David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The Power of Posterity (August 2009)
David Brooks, of the New York Times, offered an inspiring proposal in “The Power of Posterity,” a proposal that fits with what I have been advocating in my ethics and character work. He basically indicated that much of what we do, we do for the unborn children.
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Now, some of you may be saying, “What?” in great surprise at this proposal, particularly those of you without children. But think about it. In his scenario (which came from the Marginal Revolution blog) the question is asked, what would happen if there was a “freak solar event that sterilized the people on the half of the earth that happened to be facing the sun?” This obviously implies that the culture on that half of the earth would essentially come to an end when the children and adults on that half of the earth died. People from the other half of the earth might immigrate, but they would import their culture. After all, since the sterilized folks would soon be dying out, immigrants would have little incentive to adopt the dying culture as their own. The sterilization question triggers us to ask what difference it would make to our lives if we knew that our culture would end in 50 to 100 years.
I often propose that our motivation for ethically transforming our schools, organizations, businesses, and communities is that we want to turn over a world worth having to our children and our grandchildren. When we speak of preserving the environment, or stopping global warming, or not polluting, or saving the Earth, we are aiming for the selflessness of not taking more than our share, of saving something for those who come after us. Not only can we not disconnect ourselves from people who are currently living – because what we do ripples out to affect people and systems beyond us – but it seems that we can’t disconnect ourselves from the generations that come after us either.
In fact, Brooks goes further to suggest that much of what we do, we do for its lasting value. “Without posterity, there are no grand designs. There are no high ambitions. Politics become insignificant. Even words like justice lose meaning because everything gets reduced to the narrow qualities of the here and now.” The great art and music and architecture and companies and business products and government activities are done, not only with the thought of enjoyment and a personal sense of purpose and benefit, but in order to create a lasting contribution to society. In some cases, people engage in these activities for the possibility of lasting fame. Brooks suggests that if there is no future to our culture, if there are no unborn children to inherit what we do, we will reduce our focus to the here and now, and focus only on ourselves as individuals, on what is good for us. As he says, “People would themselves become children, basing their lives on pleasure and ease instead of meanings to be fulfilled.”
Is that where we want to be? Is that what we want our values and our way of living to reflect? I would suggest that we are bigger than that, that, even if we don’t have children ourselves, we realize that our future society and culture lies with our children. There is a reason that we advocate for children, for their education, for their health, for their wellbeing, a reason that extends beyond their vulnerability and inability to advocate for themselves. They are our future. And we have to decide what our future will look like. We sometimes have to decide to sacrifice the now on behalf of that future. We have to look beyond our own pleasure to some greater virtues. The question is, what will those virtues be? What do you want to stand for? What kind of a world do you want to create and pass down to future generations?
Friday, September 18, 2009
Remaking America (March 2009)
Perhaps I am a little late with this blog about the inaugural address. But it still rings through my heart, and is resuscitated each time I receive an email or video from the Obama machine. I can only hope that you too were encouraged and enlivened and inspired by Obama's call to "remake America." And did you notice his call to character as central to this effort, that he rejected the false "choice between our safety and our ideals." Did you notice his call for justice, hope, virtue, humility, restraint, and depending on the "force of our example." He urged us to return to the truths upon which our success has always depended: honesty, courage, fair play, tolerance, curiosity, loyalty, patriotism, faith, determination, selflessness. I have rarely heard values and ideals ring so centrally in a politician's speech.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Obama urged us to return to the "ideals of our forbears," the ideals and virtues that shaped our country, the ideals that kept the country's founders struggling and sacrificing and working "'til their hands were raw so that we might live a better life." "Those ideals still light the world and we will not give them up for expedience sake," he said. "Greatness is never a given. It must be earned." The "journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted" or the lazy or the greedy. He urged us to give our "all to a difficult task" "brave once more the icy currents and endure what storms may come." He pointed to the courage that would be necessary for the journey to greatness, including the courage to make "unpleasant decisions."
Obama also stressed the strength of our "patchwork heritage" and the need to cooperate and value diverse points of view and talents, because America is "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction." We must strive for "common purpose and humanity" and offer "opportunity for every willing heart . . . because it is the surest route to our common good." We need to choose "hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord," and to end "petty grievances and false promises." We aim to "move beyond narrow interests," and to use "imagination" to surmount the "stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long."
And Obama refused to settle for caring for ourselves at the expense of others. He pointed out the need to reach out to those less fortunate: "we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect." We must "embody the spirit of service: a willingness to find meaning in something greater than" ourselves. And by doing so, we will carry "forth that gift of freedom and deliver it safely to future generations."
Whatever our politics, can we really disagree with these aims? Perhaps we don't know how it will be done yet. Perhaps some will point to the unrealistic nature of these lofty ideals. But without the light shining in front of us, without pushing ourselves to the limit, without inspiring everyone to take part in "remaking America, how will we have the courage or strength to keep going for the long haul, to reach for the best, to make the optimal a reality? Wouldn't you rather live in a world that held these values central? Wouldn't you rather work with people whose aspirations rise above the drudge? Wouldn't you rather live in a neighborhood in which a focus on such ideas draws you together in a common effort? Aren't you more inspired by Obama's vision than you have been by any other in a long time? I certainly am.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
