This is Important

                                                                This is Important

                                                                by Marco M. Pardi 

“Most people go on living their everyday life: half frightened, half indifferent, they behold the ghostly tragi-comedy that is being performed on the international stage before the eyes and ears of the world.” Einstein. Out of My Later Life, 1950

All comments welcome.  To those readers who have been hesitant to comment or ask questions, please be assured you may do so freely. In recent days several new people have signed on as followers, enabling them to comment freely, and it is hoped they will. All previous posts are open for comment by clicking on “uncategorized”. Reader participation keeps this site vibrant. MMP

————————————————————————

My usual response to the statement, This is important is to ask: To whom?  From that I can gather preliminary information for the next question: Why? My entire career, in its several manifestations, has been one of not just listening to what people say, but examining why they say it. 

In a complex society we are surrounded by issues all the time.  But if you have trouble focusing, you can always be sure U.S. presidential election cycles will make every effort to guide you, like it or not.  As late as today I’ve looked over a couple of dozen national polls asking what is important in this coming election.  The lead issue is the economy and jobs.  Terrorism, health care, immigration, and “social issues” rotate for second place.  Quite possibly, “social issues” is code for the racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and outright Fascism embodied in one current narcissistic buffoon of a candidate.  As such, it would gloss over the precise distinctions people would be forced to make if they actually thought.  Thought.  Who has time for that?

How people rank order their perceptions of importance has long been of interest to me.  Looking more deeply, how far beyond the acquisition of what is important, or the resolution of an important issue people actually think, is also of great interest.  Most people have heard the admonition, Be careful what you wish for.  But how many think of consequences, especially when those consequences largely apply to other people?  And how many actions and tactics toward achieving an “important” goal are based in unexamined beliefs and their attendant feelings?

Without devolving into unnecessary rhetoric it is fair to say the economic model of capitalism is parasitic, not symbiotic.  In a finite resource world the accrual of capital – surplus, profit, gain, or some other label, comes through denial of the stipulated resource to others.  A capitalist hopes to be the parasite, not the host. 

But the concerns tallied in polls are in the aggregate.  How about the individual level?  I think it is reasonable to assert that control over the functions of one’s own body is about as individual as one can get.  Yet the issue of reproductive choice is aggregated into the “social issues” box, along with restroom choice and other such burning issues.  To better understand those who strongly advocate control over someone else’s body, those who would legislate what choices cannot be made, it is instructive to examine the basis for their sense of importance.

First, the claims made about fetal experience of pain go directly against the findings of medical science and are of a caliber which would fail a simple high school biology class. But those medical findings and the logic of disembodied neuronal response to stimulus are based on thought. The driver in the Pro-Life group is feelings, not thought. And the feelings are based in interpretation of “scripture”, which is itself remarkably silent on birth control and abortion.  However, there is a real world cultural basis for the interpretations and resulting feelings. 

Analysis of the cultural imperatives and the demographics of 1st century BCE (Before the Common Era) through the 5th century CE (Common Era) in the Roman Empire tells us that prolific child bearing was “a duty” of married women.  Presumptions of generating troops, or carrying on the family name aside, the harsh reality was the mortality rate for children birth through age 10 was 50%.  And, that’s for successful birth.  What are now preventable childhood diseases killed a multitude of children. The death in childbirth rate was apparently high, but impossible to calculate.  Furthermore, infants born “weak”, unwanted, or deformed were almost always “exposed” – that is, placed in the city garbage dump.  This was so common it was considered a source of “free slaves” for those willing to take the infant and raise it in their household. Thus, the Replacement Reproduction calculus (ZPG – Zero Population Growth) was: A woman should bear  5 – 6 children assuming minimal impact of diseases, and as many as 9 children in years of plague, famine, or other environmental pressures.

Only very recently in human history have we developed the social and medical resources and programs to dramatically reduce the birth to age 10 death rate.  Yet, even here, economics looms large.  The population hit hardest with the costs of child rearing is the economically disadvantaged, largely minority in make up. Yet, with an almost 100% overlay, the Pro-Life people support the political party rabidly dedicated to the severe reduction or elimination of the very social and medical resources and programs which have brought the birth to age 10 death rate from 50% to where it is today. Several States, with Texas significantly out in front, divert tax money intended for social, medical and economic support of the disadvantaged to “Pregnancy Crisis Centers”, misleading operations which present outright false information to women who, shown by their very attendance there, are often too distressed to make clearly thought out important choices.  A common “alternative” presented to the struggling family by these “Centers” is to put the child up for adoption.  Is this the new city dump? Ask yourself the comparative chances a Black male infant has of adoption compared to a White male infant. Of course, this calls for thought, and thought is anathema to the Pro-Life crowd. Indeed, only a very little thought is needed to realize this crowd is not Pro-Life, it is Pro-Birth.

There is also a rarely examined undercurrent of feeling directed particularly at women: You wanted to play, so now you pay. A distressingly large proportion of the American population still accepts the allegorical Adam and Eve account, presenting the female as the temptress or at least the mentally and emotionally inferior of the species.  The condemnation of the female to the pain, and even the mortal risk of childbirth is seen as her due. And, incredibly enough, a large proportion of the American population wants to impose its feelings on the health and welfare of women and children, banning contraception and abortion even in the cases of rape and incest.  What has long amused me are the twisted turns and deus ex machina devices used by Bible literalists to explain how Adam and Eve, with one surviving son, went on to found the human race.

A recent major book has elucidated how people, voting for what they think are important issues, vote based on their feelings not on their thinking.  But that doesn’t go far enough.  Their feelings are based on the often misinformed and outdated thoughts of others, enshrined in some tomes declared to be sacred despite the endless errors and contradictions. This applies as well in concepts of threat.  The term Fascism elicits in many people feelings of “boots and salutes”, the images from WWII era newsreels of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.  Few seem to know Mussolini himself captured the axiomatic foundation of Fascism in his statement: “Fascism is corporatism.” And fewer still seem to know that “Trickle down economics” is Fascism in its purest sense.

In the same way, the term Communism elicits feelings associated with the old Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba and other State level societies which called or call themselves Communist – or now, Socialist.  But calling one’s self something does not make one that something.  The totalitarian dictatorships just cited bear no resemblance to the communal gathering of the Apostles as “they came together and gave as they were able and took as they had need”.  No attempt at communism has ever developed and succeeded above the Band level in society, such as the band of apostles.  Yet, like Pro-Life, and Freedom, and other simple to say labels, it took on a life of its own driven by feelings, not thought.   

Of course, it would be possible to go through the litany of issues important to people, but even the internet has its limits. (I heard those sighs of relief) But I’m open to thinking about any issue you propose, even if it means bruising a few feelings.