Changing the world
Warning, this post is painful. And long.
I recently saw the movie, The Blood Diamond. And as much as I hate to say it, it really got me thinking. I hate to say it because generally I find that people who care about and spend a lot of time thinking about these things are usually pretty painful, pretentious and irritating. These things being, you know, problems in the world.
Anyway. The movie got me thinking (once again) about what it means to be a good person.
I have a pretty good idea of the person I want to be. I say want to be, because this person is unatainable. He is the perfect person (in my book). And even if I could come close, I have bad days and I get tired and I get depressed. And when those things happen everything tends to fly out the window. Most of the attributes this ideal person has have to do with interacting with others. So not being judgemental, being patient, and being excited about people and (this part is important) their interests. Then in addition to being good to other human beings, this person is respectful of the world around him.
This is the person I am trying to become. There are lots of other things that I would change, too, but the above is the important stuff. Other things include: being organized, being in shape, being motivated, etc.
But is this enough? Is it enough to be a good person? Obviously, I am a very fortunate in life. My worries tend to be in the "how can I maximize my fun?" category. Like, "what move should I see?" Or, "should I go to graduate school?" Or, "what should my profession be?" Not things like, "where am I going to get my next meal?" The question that occured to me after watch the movie is if there are other people out there suffering do I have to be trying to help them to be a good person?
Before, I would have said that the answer was 'no'. I would have said something to the effect that everyone has their own right to love, life and the pursuit of hapiness, and as long as they don't interfere with other people's pursuits then they are not doing any bad. That each person should decide for themselves if they are a good person. And I have said this to people, many times. But I don't know if that is enough anymore.
The problem is: there is no way to end suffering. Yes, you can make a difference to a few people. And yes, you can point out who the guilty are. The capitalists. The United States. The pharacutical companies. The oil industry. And maybe try and change things. But ultimately you can't really do anything about it. Greed drives the world, and that is that. I guess I just feel a little helpless, or hopeless.
And the point of this post isn't that the world is fucked. Or that I can't do anything. Yes, I am aware of Gandi, and Martin Luther King, and quotes about how a few can move the the world. So don't start commenting about how I can change things if I really try, or how I shouldn't lose hope. And don't start expounding on the virtues of volunteering and giving. I've heard it all before and I don't want to hear it all again. And I haven't lost hope.
I guess the point of this post is just that I am no longer sure about what my contribution to the world should be.
And don't worry, I probably won't be feeling quite so desperate tomorrow. With any luck, I'll be a normal American consumer in no time.
29 January 2007 09:50pm UTC • 616 views • 7 comments
Tagged with change, good, world, hopeless, movie
Add a comment!
You must be a member to do that! Become a member or login!.
← More about life as television • Doing stupid things brings me happiness →
Subscribe to the feeds:
7 comments
Steve the Interloper
30 January 2007 02:22am UTC
Nice post. I'll only add that I vastly prefer people who can express that kind of uncertainty to those who are absolutely sure of their worldview.
The Anonymous Poppy
30 January 2007 03:47am UTC
It's interesting to me how often you tell people not to say certain things in the comments on your blog, Benji. Just noticing.
I would agree that there is no way to end suffering, but I mean that in an entirely different way. I don't think that innate human greed is the reason suffering cannot be erradicated. People aren't naturally selfish, aren't naturally bad, aren't naturally sinful (if you will). And we aren't naturally good, either. I agree with Leo's character in the movie on this one: we're just naturally people. Naturally inclined only to want to control our own destiny.
The greed that causes suffering could be stopped, or perhaps "controlled" is more what I mean. I firmly believe that world peace is possible, although I firmly do not believe that it will ever actually occur. But personal peace will always be slightly out of reach. Uncertainty and despair and grief will always exist, and in that sense there is no way to end suffering without denying free will.
Peon Peetie
30 January 2007 03:54pm UTC
woah. pulling out the big guns, eh? there's quite a bit to respond to here, but in effort to strive to be my better person, i'll keep this short and to the point. i suppose i have three points to make.
first, it is clear to me that this is something people need to think about. in fact, i think simply being aware of (and dedicating any time to) this sort of thing is already a big step to becoming that better, unattainable person. kudos there, benj.
second, suffering will never end, whether there is a possibility of achieving this alleged "world peace" or not. everything, in my opinion, is relative, on both an individual basis and a worldly one. buddhists have a notion of suffering as being a near-endless cycle, called samsara, from which escape is the eternal goal. possibly interpreted as selfish, the buddhist goal can be achieved sooner by aiding others and making their suffering that much less. karma has never really been a big part of my world view in the past, though i can't really say the same now.
my third point is difficult for me to articulate, as it has taken me a long time to even believe. i've long since lived with the philosophy you touched on, believing that you can't realistically make much change in the world-- that you can change the lives of a few people, but big changes are out of reach. part of me saw this as a compromise and a cop-out. but lately, i've started seeing it a little differently. there have been a few things in my life that have made me feel different regarding this subject (and now i'm trying to compress my trip to china, my eight years working retail in a snobby rich area, love, and the little things into a small paragraph). the biggest one, though, comes back to my first point. perhaps you can't change the world; you not only can, but do change others around you. and striving to that better self will make the world that much better, since you often change people more than you will ever realize. the way that some guy who comes into the bike shop who says a genuine thank you can brighten my day, which hopefully brightens others, and so forth. the way that a smile and a nod on the street at just the right time makes you smile for a few seconds after they've passed. i suppose this means to not just be aware of things, but also to be sensitive to things.
anyway, forgive the endless blathering. for those of you that made it this far, i'm sorry. and happy tuesday!
The Anonymous Poppy
31 January 2007 01:51am UTC
I agree with Peter: pay it forward. (I know that's a gross simplification of your point on having good interactions with people.)
I think, personally, I've been trying to discover how I feel it would be best for me to live in the world and then focusing on achieving that lifestyle. I consider my inclinations, my personality, and my talents and skills (bearing in mind that talents and skills that I do not currently possess can conceivably be acquired). For many reasons, it would be a really bad idea for me to try to help the world by becoming a journalist trying to raise awareness concerning the world trade in conflict diamonds (for example). I'd hate doing it, and I'd be spectacularly bad at it. But maybe for someone else, that's what being a "good person" means.
Maybe I should be a good person by just being mindful of the earth by becoming vegan and conserving water and encouraging others to do the same.
As a senior in college, I think this is the perfect time anyway for me to be focussed on determining what kind of person I want to be and how I want to be in the world.
Dread Pirate Benjamin
31 January 2007 05:41am UTC
I made a huge semantical error in this post. The second to last paragraph reads, "I guess the point of this post is just that I am no longer sure about what my contribution to the world should be."
The use of the word 'should' in that sentence makes me feel really uncomfortable. By using it I was implying that we are here on earth for some sort of purpose. That I need to accomplish something as a human being. Which I vehemently disagree with. I really do feel that we are just a random result of a bunch of wacky atoms (or I really want to believe that). The only motivation I have for being good to others, is compassion for others. But it certainly is not an obligation.
And yes Poppy, I have noticed that, too. It is usually on posts with topics that I am not exactly the most comfortable talking about with the public (the limited public that reads this site). I am sorry if I have discouraged any one from commenting!
The Anonymous Poppy
31 January 2007 10:03pm UTC
I think it's fine that you say so. I mean, it's just the kind of thing you (or anyone) would say if you were having this conversation with someone. I hope you didn't dissuade anyone from commenting either. I'd really like to hear more thoughts on the subject.
You know, as a person who's a big fan of human obligation and thinking that we are on this earth for some sort of purpose, I struggle with this topic quite a bit. Am I doing enough in the world? Am I who I should be? And not, you know, in fear of judgement if I'm not, just because I think things do have purpose and I have a really strong and deep desire to be a "good person."
Robert
5 February 2007 09:02pm UTC
I finally saw Blood Diamond this weekend, I thought it was good.