5) RESPECT

I always thought this word described something that was earned.  A sincere and genuine sentiment inspired in us by another.  I Respect Rafael Nadals ability to hold his own, even on clay, against the rising talent of Novak Djokavic despite the latter’s apparent talent dominance in men’s tennis at the moment. I respect him because he still able to win quite often, even though arguably outgunned.  It shows a certain mental quality that I recognize, admire and possibly even envy.

I’m sure the above is a simple enough statement and an understandable sentiment.  It’s what I feel rightly or wrongly, so I can state it freely.  Nobody should be able to hold your true feelings against you, even though they can perhaps moderate how you express them if there is a danger they may harm others.

What is to be the appropriate reaction then, to a screaming politician like former youth league leader Julius Malema demanding respect but not showing it?  What about a terrorist organization demanding respect for the Prophet Mohammed, and threatening death to those daring to render his image in cartoon or otherwise?  How much respect can be shown to someone’s symbol when they have made clear their reciprocal value on your life?

Can respect be demanded or even requested?  Can it only be earned?  What is the feeling out there?

In terms of our cultural identities and the inherited ritual and ceremony inherent in them, there are two aspects to re-individualizing or freeing ourselves.  The first aspect is severing the ties that currently bind us to a value system.  The second is finding and knowing ourselves, developing the self awareness to get in touch with that part oneself that makes us an individual.

Let’s look at the first aspect, severing the ties.  What holds us back? 

I seriously put forward that respect, unnecessary respect, is corrupting our ability to recognize ineffectual and outdated value systems, and holding us tied to them because respect is seen as an absolute noble quality with context and application largely misunderstood and ignored.  

What happens if we experiment with the context and application to highlight true motives of control and hypocrisy inherent in them?

Let’s look at religion in particular, a huge cultural identifier.

I propose that you cannot possibly respect somebody if you have to pretend to respect their unrealistic beliefs in order to keep the peace.  You can only show respect to them if you feel free in front of them to express to them that you feel their beliefs are out of touch with reality, but that you respect and defend their right to believe what they want, as long it does not infringe on the rights of others, surely?

As an atheist/agnostic whatever your definition requirements are, I seldom receive this “respect” in return for my lack of belief in a supernatural creator from the religious, only requests to respect their particular deity/dogma.  I’m often called cowardly or a “Fence Sitter” (illogically if you think about it). Why respect is typically only expected to work this way around is a mystery, why can’t I be the one getting offended if I am made to say “grace” or whatever, just out of some sort of expected manners protocol?  I say poor manners the other way around rather by expecting me to do it!?

The consequence of embarrassment should be felt by person that believes in magic and want to have it seriously put forward as an option for everyone, not by the reasonable person who relies on evidence and tangible sensory perception?  Why get embarrassed by offending people who are choosing to take offence by restricting your freedom of expression?

They are free to pursue their beliefs, but I respect them too much as a person to respect their supernatural beliefs and I would rather engage in occasional healthy honest debate if they require it, than avoid them a permanent basis because I threaten their particular delusion and I have to pussyfoot around the topic in case I offend.

Nobody has the right to take offense if you speak about how you feel in a way that is not insulting.  I can think religion is absurd and still have religious friends, I can think lime milkshake is revolting and still have friends that drink it.  I do not think they are absurd or revolting.  We need to learn to not confuse our issues, that’s where respect comes into the picture honestly.

Viva la difference, lose the fear and ditch the unnecessary respect, cut the first tie that binds!

This is the first freedom we take for ourselves, nobody will give it to you, and you need to take it!  

4) Behind the STATISTICS

The previous post focused on data and trends relating group identities and values, but what about the real human face and consequence behind these statistics?

“Too Much Too Many” follows David Johnson's South African road trip looking at human population and consumption growth impacts.

David's love of South Africa meant he relocated from London to Cape Town in February 2007.  He's a qualified environmental / town planning lawyer and a qualified field guide (what most people call a game ranger). 

He's written on population and consumption matters for international organizations such as Africa Geographic and the Cape Times. David has also spoken about Too Much Too Many on SABC3's Expresso Show, John Maytham's 567 Cape Talk radio show and the Otherwise show on SA FM

Unlike the PEW research center and other such research organizations, he's not looking for statistics but rather meeting real people whose personal stories highlight why taboos need to be broken and why a new approach is needed with many of the topics he’s looking at. 

Population and consumption growth are impacting people, wildlife and landscapes but the links are often not seen. At the end of the road trip the project will be turned into a book. If you're concerned about human rights, or even just passionate about South Africa’s wildlife / in awe at the country’s staggering landscapes, it is a road trip for you to follow.

Be sure to get stuck in at: http://www.toomuchtoomany.co.za/

How to get involved

We need to get people talking about human impact, so please forward articles to friends who might be interested, share links on Facebook and Twitter, let's get people to join a debate.
 

If you're in South Africa can you suggest interesting issues local to you which might not be well-known? I'd love to hear from you especially.

If you work for an organization outside South Africa involved in the field perhaps we can collaborate. 

http://www.toomuchtoomany.co.za/how-you-can-help/

3) Making the link between IDENTITY and VALUES

I quite enjoy the Pew Research Center because they are a non-partisan, non-advocacy data and research organization.  They are principally concerned with the data and statistics rather than taking or advising a particular position.

Have a look at http://www.pewresearch.org/ and play around.  We quickly get feel that our attitudes and values on issues of the day are linked to our identities in terms of racial, cultural and religious groupings.  These identifiers link certain value systems to the group and produce trends that make value systems almost predictable by such groupings.

You will find trends in attitudes to gay marriage in the very religious, or among Muslims being different to the non-religious or even the politically liberal for instance.  Sometimes these trends are common knowledge and sometimes they are surprising, but usually they are interesting in some way or another.

Taking a position on this issue:

Attitudes on abortion, contraception, women’s rights, children’s rights, misogyny etc etc all seem to have links to cultural values.

Botched circumcisions take a number of lives each year in the coming of age ceremonies, but no matter, they continue each year due to some cultural values held by those communities that must be more important than the risk.  Infant circumcisions are more important than an individual’s right to decide on his own body in some societies.  Other groups use the same word “Circumcision” for females, to describe removal of her genitals basically, and feel that to them it’s pretty much the same thing….

These values are usually more or less prevalent in groups and certain identities reflect certain tendencies.

If a democratic secular society is to be valued, I hope certain things remain non-negotiable.  We have fought very hard for racial equality in South Africa, and we still are not totally there.  Women’s rights and the rights of gays and lesbian have also taken a long time just to get the recognition they have today, and I think we should make these and other things we've fought for NON-NEGOTIABLE in a society that values civil liberty and individual freedom of expression.

Europe and Scandinavia are faced with this clash of value systems due to the large scale Islamic community emigration bringing Islamic values with those communities which are in many ways at odds with Western values. Their children are born into identity crises, which is really not always fair.  How do we reconcile these values?

What are the important issues of today? Overpopulation, the environment, global economy, the energy crises, war, disease, poverty, human rights? Any other ideas to add to this?  I’m sure there are.

Let’s take these issues head on, and make a case for defining our shared culture of common consequence around them by contrasting current cultural values and see which provides the most likely way to find SOLUTIONS.

2) IDENTITY

Here is a table showing the different religious grouping in South Africa according to the 2001 national Census.

 

SA Census 2001 

Denomination	Adherents
Dutch Reformed churches	3,005,697
Zion Christian churches	4,971,931
Catholic churches	3,181,332
Methodist churches	3,035,719
Pentecostal/Charismatic churches	3,695,211
Anglican churches	1,722,076
Apostolic Faith Mission	246,193
Lutheran churches	1,130,983
Presbyterian churches	832,497
Bandla Lama Nazaretha	248,825
Baptist churches	691,235
Congregational churches	508,826
Orthodox churches	42,253
Other Apostolic churches	5,627,320
Other Zionist churches	1,887,147
Ethiopian type churches	1,150,102
Other Reformed churches	226,499
Other African independent churches	656,644
Other Christian churches	2,890,151
African traditional belief	125,898
Judaism	75,549
Hinduism	551,668
Islam	654,064
Other beliefs	283,815
No religion	6,767,165
Undetermined	610,974

I think when this is considered, and knowing a little about South Africa’s history of oppression and our stated goal of a “Rainbow Nation” we can see the value of living in a secular society.  Secularism in essence advocates that government Institutions, political decisions, legal principles etc should be neutral on the influence of any religious group as far as possible, especially one groups interests over another’s.  It will naturally be extremely difficult to be completely secular, but from I can ascertain we do a fairly good job of that element over here along with the racial element, possibly as a result of our past and carefully considered constitution.

Some parts of the world don’t work this way, like Pakistan for example, but I’ve learned from interaction on social media sites that idea’s on free thinking are spreading, and indoctrination by one group over another seems to be on the way out.  The events in the last few years regarding Egypt, Libya, Syria etc seem to re-enforce the notion that we are moving in a general direction where dictatorships and overt oppression are no longer tolerated by populations.  The more subtle forms of oppression will possibly re addressed next.  I’m fairly sure there will be fireworks along the way, but I’m sure we will get there or thereabouts.

Most of history has been defined by the spread and clash of civilizations and ideologies, crusades have happened and wars have been fought, the dust is still settling.  The future in a shrinking world, in my opinion, belongs to tolerance and co-operation rather than to division and war.

In order to get there each group has to look at its values and be willing and open to change if needed, and this cannot always be guaranteed if some or other absolute morality is perceived to exist unchallenged from an all knowing god. That would equate openness to new ideas with going against god’s word.

The very religious also cite lack of ability to disprove the existence of god as very good reason to require no evidence whatsoever.  Here “Faith” is seen as a quality of strength rather than as a weakness and the scientific method of requiring evidence and repeatable results is regarded with suspicion.  I am typing this on a computer, so I know that works and even though religion has never offered anything provable beyond some sort of intangible emotional solace, it will persist for some time to come, possibly as long as we are around.

There are two ways around this roadblock; one is by undermining the current understanding of our translation / interpretation of the holy texts.  This will introduce an element of doubt into our version of god’s word, rather than god’s ACTUAL word.  This might provide scope for compromise where there was previously none and I will devote a section of this blog to doing precisely that in an upcoming chapter.

But what if there is another way?  What if the power to bring us together and remove unwarranted prejudice lies at the level of the individual instead of the group?

This leads me to the central theme of this blog.  How free are WE to process information, make decisions and to know ourselves?  We may be legally free, but are we really free from other influences that may use coercion or duress or enforce a sense of community identity that may have values that are at odds with our individual identity? What about exploring aspects of another group that we are curious about because it inspires some sort of passion and belonging in us?

What I am proposing is that we are finally at a stage when we have constitutional backing to be more than just our inherited identities. It will serve us well to ditch unquestioned absolute morality to get in touch with values that resound with us on a personal level, even if it is at odds with defining values that we inherited through our cultural background.

1) TRUST

Words relating to motive are very interesting because they are not communicative when the underlying principles are associated with moral judgments and values. Unlike “Chair” or “God” their application absolutely must be deconstructed into separate principles.  The principles expose deeply attached needs to control and influence, and I suspect these principles sabotage freedom to live authentically.

Let s start with a short, sweet contentious issue.  I’m going to put forward that the notion of trustworthiness as an absolutely noble quality is highly corrupting of self awareness, and is one of the subtlest mechanisms of control parading as worthiness.

Without even getting into the political reasons why trustworthiness is afforded, we can expose the control mechanism in principle, as a fundamental fraud.

Let’s look at romantic relationships, universally relatable as part of the human condition.

Scenario 1)

One partner expects a certain code of conduct to be forthcoming in order to remain part of a relationship, perhaps monogamy or certain social or family involvements.  A closed parameter is created, rules and set up and the contract is negotiated.  That is the requirement of this partner.  If the other partner values the union they will need to conduct themselves in accordance with this requirement to keep the relationship going.

With this barrier in place the second partner is no longer free to act in a way that may have been consistent with their unrestricted nature, perhaps shagging everything that moves, and the first partner has declared that their interest is not in getting to know how partner number 2 functions, but in controlling or moderating their behavior. Partner 2 has been restrained, and partner 1 will police this issue indefinitely because because a natural behavior has been adjusted.  Will partner 1 ever be able to "trust" partner 2 with this element in play?

Scenario 2)

Now let turn the approach around.  Partner number 1 meets partner number 2 and no rules are established. The objective is establishing compatibility, Partner 1 gets to observe partner 2 operating freely and is able to evaluate their natural un-moderated behavior and make a decision I consider to be well informed.  Perhaps partner number 1 decides that this aspect (The excessive need for sexual partners) is (understandably) a deal breaker and the 2 separate as a result. “We want different things”

Scenario 3)

Partner number 2 from each of the above hook up, and express mutual interest in swinging or shagging the town red together.  They get to have this relationship together and enjoy it for whatever it offers them, and deal with whatever fallout emerges.  Consequences can be freely assessed and moderation to their behaviors can be self realized rather than policed.

The same could be said for the goals, IE do you want children?  The values of finding someone who wants what you want are just as or more important except the values and judgment are less inherent.  If we are deceived here (it happens) you would have been unlikely to pose the question "can I trust you to want children" since it is recognized as a choice with slightly less judgment of right and wrong either way, which free's us somewhat to negotiate the terms for what they are rather than bringing trust into the equation.

Trust is earned, it's the product of upholding your end of the deal and delivering on promises, not a tool to get there.

These are scenarios are contrived to illustrate my point, but I see a clear case being made for the benefit of being able to truly evaluate and ascertain reality in order to best manage it, rather than live an illusion based on control and manipulation, all along feeling justified because you are in the right and as result have no understanding of the need to be free from fantasy.

There are none so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Setting the scene

There are rough seas ahead.  

Initially it will not be so apparent, not while I make few connections essential to make clear my intended basic premise, always open to moderation. It will also not be so apparent right now, while I establish principles that can be applied universally, and to which I can refer back to later on if a valid need to reference or challenge them arises.  

As themes develop and interconnect there will likely be increasingly provocative claims made and questions asked.  When emotions run high human beings tend to defend their statements because with the push of a button their words are suddenly cast into existence in the digital realm of cyberspace.  It’s so easy these days to put yourself out there, to put your image and reputation on the line, your public identity.  I don’t like my comments ripped apart by others especially for others to so easily witness. This will interfere with free processing of information because it invites in a sort of ego based agenda, like a vampire into your house that will suck the life blood from the process and leave only a shriveled husk of personal pride lying dead on the floor.

Now before I get into the really contentious stuff we need to set up a M.O. or define with reasonable fairness a few ground rules of engagement.  This will really be the only vaguely closed or defined aspect of the blog and I've designed them to make the content manageable, focused enough, and to remain clear enough so as to understandable by all.  I welcome suggestions are how to improve the method, I initially included the following text in red but have decided due to to feedback that it is not useful:but  I really don’t see the usefulness of long and rambling philosophical utterings involving metaphysical perspectives on themes that achieve precisely nothing useful or practical.

As Carl Sagan so sagely cautions, I don’t want my mind to be so open that my brain falls out.  This kind of intellectual posturing seems by design to be more useful as marketing tool for one’s brilliance and less useful for achieving set goals, especially if they are to be commonly understood.

There is also a very good case to be made about the clear meanings of words.  For example, I don’t think that, if after a long debate when possibly cornered by a sequence of logic, one should make a case about how “To me, when I say that I believe in god, I mean that god is nature, and the laws of physics”.  That is a subjective association and I put forward that it is not a useful connection to make in a shared forum unless clarified upfront. Even then I see it belonging more in the metaphysics realm; I question its communicative usefulness when there is already a very loaded understanding of a word such a “God”.  The phrase “The laws of physics” already exists and the word “nature” can have very general connotations if used incorrectly in specific context, such as in defining the nature of a deity, …. See what I mean?

Even more importantly for my objectives to be realized I think subjective evaluations should only be made in that context, IE as opinions qualified accordingly. The statement “That is wrong” is a useless judgment unless qualified, IE “That would be considered wrong by society/my mother/church/the judge”.  Even better might be “That is currently illegal”.

I think this depersonalized approach will put the focus on the content rather than the agenda’s of the individual.  I will do my best to abide by this code and I would relish being exposed for any conduct contrary to this commitment.  

Introduction

I have this crazy idea that we can solve pretty much all of our biggest problems.  I'm talking globally here, but I wouldn't exclude personal issues either.

If this is true, what the hell is stopping us?  I have a few ideas, others have different ideas.  Sometimes they clash and I want to work out exactly why that is and if it is avoidable and within the means of our biological nature and our currently defined psychology.

This blog will propose ideas that will be shaped by criticism and contribution. When enough themes have been explored, a completed body of work will emerge.  Make no mistake, boundaries will be tested, in some cases severely and there may be strong reactions.  Those reactions may even be the essential clues that I'm looking for.

The issues raised will eventually be (purposefully) highly provocative, but not provocative for the sake of provocation, I need to reasonably clear on that, and policed on that issue to be kept in line. In order to get the desired feedback I obviously require feedback from sources I consider my most valued perspectives, IE those looking to be free from attachment to baggage and sentiment that are not truly their own.  I may be privileged to uncover unexpected perspectives that I couldn't have imagined on my own.  I live in hope I guess I'll do my best to avoid the frauds out there, those who have already decided who they are and which values represent them.  I have little interest in dogma or predictable closed policies from the established social institutions and their political agenda's.  

Not giving them a mouthpiece in this space has less to do with fairness or open-mindedness and more to do with having limited time and scope to shape the material by filtering it through the perspectives I need the most because, rather than going around in closed dogmatic circles of pseudo logic, each of you may likely contribute something I need or do not already have.

In the meantime I want to raise a qualifier by way of an introduction:

Who are you? Who am I?

To be honest I don’t really know. I've never really been encouraged to find out, not beyond a token gesture at least, and I propose that neither have you.  When our parents and teachers tell us to go out there and find ourselves we now know through a myriad of self-help books and pop-psychology catch phrases on social media applied and recited without context, that what they really mean is go out there and choose a label.  The strange thing is that knowing this is not stopping most of us from going out there and doing exactly that.  

My ominous plan involves demonstrating without a shadow of doubt that none of us really knows terribly much about ourselves.  And that’s part of the reason for putting pen to paper in an attempt to explore the themes surrounding what defines us and how we identify ourselves to the world.  Who we think we are fundamentally influences our interactions with the world around us and filters our methods of getting in touch with our perceived values and morals.  Finding out who we really are will require shaking these foundations to their very core, and may even invoke a slight crises of identity along the way.  This crisis, for the truly free, can only open up possibilities that did not previously exist through some or other form of exclusion. Being free and open to new solutions, or solutions that already exist but seem alien to us, may be all that missing from many lives on planet earth.

I want each person reading to this to take my challenge, and when threatened or confronted with logic that doesn't resound, I want to hear your reasoning, justifications and suspicions with what I suggest as barriers to processing information freely.  It will not be easy.     

Exploring these connections has been a profound and awe inspiring journey for me personally, and I cannot complete it alone. That is still not the only reason I feel I have something external to offer the world.  If who we are, what our identity seems to be, truly  imposes limitations on our ability to think about all the important issues facing the world, then we will all agree that it needs to be addressed.  Once we have made a connection with a group, image or identity of any kind, our attachment to this notion of self requires re-enforcement in order to sustain a sense of belonging.  As long that remains important to us we will always need to process information available to us in life, the media, in church, parliament, at work, school or anywhere else, all within the broader description of what is required to sustain our identities.  In other words,...limited.

If it is possible to reject this notion of attachment to an identity that defines our value system  the ramifications are profound.  Help me find out.