Let's Get High on the Gift of the Trees

Why is it that when an amoeba splits in half, the two have no desire to keep it touch or “roll” together? They’re entirely apathetic to eachother’s success. Yes, ridiculous and obvious why not—but, an important point about humans is raised through this. Think about it. A mother gives birth to a child and nurtures it usually until it reaches 18ish years of maturation and that child will keep contact for the rest of its life. We as humans tend to measure our success as a species (as a civilization etc…) by how well we are caring for our fellow humans. Again, very obviously, when people are dying at the mercy of war, starvation, disease, etc… we are not succeeding as a race.

However, [note: brace for this absurd conundrum] we ultimately we cannot even hope to succeed as the human race if we do not survive. This turns survival into our principal goal, and puts our needs above those of everyone else. So as much we want to help everyone else to be a great species, we CAN'T because we’re too busy focusing on ourselves and securing our own survival. Objectivism.

Founder of Objectivism, Ayn Rand, wrote “If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.” SOURCE

I must be honest, I do not want to rigidly defend Ayn Rand as her points go too far for my likes (Man is so independent that not even God is necessary—things like that [arrogance] piss me off).

In any regard, I believe that people always act in their own best interest. Whenever they do something, they are subconsciously and consciously discerning how their decision will benefit themselves, doing countless cost/benefit analysis. This starts with biology and the innate desire to survive and live as long as possible. However, this moves forward into our material lives and monetary benefit. In whatever facet, we most often do not act unless we will benefit directly or indirectly.
[[Comment with a situation where someone would NOT act out personal benefit in some way]]

In a utopian world, this would most certainly not be the case. The aforementioned is my analysis of us as humans, and not necessarily me condoning the inherent philosophy of humans. People would act for the good of the world, in order that most people possible could benefit. Everyone would act in this fashion, so that everyone receives the same help they gave. One social example is revamping the medical and education industries in order that it is not profit driven, but rather propelled by a demand for service by those who only have so much money.

What then is a healthy way to approach progress as civilization as a whole? Utopia suggests that nothing can be flawed. In that case we are going to need some New World Order shit to take the world population way down because this bus is too damn crowded to prosper further. I digress, people ought to be concerned with maximizing benefit from less use of the natural world. I believe that this is a huge step toward a sustainable life. If we can make less of our resources go farther or reap more benefit from the resource without increasing amount used, we are succeeding.

I also believe in a small governing body over these resources. I think that they need a strong legal presence and a bad-ass reputation like Navy Seals or Army Special-ops (people you would never mess with). I would hope in a Utopian society, people trying to cheat the system wouldn’t happen, but it might. People, with fear as an incentive, would have to respect the natural world that gives us so much. Back to Objectivism, people would respect the laws because if they didn’t, they would be seriously adversely affected in a way unwanted to them. They don’t desire that, so they would comply.

In addition, I feel like people need to take on a more horizontal relationship with earth as opposed to the vertical one we maintain here and now. We dominate nature and this world as though we are rightful “landlord;” however, we thought of ourselves as just more trees, plants, flowers, birds, etc… we may be more inclined to maintain it all—after all, we are dependent on the “gift of the trees” (Xavier Rudd—awesome Australian aboriginal rights advocate & musician).