Kindness, Hope, and a Godless Miracle
We could still save ourselves, if all of us — or even most of us — collectively took the right actions. We could end war, and poverty, and maybe even climate change (with enough trees and biochar). It’s not physically impossible — it’s not like it would violate the law of gravity or some other physical law. It just would involve
people cooperating, and being
kind, and listening to each other.
If we could do that much, we could work out the rest. It’s really simple. It’s the simplest thing in the world. It’s something each of us does with our friends. But to do it with everyone? I don’t see it happening.
Some words have more than one meaning. The word “hope” is used in opposite ways by two groups of people:
- Some people define “hope” as the belief that someone else — perhaps a god — will take care of things. People who define it that way despise “hope,” because that belief is a JUSTIFICATION FOR INACTION.
- But other people (including me) define “hope” as the belief that a favorable outcome to our situation is possible but uncertain, and that the favorable outcome is made more likely by our own actions. That belief is the only possible MOTIVATION FOR ACTION. (And those of us who define “hope” this way are really, really, really annoyed by the people who tell us how much they despise hope.)
Traditionally, a “miracle” has meant an action by God. But a few years ago Charles Eisenstein gave a different definition, one that makes God optional. Eisenstein said that a miracle is simply any event that most people believe impossible until it happens.
So, the miracle I’m hoping for is that most of the human race will cooperate, and be kind, and listen to each other.
Once in a while I find some words I can say, some action I can take, which might make that miracle just a little more likely. But most of the time, I can’t find any words or actions, and then I’m just frustrated.