Essay for
Sept. 2009

An Attention Grabbing Crossroad
(Or, the preservation or potential destruction of human civilization)

Humans have the interesting ability of blaming others for events that they could have potentially minimized or prevented. Most hold the erroneous thought, or belief, that their voice is too insignificant to change governmental policies that ultimately affect everyone. By that omission they are supporting polices they may not agree with. In effect, if those polices ultimately do harm, those who by omission did nothing to prevent that harm are indirectly responsible for it. Raising the question, are omissions - normally unseen by anyone bar he/she doing the omission - in the same category as actions that are visible. Visible actions can be judged, or labeled, as being responsible, irresponsible, harmful, destructive or beneficial. When we witness visible actions that cause harm to others the normal response is to intervene, punish, admonish, or in the least become annoyed with 'others' that 'should' be doing something about it. However, what about omissions that are equally harmful to others, but are hidden within non-participation or silence. Is every citizen of every country morally, and so ethically, bound to do no harm to others or just to do no harm to only those that are of the same or similar mindset or religious/cultural heritage? Is there a subliminal moral and ethical responsibility to do no harm to anyone at any time, or can one avoid that responsibility by non-participation or silence? If you analyze those questions, you will have a difficult time not concluding that those who act by omission are just as responsible as those who establish the potential and/or create actions that are harmful to others. However, only visible actions are judged. Actions by omission are normally ignored, or are they?

It can be hypothesized that visible acts directly, and omissions indirectly, that cause harm to another have equal standing. Nevertheless, only the visible ones can be, and are judged and so potentially punishable. It hardly seems fair that acts of omissions that are equally, but indirectly, responsible are also not potentially punishable. That unfairness is a reality, as most legal systems do not contain any form of penalty for acts of omission. However, if one seriously observes the consequences of omissions, it is discoverable that those who participate in omissions, both directly and indirectly pay a price for the omission, as there appears to be an indirect reckoning that is directly experienced. Example: a policy of one country inflames the passions of another country and in some manner those passions, in turn, cause harm to the country that initiated the policy. If your country - hence, indirectly you - is the recipient of that harm, directly or indirectly caused by that inflammatory policy, and even though you opposed the policy you did nothing to prevent it from becoming the governing strategy, your omission is support and so an action. Meaning, an omission is an unseen action and is equally responsible for any policy that causes harm. Therefore, if you witness any action or governmental policy that potentially, directly or indirectly, causes harm to another and you do nothing about that action, your omission in some manner will come back to bite you and that bite can be a massive one. You may have a variety of valid arguments against such a statement, but if you honestly examine the results of your 'known' omissions, you will observe the harm those omissions have directly created or indirectly supported. This is valid even for those 'things' that appear way beyond an individual's capacity to alter. If something is wrong, or potentially harmful, it is your innate responsibility to attempt to prevent that harmful, or potentially harmful, event from occurring. The 'innateness' occurs as you instinctively know, even if you do want to admit it to yourself, that your omission to act can potentially come back to bite you. The instinct is a 'silent-internal-voice' that one rarely listens to or generally ignores as the seductive stimulation of the world constantly overpowers it. Learning to listen to that silent-voice requires one to examine the results of his/hers actions as well as one's acts of omissions. The results are normally avoided but if you want an internal honesty to prevail in your life, that examination is essential. The willingness to listen to that silent-voice contains the potential to become the cornerstone of an individual's developing wisdom.

Self-preservation then takes on a new dimension, as to act may directly affect your financial and/or physical self-preservation, but not to act is an omission that may indirectly do the same thing. It is an experiential-learning conundrum. Self-preservation, by action or omission, brings this little essay to its topic, the preservation or potential destruction of human civilization. What preserves it and what can potentially destroy it? Sometimes knowing the difference can be difficult to fathom as various forms of national self-interest, disguised as beneficial, easily obscure individual clarity of vision. Meaning, there are a plethora of ways to manipulate information to justify destructive actions, and the justification can be so well presented that it becomes difficult to imagine any other conclusion. There is always another way than a destructive way, but taking that pathway may require personal courage in the face of sometimes overwhelming financial, emotional, religious, peer, and family pressures. The personal courage it takes to oppose popular destructive actions can be agonizing but ignoring those actions is an omission and the omission, in some form, will always come back to bite. There is always another way; seeing it is clarity of vision, following the clarity is where courage enters one's life.

The following two examples demonstrate an action, and an omission to act. One is obvious, the other not so obvious. However, the results of both are catastrophic. For the first time within earth's history, its human population has the ability to self-destruct: partially and/or potentially totally. One of the many possibilities is a nuclear winter defined as a long period of darkness and extreme cold that scientists predict would follow a full-scale nuclear war; a layer of dust and smoke in the atmosphere would cover the earth and block the rays of the sun; most living organisms would perish. Of course, this ignores all those ongoing 'little' skirmishes that perpetually plague our civilization, normally only destroying 'local' inhabitations in their thousands and sometimes millions, but does not consume the entire population of the planet. Obviously, any action to prevent a nuclear exchange is vital for our civilization to continue. However, what about new 'baby' nuclear controlled blasts? How is one going to bend one's moral/ethical standard to accommodate or justify these new 'babies'?

Humans potentially think in absolutes such as good/evil, but what about self-justifying creep, where good, ponderously slow, transforms into evil with each minuscule-creeping movement scarcely being perceptible. Before you are fully aware of what has happened, what initially appeared as good has slowly being corrupted, polluting that initial good, transforming it into something harmful or potentially outright destructive, which is the chameleon nature of evil unmasking itself. Missing the creep from potential good to potential evil is a form of indirect omission, created by the stealth innate within the creep by blanking itself in a miasma of patriotism and self-justifying survival. No matter in what direction you look to see the results of that omission, know that you are partially responsible for what is witnessed. An omission is an action, even if it is not recognized as such, but the results condemn.

The next major issue that can affect the entire planet would be the collapse of the ocean's conveyor belt, initiated and perpetuated by global warming, bringing on a real winter sometimes referred to as a mini-ice-age: a long deep freeze creating minuscule growing times and having a devastating affect upon infrastructure. The cooling of surface waters near Antarctica, and in the Greenland and Labrador seas, creates cold, heavy water that sinks, setting up what is known as the great ocean conveyor belt. This brings warm surface water from the equator to the poles, and returns cool waters at depth. The cooler deep water mixes so that it warms and rises as it travels towards the equator. The conveyor belt slowly moves water from one ocean basin to another, redistributing heat, salt and nutrients: this recirculation smoothes out the earth's temperature. Global warming contains the potential to stop this ocean conveyor belt from functioning, creating catastrophic problems in some areas and appalling problems in others.

A nuclear war is very preventable simply by acknowledging its mutually assured destruction (MAD). However, the knowledge that the great ocean conveyor belt may stop, due to global warming, does not necessarily demand action as there are those who deny global warming, stating it is just the normal variation of earth's temperature fluctuations and it will eventually return to normal. Is that stance leading humankind on a destructive pathway by the manipulation of information (creep) to preserve the status quo of a small group of powerful individuals, corporations, or countries? Or, does that stance have validity. Here enters the internal debate of action or omission to act on a variety of levels. Action will have consequences and so will omission. Choosing the least personally harmful may appear to be the right decision, but is it? Does that decision take into account your ethical standards and moral framework, or does it simply bypass that foundation for a more personally acceptable belief, sustained by your vision of self-preservation? If your moral/ethical foundation is bypassed, or bent to accommodate the bypassing, will that omission ultimately come back to bite you?

Normally, there is just one decision that all other decisions are based upon and that one decision is usually founded upon some form of self-preservation. Superficially, there appears nothing incorrect with using that foundation as a guide for your initial decision. However, that foundation is based upon a short-term vision of existence. If we expect politicians to form long-term policies, and not knee-jerk reactions to be reelected, it would be hypocritical not to apply the same standard to ourselves. Consequently, rather than constantly being seduced by short-term self-preservation decisions, it is imperative to lengthen one's vision and move beyond a simply self-preservation standard. Meaning, if you do not act, or act by omission, thereby maintaining a myopic short-term self-protective vision, you will ultimately witness a life that contains more complications, and some of those complications can be far worse than what the original omission or action was constructed upon.

Therefore, it is always advisable to have an intense think about one's moral/ethical standards to ascertain if they can withstand all forms of attack, without having them bent out of shape to accommodate or facilitate a justification for the bending. Alternatively, you may have drifted through life without clearly defining your moral/ethical foundation, merely accepting viewpoints or positions as your own. This is similar to barnacles that grow upon the bottom of a boat: they attach and by that attachment, the boat's forward motion is slowed. Human 'barnacles' attach in the same manner and are bundled into what is loosely, and mistakenly, referred to as 'values'. Human values are not necessarily rigorously thought out positions but more an eclectic confederation of prevailing attitudes and/or beliefs forming a cultural catchall. It is a politician's word, as it can mean a variety of things that apparently we hold in common, but cannot clearly define what that 'common' is: fitting perfectly into a politician's vocabulary as the term 'values' can be manipulated to mean many things without the necessity of clarifying what is really meant. It is a tricky word. Hence, it is always a wise decision to demand clarification if any politician uses it. If you use that word, take care to clearly define it, and if you do that clarification, using the word 'values' becomes irrelevant as its content is explained.

To make a moral/ethical judgment, you actually have to think about the foundation they establish and then actively accept and engage that standard as your guide in life. However, thinking about it and actually having to stand firm within those standards, when you are personally confronted with a moral/ethical decision (dilemma), are two different worlds. Not bending your moral/ethical standards to do no harm, no matter what, will in some manner cost you. However, if you can see and move beyond the cost your sense of self-worth will soar to new heights, and from that elevation the cost will be perceived as not only minimal but also unimportant. Meaning, your internal honesty is self-justified by the action. Doing no harm to others, and yourself, requires action. If your moral foundation requires that action, you cannot do otherwise, establishing an ethical prohibition against any act of omission, preventing creep from permeating a culture by stealth, thereby maintaining the directional-health of a nation and the physical and mental health of its populace. Constant vigilance is required or creep will destroy in the guise of preserving. You validate your moral/ethical standards by that vigilance. By living within that standard, an experientially profound meaning of existence is internally unveiled, releasing an inner direction that has always been present. It just required you to liberate it. The only way to prove that statement is to do it.

- Scriptural Reference (if required) -

-Christian: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

-Buddhist: Consider others as yourself.

-Taoist: The man in whom the Tao acts without impediment harms no other being by his actions, yet he does not know himself to be kind or gentle.

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE