If we have the means to choose our future, why are we on the path to a disastrous one? (Photo: Bryan Minear/Unsplash)
Three Questions to Lead Us Away from Self-Extinction
Transformation begins with clarity on the nature of the choice that confronts our species.
Some ideas hit us in a way that is hard to shake. Last year that happened to me. I was in a public conversation with my friend and colleague, theologian Matthew Fox, when he made this observation: "Humans might be the first species to knowingly choose self-extinction."
Most people recognize that our situation is serious, and many realize it is a choice, not a foreordained destiny. Yet the clarity and finality of Matt's observation keep it ringing in my ears, along with the profound questions it raises.
Are we an inherently flawed species? Have we for some reason suppressed the higher potentials of our nature? If we have the means to choose our future, why are we on the path to a disastrous one? Might we have choices that would lead not only to survival, but as well to truly joyful lives for all? How might Earth's 7.6 billion people come to agree on those choices?
This set of questions led me to the following thought experiment, based on three key assumptions:
- That we have the ability to choose our common future within the natural limits of Earth's generative capacity.
- That we have the collective means to intentionally transition from competing for a declining base of Earth's resources to cooperating to increase and share the capacity of Earth's generative systems.
- That after the death of our physical body, our consciousness is reborn in a random infant body in the same world we just left.
These assumptions provide us with a natural incentive to join in common cause to create a world in which everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, can look forward to a full and satisfying life now and in future rebirths. This contrasts starkly with our current situation, where, given our current trajectory, a future life might be anticipated only with dread.
The next step in the thought experiment is to examine three questions:
- Why does current global culture and its dominant institutions strip so many people of the opportunity for a fulfilling life that could and should be everyone's birthright?
- What are the essential elements of a cultural and institutional transformation needed to assure that every person has that opportunity?
- How might we collectively advance that transition away from cultural and institutional systems that now fail so many so badly?
What is striking to me is how obvious the answers are. Yet we are far from engaging--or even seriously discussing--the kinds of changes that would create a world into which we might hope to be reborn.
So why does the current system deprive so many of opportunity? Our prevailing cultural choices favor extreme individualistic competition for material goods. Our institutional choices reward the destruction of Earth's capacity to support life and concentrate control by fewer and fewer people over what remains of that capacity. The many are thus pressed into lives of desperate servitude to the few.
The obvious alternative begins with the recognition that individually and collectively, we survive and thrive only as interdependent, sharing, and mutually contributing members of Earth's community of life. We are better served by working together to create a world that works for all, rather than competing for what remains of a shrinking pool of real wealth.
Transformation begins with clarity on the nature of the choice and its cultural and institutional implications. Our defining cultural value must become cooperation. And we must transfer power from institutions that reward predatory competition to ones that facilitate and reward cooperation in service to the common good.
I'd love to see interested groups begin conversations based on these assumptions and questions. Such conversations are essential to the deep transformations so needed at this time.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Some ideas hit us in a way that is hard to shake. Last year that happened to me. I was in a public conversation with my friend and colleague, theologian Matthew Fox, when he made this observation: "Humans might be the first species to knowingly choose self-extinction."
Most people recognize that our situation is serious, and many realize it is a choice, not a foreordained destiny. Yet the clarity and finality of Matt's observation keep it ringing in my ears, along with the profound questions it raises.
Are we an inherently flawed species? Have we for some reason suppressed the higher potentials of our nature? If we have the means to choose our future, why are we on the path to a disastrous one? Might we have choices that would lead not only to survival, but as well to truly joyful lives for all? How might Earth's 7.6 billion people come to agree on those choices?
This set of questions led me to the following thought experiment, based on three key assumptions:
- That we have the ability to choose our common future within the natural limits of Earth's generative capacity.
- That we have the collective means to intentionally transition from competing for a declining base of Earth's resources to cooperating to increase and share the capacity of Earth's generative systems.
- That after the death of our physical body, our consciousness is reborn in a random infant body in the same world we just left.
These assumptions provide us with a natural incentive to join in common cause to create a world in which everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, can look forward to a full and satisfying life now and in future rebirths. This contrasts starkly with our current situation, where, given our current trajectory, a future life might be anticipated only with dread.
The next step in the thought experiment is to examine three questions:
- Why does current global culture and its dominant institutions strip so many people of the opportunity for a fulfilling life that could and should be everyone's birthright?
- What are the essential elements of a cultural and institutional transformation needed to assure that every person has that opportunity?
- How might we collectively advance that transition away from cultural and institutional systems that now fail so many so badly?
What is striking to me is how obvious the answers are. Yet we are far from engaging--or even seriously discussing--the kinds of changes that would create a world into which we might hope to be reborn.
So why does the current system deprive so many of opportunity? Our prevailing cultural choices favor extreme individualistic competition for material goods. Our institutional choices reward the destruction of Earth's capacity to support life and concentrate control by fewer and fewer people over what remains of that capacity. The many are thus pressed into lives of desperate servitude to the few.
The obvious alternative begins with the recognition that individually and collectively, we survive and thrive only as interdependent, sharing, and mutually contributing members of Earth's community of life. We are better served by working together to create a world that works for all, rather than competing for what remains of a shrinking pool of real wealth.
Transformation begins with clarity on the nature of the choice and its cultural and institutional implications. Our defining cultural value must become cooperation. And we must transfer power from institutions that reward predatory competition to ones that facilitate and reward cooperation in service to the common good.
I'd love to see interested groups begin conversations based on these assumptions and questions. Such conversations are essential to the deep transformations so needed at this time.
Some ideas hit us in a way that is hard to shake. Last year that happened to me. I was in a public conversation with my friend and colleague, theologian Matthew Fox, when he made this observation: "Humans might be the first species to knowingly choose self-extinction."
Most people recognize that our situation is serious, and many realize it is a choice, not a foreordained destiny. Yet the clarity and finality of Matt's observation keep it ringing in my ears, along with the profound questions it raises.
Are we an inherently flawed species? Have we for some reason suppressed the higher potentials of our nature? If we have the means to choose our future, why are we on the path to a disastrous one? Might we have choices that would lead not only to survival, but as well to truly joyful lives for all? How might Earth's 7.6 billion people come to agree on those choices?
This set of questions led me to the following thought experiment, based on three key assumptions:
- That we have the ability to choose our common future within the natural limits of Earth's generative capacity.
- That we have the collective means to intentionally transition from competing for a declining base of Earth's resources to cooperating to increase and share the capacity of Earth's generative systems.
- That after the death of our physical body, our consciousness is reborn in a random infant body in the same world we just left.
These assumptions provide us with a natural incentive to join in common cause to create a world in which everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, can look forward to a full and satisfying life now and in future rebirths. This contrasts starkly with our current situation, where, given our current trajectory, a future life might be anticipated only with dread.
The next step in the thought experiment is to examine three questions:
- Why does current global culture and its dominant institutions strip so many people of the opportunity for a fulfilling life that could and should be everyone's birthright?
- What are the essential elements of a cultural and institutional transformation needed to assure that every person has that opportunity?
- How might we collectively advance that transition away from cultural and institutional systems that now fail so many so badly?
What is striking to me is how obvious the answers are. Yet we are far from engaging--or even seriously discussing--the kinds of changes that would create a world into which we might hope to be reborn.
So why does the current system deprive so many of opportunity? Our prevailing cultural choices favor extreme individualistic competition for material goods. Our institutional choices reward the destruction of Earth's capacity to support life and concentrate control by fewer and fewer people over what remains of that capacity. The many are thus pressed into lives of desperate servitude to the few.
The obvious alternative begins with the recognition that individually and collectively, we survive and thrive only as interdependent, sharing, and mutually contributing members of Earth's community of life. We are better served by working together to create a world that works for all, rather than competing for what remains of a shrinking pool of real wealth.
Transformation begins with clarity on the nature of the choice and its cultural and institutional implications. Our defining cultural value must become cooperation. And we must transfer power from institutions that reward predatory competition to ones that facilitate and reward cooperation in service to the common good.
I'd love to see interested groups begin conversations based on these assumptions and questions. Such conversations are essential to the deep transformations so needed at this time.