On Solving Our Problems

We have a big society with big problems.

But they are not too big -- our problems are not bigger than us. We can solve them.

Some problems we need to solve mainly through technological advances, others we need to solve through critical thinking and bold action, yet others through wise sacrifice.

Clearly, regardless of what anyone believes about global warming, the pollution caused by the sheer amount of waste we produce cannot be disputed. The damage to animal habitats directly resulting from our activities has been well documented. To stop everything we're doing in the name of saving the planet is just not realistic -- it will be too hard to convince everyone that it's worth it. We need technological advances to make it feasible to switch to Earth-friendly energy sources and to dispose of our waste better and to obviate the need to destroy more animal habitats to obtain natural resources. So we need to collectively invest more in the needed research and development.

Our national budget - and many state budgets - are not sustainable. There is nothing complicated about this. If we continue to spend more than we earn on such a colossal scale, our money will become worthless and this will cause many other problems. We only have to look at other countries around the world that cannot control their economies to see what might happen to us. This is not a complex financial or technical problem. This is a problem of will power.  Spending more than we earn means we want more than what we can have, and that means there will always be someone to oppose any proposed cut from the budget. So we need critical thinking to figure out what we ought to spend our money on - what is really necessary for the common good, in stark contrast to what we've long fooled ourselves is necessary but is really only for the benefit of specific groups. We need critical thinking and a keen eye to cut through the bullshit.  And then we need will power to overcome selfish objections from all the groups who lose their benefits. People really get up in arms when they are about to lose something they already have and enjoy or depend upon. But that's how we got into this mess - the accumulation of choices that favor short-sighted or selfish benefits over the national responsibility.

Some of our problems come from our shallow need to appear charitable, to take care of everyone. People who choose to smoke and get cancer from it are unfortunate, but they made a choice and the cost of their healthcare should be borne by themselves, possibly their family, and any insurance they purchased for that purpose. It must not be subsidized by any level of government. People who choose to use other drugs and develop problems from that are also unfortunate, but they also made a choice, and no level of government should subsidize their treatment either.  Let the true charitable people show themselves and show compassion to these victims of poor choices and help them with money and resources pooled together specifically for that purpose. Sending money and food to help starving people in other countries when we still haven't completely solved that problem here doesn't make any sense.  Sending help to a country that suffered a great natural disaster is a noble thing to do, but it's very different from prolonged, sustained aid for a chronic condition.

Those of us who are in the business of graphically violent entertainment - movies and video games - need to practice restraint and avoid selling those products to children. This doesn't relieve parents of their responsibility but is a kind of voluntary social cooperation because the graphic violence has been proven to have certain negative effects on impressionable children (and some adults too) who haven't yet a solid moral grounding. And it's not the fault of the video games or the movies - the effect can also happen from watching graphic violence on the news. News of terrorist attacks and suicides have been proven to spur certain kinds of people to also make threats and attacks and inflict harm on themselves because something hidden in their psyche has identified with the attacker or the victim and unconsciously compelled them to do something similar.

To prohibit the creation and sale of entertainment to everyone because some people can't handle it would not be the right path either. No, we must accept some risk with our liberty so we do not become a totalitarian society. But a little wise sacrifice for the sake of society should be encouraged by all in order to reduce that risk of damage.

Our news publishers should sacrifice some of whatever it is that causes them to behave so outrageously sometimes. Not every story is a national emergency. Not every story needs up-to-the-minute or live coverage. We don't need to know "ok the judge has sat down" and we don't need to see the police crouching outside a hostage-taker's window as it happens. A complete, accurate, and detailed coverage of the story after it happens is enough in most cases. In the absence of a very important story, less-important stories should not be hyped, but rather presented with a relief that there is nothing terrible going on at the moment. During the seconds between entertainment, instead of wasting them with a vague "hook" to get people to watch the "full story" later which turns out to be the same few facts repeated with endless variation, wouldn't it be great if the news producers would choose to provide a few seconds of actual information instead?  The sacrifice here is that they may have less viewers. Or maybe what is really needed is for someone to start a news station for busy productive people that has no bullshit - and charge fairly for not wasting people's time and not scaring people into depression thinking how there is never a pause from bad news.