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 yet. C’mon, people, we can do this.
The word “hope” has taken on two different meanings — in fact, nearly opposite meanings — in our present society, and that is causing some confusion and antagonism:
- Some people define “hope” as the belief that someone else — perhaps a god or a benevolent politician — will take care of things for us. 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 (though far from certain), and that the favorable outcome is made more likely by our own actions. That belief, that uncertainty, is the only possible MOTIVATION FOR ACTION. (And those of us who define “hope” this way are really, really, really annoyed by those other people who tell us how much they despise hope.)
Traditionally, a “miracle” has meant an action by God. But Charles Eisenstein has given a different definition, one that makes God optional. Eisenstein says that a miracle is simply any event that most people believe impossible until it happens.
So, the miracle I’m hoping for is that some good ideas, and some understanding, will spread quickly. That rarely happens, but there isn’t any physical law preventing it. And, of course, I’m doing whatever little bit I can, to try to help that miracle happen. Won’t you join me?