Boy, do I think about this a lot. I was literally in a punk band yelling at the world and for the most part so are almost all of my friends.
Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?
That said, how to speak to the people who have no direct connection to the future is very difficult. They have a habit of abstracting things away from themselves. This was doubly irritating when I was a social worker, listening to white rockers prattle on about black injustices.
What seems to work best is pointing out there is no ‘better place’ than America. Broadly speaking, people I’ve met around the world (I’ve been everywhere,man) even Europeans, are more racist, sexist, homophobic and narrow minded than the most basic American I’ve ever met…and I’ve met a lot of Americans too! Realizing how progressive our society is seems like an important first step.
This leads to the next step: appreciating the union and bolstering the argument for holding the American center. Aside from the fact that it’s ’most people’ and there’s no better place, we all live here; we’ve got to figure out how to get along! I think an argument toward radical compassion works best here: if you’re not willing to put down the pitchfork how does you expect your neighbor to put down their torch? This requires bravery and risk and I think triggers an appeal to glory, in some respect. If you talk to a crazy racist and they kill you, you get to be a martyr and prove you were right all along! Otherwise you win a convert!
Lastly, I view people’s impression of me as thoughtful, trustworthy and compassionate as my greatest strength and the thing most likely to change minds over the course of time. I don’t need to argue, I just need to stay principled and adhere to telling the truth as best as possible. Ex. People say they won’t hang out with friends who have not been vaxed. I think that’s silly, but what purpose is arguing? Better to say, “that doesn’t affect my relationship,” and let it sink in over the years. I can’t convince someone they are wrong, but I can show them they way toward a more meaningful, compassionate and ultimately happier way of life.
"Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?"
I never had kids. (Long story, but one aspect is that 10 or 11 years of our 12-year marriage were platonic.) But for me, it's not a"nebulous blob, s.e.t.h. I go by what Einstein said about the next generation, or two or three:
"Our death is not an end if we can live on in our children and the younger generation. For they are us; our bodies are only wilted leaves on the tree of life."
I wasn't quite sure what You meant by "underdogs of humanity?" Yeah, I'd want them to suffer less, but surely You don't mean Black people, do You? If so, well... Just ain't so these days. Not in the elite that forms all our public opinions we hafta go by, right?
My statement wasn't clear. I meant to differentiate the way parents and non-parents, particularly non-parents who choose, emphatically not to have children, view their attachment to the future.
No one will say they don't care about future humans, but parents care very specifically about a very specific set of humans over all the others, and in so doing have a more precise idea of what they think that future should look like and then orient themselves, economically, spiritually, etc., toward that futures. Surely there are cases where that isn't true, but in my 45+ years that seems to be the definite trend.
For end-of-the-liners, their attachment to future humans is going to be more nebulous. They may have nieces and nephews, but beyond a single generation, they don't really have that much to do or say about how the future of their family will play out. So their focus, if they care at all, will be on other people, and the people most in need of care and concern are going to be the poor, regardless of race or ethnicity, even though that is how we (erroneously) view class these days.
It's possible that these people might dedicate themselves to serving the interests of a rich and powerful benefactor, but I suspect that is the exception as even people in the family way tend to care more for the needy than the rich, aka, the underdogs of humanity. When one's concern is dedicated to the needy, one will almost out of necessity find oneself drifting toward the political left. I would associate this with the fact that 'curing poverty' is a mission that likely requires radical action against the current modern regime of corrupt politics and misaligned business incentives. That will, in my estimation, tend to put "end-of-the-liners" consistently to the left "family people."
This normally wouldn't be too much of an issue, but various social influences have emerged to upset the balance and many of these things are considered good...i.e. women's education, more higher education in general, a more professional workforce, secularism, greater wealth throughout the population (regardless of relative imbalances), extended childhood (which I argue is a symptom of a successful society), and an overwhelming sense of fear, paranoia and defeatism that has pervaded our culture since at least 9-11-01. There are simply fewer people interested in having kids and starting families than there used to be so more people will tend toward social justice overall. It's another example of Nassim Teleb's, "Skin in the Game," (I haven't read that book deeply, only in sections, so maybe I missed something).
That's what I meant by differentiating between parents and non-parents. I don't at all mean to insinuate that non-parents don't care about the future, simply that what they see as their responsibility is far more fluid and nebulous than someone who is literally thinking about grandkids. I'd also point out this is fairly novel for modern people so it's impossible to say if it's right or wrong, I think it's just different and noteworthy.
I see. I see Your views, and they're really traditional. That may shock You, s.e.t.h. You seem to see some value in "radical action" and a leftist viewpoint. But the attitude of developing a strong interest in developing a genealogical "line" going down from Yourself to Your posterity is actually quite quaint.
I'm 66, and I see a lot here. And first thing I'll grant is that I may BE an exception. In fact, I know I'm an exception to a LOTTA rules. But Your idea that only a person who thinks of his grandkids can have a realistic view of what the future should look like is, let us say... I dunno how TO say it.
First of all, the idea that You have a "more precise idea of what they think that future should look like" is deluded on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, a spiritual person.. I mean a TRULY Spiritual person doesn't generally flaunt the idea that they know what the future SHOULD look like at ALL.
For another, I don't know how much experience You have in the world, s.e.t.h., anyone saying they know what the future should look like presumes an awful lot, for example what the future COULD look like. Most people, not having crystal balls, fantasize. Sorry.
I don't know if I can say it any better than Einstein but, what You cavalierly refer to "end-of-liners," as if they're some kind-a subspecies of humans. Well, I can't speak of end-of-liners, nor would I ever attempt to CLASSIFY people in those words. But I would point out that the very SPECIFICITY You claim as an asset is, in actual FACT, detrimental to having any kind-a vision at ALL.
Me? My PREFERENCES, rather than a "vision" about the future are not constrained to people who are blood-relatives of mine. That's awful TRIBAL, don't You think, s.e.t.h.? So I wouldn't say my views are "nebulous" so much as that they're UNCONSTRAINED.
Like any Spiritual person... Let me rephrase that: UNlike most Spiritual people, I have no fear of death. Have no inclination to be a martyr; just don't see that it matters one Way or t'other. And if it doesn't matter to ME, obviously I don't think it should be of any concern to anybody else. My two sisters, anyway, seem to see what I mean, and aren't troubled by it. THEY'RE not that Way, which is okay-fine.
As far as political views, AFAIK, any right-thinking liberal would be moving away as fast as they CAN to the CENTER. The distinctly IL-liberal running the show in the Democratic Party and those who favor Donald T.Rump have nothing to offer in the way of either pragmatic ideas, nor transformative ones. Neither, in fact.
Now, how YOU feel about these things, s.e.t.h. is another matter. Because when You say "it's impossible to say if it's right or wrong..." Well, unless I mistake my guess, I think/feel You HAVE said.
Again, truly Spiritual people don't tend to look at things as right or wrong, and good or bad. Not that there's anything "wrong" with looking at things that way, as a lot better than 99+% of people DO. (Haha! "Wrong.") Point being, Spiritual people, not those who CALL themselves Spiritual, BTW, tend to just see how things actually ARE, as best they are able, and do the best they can with it.
Just IMHO, tho You may not detect the humble, unless You pay real close awareness to what I've "said."
Holy macaroni did you write a lot about what I said without understanding a word I said.
You impugn me with intent and ideas that are not mine that I went out of my way to demonstrate I don't believe. You have put your words in my mouth for no reason I can understand other than it makes it easier for you. Maybe 66 years isn't enough to become a careful and thoughtful reader; 45, clearly, hasn't been enough for me to become a good writer.
I'm not sure it's worth going deeper here, but suffice to say you definitely did not get what I was putting down and I'm not really inclined to try and clarify. If you want me to go through your post and point out where we diverge, I will, but otherwise, I said what I wanted to say, feel free to re-read it or not.
Well, I'll add a couple points. For one, I'm EXACTLY 50% Fundamentalist Atheist. That's how I was raised.
For another, what You go outta Your way to demonstrate what You don't believe doesn't necessarily mean You DON'T believe these things. You just can't open Your eyes to the mere POSSIBILITY that You could be wrong, so of COURSE You're not gonna read between the lines of what You DO say.
Boy, do I think about this a lot. I was literally in a punk band yelling at the world and for the most part so are almost all of my friends.
Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?
That said, how to speak to the people who have no direct connection to the future is very difficult. They have a habit of abstracting things away from themselves. This was doubly irritating when I was a social worker, listening to white rockers prattle on about black injustices.
What seems to work best is pointing out there is no ‘better place’ than America. Broadly speaking, people I’ve met around the world (I’ve been everywhere,man) even Europeans, are more racist, sexist, homophobic and narrow minded than the most basic American I’ve ever met…and I’ve met a lot of Americans too! Realizing how progressive our society is seems like an important first step.
This leads to the next step: appreciating the union and bolstering the argument for holding the American center. Aside from the fact that it’s ’most people’ and there’s no better place, we all live here; we’ve got to figure out how to get along! I think an argument toward radical compassion works best here: if you’re not willing to put down the pitchfork how does you expect your neighbor to put down their torch? This requires bravery and risk and I think triggers an appeal to glory, in some respect. If you talk to a crazy racist and they kill you, you get to be a martyr and prove you were right all along! Otherwise you win a convert!
Lastly, I view people’s impression of me as thoughtful, trustworthy and compassionate as my greatest strength and the thing most likely to change minds over the course of time. I don’t need to argue, I just need to stay principled and adhere to telling the truth as best as possible. Ex. People say they won’t hang out with friends who have not been vaxed. I think that’s silly, but what purpose is arguing? Better to say, “that doesn’t affect my relationship,” and let it sink in over the years. I can’t convince someone they are wrong, but I can show them they way toward a more meaningful, compassionate and ultimately happier way of life.
Winning isn’t the goal, just trying to stay true.
"Straight off, I’ll say parenthood changes everything. The “grow up” logic doesn’t mean anything until a person’s relationship to the future changes and for many, if not most, of my friends children are out of the question. I had a kid early which immediately set me apart, but I’ve come to see that if you view yourself as the end of the line, you’re attachment to history exists in relationship to the nebulous blob called humanity and who wouldn’t want the underdogs of humanity to suffer less?"
I never had kids. (Long story, but one aspect is that 10 or 11 years of our 12-year marriage were platonic.) But for me, it's not a"nebulous blob, s.e.t.h. I go by what Einstein said about the next generation, or two or three:
"Our death is not an end if we can live on in our children and the younger generation. For they are us; our bodies are only wilted leaves on the tree of life."
I wasn't quite sure what You meant by "underdogs of humanity?" Yeah, I'd want them to suffer less, but surely You don't mean Black people, do You? If so, well... Just ain't so these days. Not in the elite that forms all our public opinions we hafta go by, right?
My statement wasn't clear. I meant to differentiate the way parents and non-parents, particularly non-parents who choose, emphatically not to have children, view their attachment to the future.
No one will say they don't care about future humans, but parents care very specifically about a very specific set of humans over all the others, and in so doing have a more precise idea of what they think that future should look like and then orient themselves, economically, spiritually, etc., toward that futures. Surely there are cases where that isn't true, but in my 45+ years that seems to be the definite trend.
For end-of-the-liners, their attachment to future humans is going to be more nebulous. They may have nieces and nephews, but beyond a single generation, they don't really have that much to do or say about how the future of their family will play out. So their focus, if they care at all, will be on other people, and the people most in need of care and concern are going to be the poor, regardless of race or ethnicity, even though that is how we (erroneously) view class these days.
It's possible that these people might dedicate themselves to serving the interests of a rich and powerful benefactor, but I suspect that is the exception as even people in the family way tend to care more for the needy than the rich, aka, the underdogs of humanity. When one's concern is dedicated to the needy, one will almost out of necessity find oneself drifting toward the political left. I would associate this with the fact that 'curing poverty' is a mission that likely requires radical action against the current modern regime of corrupt politics and misaligned business incentives. That will, in my estimation, tend to put "end-of-the-liners" consistently to the left "family people."
This normally wouldn't be too much of an issue, but various social influences have emerged to upset the balance and many of these things are considered good...i.e. women's education, more higher education in general, a more professional workforce, secularism, greater wealth throughout the population (regardless of relative imbalances), extended childhood (which I argue is a symptom of a successful society), and an overwhelming sense of fear, paranoia and defeatism that has pervaded our culture since at least 9-11-01. There are simply fewer people interested in having kids and starting families than there used to be so more people will tend toward social justice overall. It's another example of Nassim Teleb's, "Skin in the Game," (I haven't read that book deeply, only in sections, so maybe I missed something).
That's what I meant by differentiating between parents and non-parents. I don't at all mean to insinuate that non-parents don't care about the future, simply that what they see as their responsibility is far more fluid and nebulous than someone who is literally thinking about grandkids. I'd also point out this is fairly novel for modern people so it's impossible to say if it's right or wrong, I think it's just different and noteworthy.
I see. I see Your views, and they're really traditional. That may shock You, s.e.t.h. You seem to see some value in "radical action" and a leftist viewpoint. But the attitude of developing a strong interest in developing a genealogical "line" going down from Yourself to Your posterity is actually quite quaint.
I'm 66, and I see a lot here. And first thing I'll grant is that I may BE an exception. In fact, I know I'm an exception to a LOTTA rules. But Your idea that only a person who thinks of his grandkids can have a realistic view of what the future should look like is, let us say... I dunno how TO say it.
First of all, the idea that You have a "more precise idea of what they think that future should look like" is deluded on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. For one thing, a spiritual person.. I mean a TRULY Spiritual person doesn't generally flaunt the idea that they know what the future SHOULD look like at ALL.
For another, I don't know how much experience You have in the world, s.e.t.h., anyone saying they know what the future should look like presumes an awful lot, for example what the future COULD look like. Most people, not having crystal balls, fantasize. Sorry.
I don't know if I can say it any better than Einstein but, what You cavalierly refer to "end-of-liners," as if they're some kind-a subspecies of humans. Well, I can't speak of end-of-liners, nor would I ever attempt to CLASSIFY people in those words. But I would point out that the very SPECIFICITY You claim as an asset is, in actual FACT, detrimental to having any kind-a vision at ALL.
Me? My PREFERENCES, rather than a "vision" about the future are not constrained to people who are blood-relatives of mine. That's awful TRIBAL, don't You think, s.e.t.h.? So I wouldn't say my views are "nebulous" so much as that they're UNCONSTRAINED.
Like any Spiritual person... Let me rephrase that: UNlike most Spiritual people, I have no fear of death. Have no inclination to be a martyr; just don't see that it matters one Way or t'other. And if it doesn't matter to ME, obviously I don't think it should be of any concern to anybody else. My two sisters, anyway, seem to see what I mean, and aren't troubled by it. THEY'RE not that Way, which is okay-fine.
As far as political views, AFAIK, any right-thinking liberal would be moving away as fast as they CAN to the CENTER. The distinctly IL-liberal running the show in the Democratic Party and those who favor Donald T.Rump have nothing to offer in the way of either pragmatic ideas, nor transformative ones. Neither, in fact.
Now, how YOU feel about these things, s.e.t.h. is another matter. Because when You say "it's impossible to say if it's right or wrong..." Well, unless I mistake my guess, I think/feel You HAVE said.
Again, truly Spiritual people don't tend to look at things as right or wrong, and good or bad. Not that there's anything "wrong" with looking at things that way, as a lot better than 99+% of people DO. (Haha! "Wrong.") Point being, Spiritual people, not those who CALL themselves Spiritual, BTW, tend to just see how things actually ARE, as best they are able, and do the best they can with it.
Just IMHO, tho You may not detect the humble, unless You pay real close awareness to what I've "said."
Holy macaroni did you write a lot about what I said without understanding a word I said.
You impugn me with intent and ideas that are not mine that I went out of my way to demonstrate I don't believe. You have put your words in my mouth for no reason I can understand other than it makes it easier for you. Maybe 66 years isn't enough to become a careful and thoughtful reader; 45, clearly, hasn't been enough for me to become a good writer.
I'm not sure it's worth going deeper here, but suffice to say you definitely did not get what I was putting down and I'm not really inclined to try and clarify. If you want me to go through your post and point out where we diverge, I will, but otherwise, I said what I wanted to say, feel free to re-read it or not.
Well, I'll add a couple points. For one, I'm EXACTLY 50% Fundamentalist Atheist. That's how I was raised.
For another, what You go outta Your way to demonstrate what You don't believe doesn't necessarily mean You DON'T believe these things. You just can't open Your eyes to the mere POSSIBILITY that You could be wrong, so of COURSE You're not gonna read between the lines of what You DO say.
One thing that's pretty consistent about Younger folk. They can sure be HAUTY. Do as You please, s.e.t.h. I'm done for the day, either Way.
"I can’t convince someone they are wrong, but I can show them they way toward a more meaningful, compassionate and ultimately happier way of life."
I agree with Jordan Braunstein. GREAT compliment to what M. Loury said.
Insightful and well said!