they would soon enough be as productive as anyone else.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

2ndRateMind - You have some great ideas. Wonderful ideas and laudable ideas. But the physical nourishing you're speaking of is not necessarily what humanity needs.

 

I want you to consider this article:

 

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/canada-home-to-the-suicide-capital-of-the-world/

 

This is the area with the highest suicide rate in the world. In the 1950s, it was seen as a beacon of hope, a rough and tumble society with little incidents of violence of any kind.

 

That all changed.

 

Natives in Canada are provided free housing, free education, free health care, welfare. All of it.

 

The argument most will say is that Natives have been treated poorly by Canadians - Very true. They will talk about Residential Schools and the horrors that the Natives endured - Also true. They will point to that as the source of this people's horrific, 20-times-the-national-average rate of suicide(And highest suicide rate in the world. By far).

 

But that obviously cannot be.

 

All of those things pointed out took place before the 1950s. Some took place after as well, but the vast majority of the destruction took place earlier. It -cannot- be the genocidal acts that destroyed this once incredible people.

 

No, what happened is that in an attempt to provide for them, they lost a sense of self-identity and pride. All of their material needs are taken care of, including things like the potential to do more(Through education).

 

I firmly believe that the way we are starting to treat the poor will be seen as a genocide of sorts in the future. People need to be needed. They need community. They need purpose and drive.

 

In one fell swoop, this nation was tragically broken - Not by war or disease, but by government handouts.

 

2ndRateMind - There is no better example in all the world than what is happening to Natives in Canada. Handouts do not make a people. They strip them of everything they need to feel human.

 

There are answers, but it requires social evolution - A change to the whole world. You're not wrong, the world IS unfair. It IS filled with injustice. But don't make the same mistake that we did, that mere handouts are what is necessary to fix the world. That way will leave more blood on your hands than any man should carry.

[2ndRateMind]

Indeed, without purpose, people die. One cannot, however, grant or impose purpose. That is something people need to discover for themselves, and it needs to be their own. The best we can do is to prevent the tragedies of wholly avoidable deaths; the rest is up to each one of us, given security, to make the best we can of our lives.

 

I'm inclined to think, however, that the problem in your example is less with the principle of eradicating poverty, and more with the extent. If you straight out give someone everything they want, there is clearly no incentive for them to earn it, with all the spirit-strength that demands and subsequently rewards. My proposal is less ambitious; I merely want to see the end of deaths by hunger and avoidable disease. After that, it's up to us all to compete for the surplus wealth that is expressed as country houses, penthouse flats, super-yachts and private jets, if indeed we think such a pursuit worth the effort.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

 

PS. The impression I got from your quoted article is that substance abuse and suicides are correlated, not welfare and suicides.

Edited November 28, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[FunkyTown]

Indeed, without purpose, people die. One cannot, however, grant or impose purpose. That is something people need to discover for themselves, and it needs to be their own. The best we can do is to prevent the tragedies of wholly avoidable deaths; the rest is up to each one of us, given security, to make the best we can of our lives.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

 

But we don't, 2ndRateMind - We don't make the most of our lives. That is the thing we need to overcome. Creating a simple culture of the nanny state will inevitably lead to a decline.

We need to provide for our brothers and sisters, but that needs to be a consequence of our own growth as a society - A change in how we view our lives and those around us. We need to work on truly valuing each other like brothers and sisters rather than means to an end.

[Vort]

trying to separate the spiritual and physical is one of the very cleaver temptations

Unintentional puns rock.

[2ndRateMind]

... Creating a simple culture of the nanny state will inevitably lead to a decline.

We need to provide for our brothers and sisters, but that needs to be a consequence of our own growth as a society - A change in how we view our lives and those around us. We need to work on truly valuing each other like brothers and sisters rather than means to an end.

 

While applauding your sentiments, I think we need to be clear about what a nanny state actually is. A nanny state is not any old state that meets the basic requirements of it's citizens. The fact that a state might meet the need for defence with an army, say, does not make it a nanny state. Nor does the supply of an elected legislature, a police force, an independent judiciary, and a set of penal facilities, to meet the requirements for the rule of law.

 

The thing that makes a nanny state such is when it gets above itself, and starts to curtail the freedom of it's citizens 'in their own best interests'. A nanny state, for example, might ban smoking, on the grounds that it is bad for the health. Or it might ban skiing, because people might injure themselves. Or it might insist on a calorie controlled diet and hour's daily exercise for all of it's unfortunate populace.

 

(Incidentally, a real world example of nanny stating can be found in my own nation, the UK. During the first world war, alcohol licensing laws were enacted, restricting the hours public houses might open. The rationale for this move was to reduce the opportunity for workers to drink, and thus increase the productivity of a desperately important wartime economy. This was not nanny stating, but simple expediency; nanny stating came after the war ended, and those laws were not immediately repealed, as no longer necessary. Instead, they persisted for nearly one hundred years more, as conducive to public order, and to minimise public access to drink, patronisingly considered to be in the public's own best interests)

 

So, in my opinion, providing essentials like adequate food, clean water, shelter, sanitation, primary education and health care for even the least and most vulnerable of citizens, well, this kind of supply is not the mark of a nanny state, but of a well functioning state meeting it's right and proper obligations to it's citizens. If those citizens want better than a basic provision, and I hope and expect they would, then they should be at complete liberty to earn that for themselves, and the state should encourage this.

 

All good things are built on sound foundations; this plan to save the world in the secular sense is to see implemented the fundamental essentials of a reasonably dignified existence for everyone, regardless of who they are. This is quite different to nanny stating, which would involve telling people how to live their lives, as if I knew better than them what would bring them fulfillment.

 

Best wishes, 2RM. 

Edited November 28, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[Captain Awesome]

I work with/for veterans.  One of the biggest problems military people have when leaving the military is the lack of purpose.  In the military, almost every aspect of their lives if orchestrated by an encompassing system.  They are told what to do, when and how to do it, et cetera.  Then they leave, and suddenly they're on their own, with no idea what to do or how to do it.  Many fall into a rut of depression and idleness.  So, as was mentioned above, people do need a purpose, a reason.

[writesong]

When the Willie and Martin handcart companies were rescued, Brigham Young said they were more in need of potatoes and pudding before attending to their spiritual needs.

 

Of course, I'm paraphrasing from memory, as I can't quote his exact words.

 

I saw it in a Church film about the Willie and Martin handcart company rescues.

Edited November 29, 2014 by writesong

[Backroads]

My grandmother and cousin volunteer in welfare - related programs. They've met some remarkable people who have climbed up from property. But in every case, these people needed more than mere food and shelter. One story stands out was a counselor on welfare who had no idea there was anything beyond welfare until one of her kids qualified for early intervention. She was put in contact with... more.

Mere handouts of even the basics do not inspire.

[2ndRateMind]

That is so true. Handouts of basics do not inspire. They are not meant to. Their purpose is solely to save lives. What people subsequently do with that life is entirely their own affair. They can use it, or waste it, according to their own inclination, in the best of libertarian tradition. The important thing is, that they have it.

 

I am a little disappointed by the objections I have so far encountered to this idea of fundamental security for everyone. John Rawls, in his 'A Theory of Justice', posits a pre-natal veil of ignorance concerning our role in the world. We are to imagine we are conscious, before being deposited on Earth. We do not, however, know our parents, our nation, the social set, the wealth or the position we will be born into. But, we can decide the kind of world our world will be; whether, for example, wealth will be distributed evenly, or concentrated into the hands of a lucky few, as it is now. What kind of world would we choose? The idea of the question is to separate out distributive justice from our vested interest in the world as it is, and I bring it to your attention because I have enjoyed pondering over it, and hope you will, too.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 29, 2014 by 2ndRateMind

[estradling75]

The problem I see is how do you define 'basic necessity'  Experience has taught us that what is considered basic today will be considered inadequate tomorrow.  Also who defines basic?  Government? The people?  Again experience has taught that once the voters realize they can simply vote themselves more stuff they will do so.

 

Same problem with medical what is basic...  Is a multimillion dollar cancer treatment that does not improve quality of life but does grant the cancer sufferer 6 more months basic or non basic?  Who gets to make these life and death decisions?  And how can we be sure if they are the right decisions?

[2ndRateMind]

Yes, I can see your point. Despite that, I'm happy with a loose definition, though. It seems to me perfectly in order that, as society progresses, so should the idea of a basic necessity.

 

In the short term, however, we can be quite specific about how many calories a person needs to avoid malnourishment and starvation, and the kind of medical interventions required to avoid, say, malaria, bilharzia or polio. We are quite entitled to demand maximum bang for our buck; if we can spend $1000 to provide high energy food for a hundred hungry people for a month, or $1000 to provide a week's worth of cancer chemotherapy for one unfortunate individual, then I think we would be justified to take a utilitarian view of the matter, and promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

 

As for who decides? Well, I am persuaded by the idea that those donating should have the definitive say. And, that if we want that say, we should be prepared to make that donation.

 

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited November 30, 2014 by 2ndRateMind