Earth is one tiny planet, in a tiny solar system, in an insignificant part of a tiny galaxy in an ever-expanding universe. If all the grains of sand in all the beaches and deserts on Earth represented planets and stars, Earth would not even correspond to a grain of sand. My intention is not to make the reader depressed about his/her significance, or demean one in any way but in fact, the opposite. We need to accept ourselves for who we are. We have and continue to believe that we are far more important than we actually are. If nuclear bombs tomorrow destroyed all life on Earth, the universe would still go on like it has done for eternity. Since our existence is of little importance (in the grand scheme of things), then logic would dictate that so are the differences we make each other out to be. In fact, humans have so much in common that the differences are miniscule. We all came from somewhere or something, yet we have little clue about our origins and I believe that is due to being too far in the early stages of evolution to figure it out. Religion has served mankind badly throughout history invoking too much dogma and superstition. It has continually been a means of controlling the ignorant population. Although moral values that religion may teach society in essence are good, I believe it has nothing to teach us when it comes to our existence, as our existence is something that no human mind may ever comprehend. How can we perceive something unperceivable? Although, we can have faith, that faith is like a fairytale if there is no way to prove it actually exists with concrete evidence. Furthermore, it would be too convenient to figure out our existence, as it would be like revealing the ending of a movie. It is up to us to try to figure it out for ourselves and we need to accept our limitations.
Understanding our place in the world is the first step to accepting our true existence. I am one person writing this to six billion people but even as one person, I hope I can truly make a difference. In this essay I will attempt to guide the reader towards true priorities in life. Although priorities are subjective and personal to each individual, I believe that there are such things as universal truths and priorities. In truth, material possessions and the quest for the consumption and acquisition of ‘things’ will one day lead to our destruction. A society of greed and want will be the cornerstone of this destruction. If consumerism and physical satisfaction are the true priorities and goals in life, then logic would imply that, we as a human race, would be collectively the happiest we have ever been. Particularly now, as for the first time in history many in the world have reached a level of wealth unimaginable one hundred years ago. Yet there are many who still have nothing. But the ones who have nothing often times have something that rich people cannot buy and that is happiness. True happiness. That can be contrasted with joy, which is the feeling one gets when he/she buys a new car, house, jacket…whatever it may be. That feeling is an instant satisfaction but after a while the mind gets used to the idea of that possession and it no longer brings that person satisfaction. That is when that person seeks a new object to bring them joy and this vicious cycle is never-ending. I would like to define joy as short-term happiness. True happiness, in contrast, is the satisfaction from deep within, a spiritual satisfaction that is constant throughout one’s life. Poorer countries may be a lot poorer but in many ways they are much happier because they generally give more value and higher priorities to immaterial things such as family, community and spirituality. Do not get me wrong, if poorer countries had the means to acquire expensive ‘things’, I am not naïve to think that they would not but I believe they would still not forget their priorities. If happiness were a measure of success, then the most materialistic countries in the world, particularly, the United States would be the poorest. It is often thought that a person with a nice car as being lucky or even un-empirically happy. But one needs to ask, is that person really lucky or happy? He may have worked hard for it and managed to buy it but what is the point if he rides it alone? Or he picks up women that like his car? Does one really think that the women are ‘good’ people if they are more likely to go for a man with a nice car, than someone on a bike? That same someone who only gives priorities to merely material possessions. How can something make someone truly happy (in the definition I have come up with)? I have never heard of a car that will comfort you when you are sad, or just like a big screen TV will not have a conversation with you when you need to express yourself. Possessions are not life. They will never be life. They are pieces of metal, fabric or wires (to name a few) that go through the media in such a manipulated way as to please the senses and misrepresent the public into distorting their priorities and leading unquestioning consumers to believe that it will cause them happiness.
It is my strong belief that one should always ask two questions when considering buying or even acquiring something, whatever the object may be. Number one, do you want it? The answer will almost always be a yes. Secondly, and fundamentally most importantly, the question is, do you need it? That question is usually a no. By using this technique one will always know their priorities in life when it comes to buying or acquiring objects and in turn be much happier in the end. If one uses this technique for life, they will be much happier.
Coming back to my point about the insignificance of this tiny planet and the miniscule differences between human beings, If one thinks about it one will quickly realise the titanic arrogance behind the thought that one could be superior to another. The world I envision is a world where people are recognised for being what they truly are. Where people are not separated by gender, sexuality, political viewpoint, religion or race. Our body is all but a shell for us to experience the things we experience and learn from our mistakes. Within that body, we are all born with the same potential, the same dreams, aspirations and innate desire to learn and explore. We are not born with racism or arrogant preconceptions but develop them through our environment. So, therefore what is wrong in the world is not the human spirit but our arrogance. By taking a poor child in Africa and giving him/her the same education one gives to a rich child in Switzerland, both children will grow up to be very similar, almost twins except of they way they may look. The truth is that we all share a common ancestry, an ancestry that reaches far back thousands of years to a time when our ancestors all could have lived in one village and one day, the innate thirst for human exploration outgrew fear and some of our ancestors spread out towards uncharted territories. The search for knowledge outgrew the fear of the unknown. No river was too wide, no mountain too high, no forest too dense, the human spirit survived. We evolved by learning to control our environment and use it for our advantage. Inventions and ideas never fell out of they sky. A canoe was not a God-given invention but instead an idea from someone who saw that logs float on water.
We are a product of our environment, no question about that. Living in two extreme places on Earth, one can notice the differences in how people live and adapt to the extreme environment. The colder the place, the whiter the skin from lack of sunshine and the hotter the place the darker the skin colour and higher the melanin count. This is an evolutionary process that has taken thousands of years and continues to happen interrupted. The fact that we have adapted within our environment into what may be called civilizations, does not take away the fact that we originally came from one tiny village and simply expanded. Different civilizations have achieved different things but that is not because one is more intelligent or superior to another but instead one civilization were brought up in an environment that encouraged the evolution of a certain type of thought process. For example, Britain is an island-nation which is tremendously difficult to invade because of the stormy seas surrounding it and the huge cliffs that face the continent that are easily defended. In its 1000-year history, Britain has never been invaded, not by the French, nor the Spanish, nor the Germans twice. Being a difficult country to invade, the rulers of Britain decided to give priority to its navy which was the best for hundreds of years. Going back to my original point, British people are not more intelligent or superior to any other race based on the fact that they achieved a high level of achievement in the building of its navy.
If the sense of family is so strong, then must also be the feeling of nationalism as it can be referred to an extended family. But why are so people proud of their country? The modern country or State is a human invention that can be traced back to the early 17th century in the Treaty of Westphalia, when Europe were divided politically after a series of wars fought over religion. Political boundaries are essentially symbolic lines on a map that translate to, “this is mine and this is yours”. This division is fundamentally artificial in nature and were made pragmatically to separate what is essentially one family from another, based on conquest and compromise between different rulers. Over time, these different families (notice how I do not call them countries) began to believe that they truly are different and a sense of pride arose. ‘Different’ customs and traditions arose, often to emphasise the newfound ‘differences’ and counter-act other families’ differences. This was facilitated by propaganda in which rulers attempted to brainwash the populace into thinking that are in fact superior and very different to their brothers and sisters. Rivalry and anger were fuelled, just like an older brother trying to compete with a younger brother. Fights broke out and the same blood was spilt. Only after a large war is there a sense of optimism. A realisation of just how far things went wrong. This feeling of optimism is constant, it was demonstrated in the Treaty of Westphalia, the creation of the League of Nations after World War I, the creation of the United Nations after World War II and the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual ‘collapse’ of the Soviet Union. The victorious parties always proclaim that ‘this time it will be different’ but it never is. Hope always fades. Eventually the process starts all over again; one family starts to believe that they are different, anger grows and war again. Only in exceptional cases, are families finally united as happened with Eastern and Western Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But that is a reunification of a mere fifty years, a true blink in life of the human race. More ambitious ideas have been promoted with the European Union. One of the goals of the European Union is the ‘unification of the peoples of Europe’, not of the countries. This ambitious goal is to unite this one family that have been separated and fighting for so long. It is my strong belief that one day we will be able to unite all the families of the world in the same way. Unfortunately, this will probably only be possible after a huge disaster, like a war that brings people together and makes them forget about petty differences. I hope it will not have to come to that. But first we must accept our limitations, give priority to non-material things and ask oneself if a family is only a few individuals with the same last name or the whole human race.
Understanding our place in the world is the first step to accepting our true existence. I am one person writing this to six billion people but even as one person, I hope I can truly make a difference. In this essay I will attempt to guide the reader towards true priorities in life. Although priorities are subjective and personal to each individual, I believe that there are such things as universal truths and priorities. In truth, material possessions and the quest for the consumption and acquisition of ‘things’ will one day lead to our destruction. A society of greed and want will be the cornerstone of this destruction. If consumerism and physical satisfaction are the true priorities and goals in life, then logic would imply that, we as a human race, would be collectively the happiest we have ever been. Particularly now, as for the first time in history many in the world have reached a level of wealth unimaginable one hundred years ago. Yet there are many who still have nothing. But the ones who have nothing often times have something that rich people cannot buy and that is happiness. True happiness. That can be contrasted with joy, which is the feeling one gets when he/she buys a new car, house, jacket…whatever it may be. That feeling is an instant satisfaction but after a while the mind gets used to the idea of that possession and it no longer brings that person satisfaction. That is when that person seeks a new object to bring them joy and this vicious cycle is never-ending. I would like to define joy as short-term happiness. True happiness, in contrast, is the satisfaction from deep within, a spiritual satisfaction that is constant throughout one’s life. Poorer countries may be a lot poorer but in many ways they are much happier because they generally give more value and higher priorities to immaterial things such as family, community and spirituality. Do not get me wrong, if poorer countries had the means to acquire expensive ‘things’, I am not naïve to think that they would not but I believe they would still not forget their priorities. If happiness were a measure of success, then the most materialistic countries in the world, particularly, the United States would be the poorest. It is often thought that a person with a nice car as being lucky or even un-empirically happy. But one needs to ask, is that person really lucky or happy? He may have worked hard for it and managed to buy it but what is the point if he rides it alone? Or he picks up women that like his car? Does one really think that the women are ‘good’ people if they are more likely to go for a man with a nice car, than someone on a bike? That same someone who only gives priorities to merely material possessions. How can something make someone truly happy (in the definition I have come up with)? I have never heard of a car that will comfort you when you are sad, or just like a big screen TV will not have a conversation with you when you need to express yourself. Possessions are not life. They will never be life. They are pieces of metal, fabric or wires (to name a few) that go through the media in such a manipulated way as to please the senses and misrepresent the public into distorting their priorities and leading unquestioning consumers to believe that it will cause them happiness.
It is my strong belief that one should always ask two questions when considering buying or even acquiring something, whatever the object may be. Number one, do you want it? The answer will almost always be a yes. Secondly, and fundamentally most importantly, the question is, do you need it? That question is usually a no. By using this technique one will always know their priorities in life when it comes to buying or acquiring objects and in turn be much happier in the end. If one uses this technique for life, they will be much happier.
Coming back to my point about the insignificance of this tiny planet and the miniscule differences between human beings, If one thinks about it one will quickly realise the titanic arrogance behind the thought that one could be superior to another. The world I envision is a world where people are recognised for being what they truly are. Where people are not separated by gender, sexuality, political viewpoint, religion or race. Our body is all but a shell for us to experience the things we experience and learn from our mistakes. Within that body, we are all born with the same potential, the same dreams, aspirations and innate desire to learn and explore. We are not born with racism or arrogant preconceptions but develop them through our environment. So, therefore what is wrong in the world is not the human spirit but our arrogance. By taking a poor child in Africa and giving him/her the same education one gives to a rich child in Switzerland, both children will grow up to be very similar, almost twins except of they way they may look. The truth is that we all share a common ancestry, an ancestry that reaches far back thousands of years to a time when our ancestors all could have lived in one village and one day, the innate thirst for human exploration outgrew fear and some of our ancestors spread out towards uncharted territories. The search for knowledge outgrew the fear of the unknown. No river was too wide, no mountain too high, no forest too dense, the human spirit survived. We evolved by learning to control our environment and use it for our advantage. Inventions and ideas never fell out of they sky. A canoe was not a God-given invention but instead an idea from someone who saw that logs float on water.
We are a product of our environment, no question about that. Living in two extreme places on Earth, one can notice the differences in how people live and adapt to the extreme environment. The colder the place, the whiter the skin from lack of sunshine and the hotter the place the darker the skin colour and higher the melanin count. This is an evolutionary process that has taken thousands of years and continues to happen interrupted. The fact that we have adapted within our environment into what may be called civilizations, does not take away the fact that we originally came from one tiny village and simply expanded. Different civilizations have achieved different things but that is not because one is more intelligent or superior to another but instead one civilization were brought up in an environment that encouraged the evolution of a certain type of thought process. For example, Britain is an island-nation which is tremendously difficult to invade because of the stormy seas surrounding it and the huge cliffs that face the continent that are easily defended. In its 1000-year history, Britain has never been invaded, not by the French, nor the Spanish, nor the Germans twice. Being a difficult country to invade, the rulers of Britain decided to give priority to its navy which was the best for hundreds of years. Going back to my original point, British people are not more intelligent or superior to any other race based on the fact that they achieved a high level of achievement in the building of its navy.
If the sense of family is so strong, then must also be the feeling of nationalism as it can be referred to an extended family. But why are so people proud of their country? The modern country or State is a human invention that can be traced back to the early 17th century in the Treaty of Westphalia, when Europe were divided politically after a series of wars fought over religion. Political boundaries are essentially symbolic lines on a map that translate to, “this is mine and this is yours”. This division is fundamentally artificial in nature and were made pragmatically to separate what is essentially one family from another, based on conquest and compromise between different rulers. Over time, these different families (notice how I do not call them countries) began to believe that they truly are different and a sense of pride arose. ‘Different’ customs and traditions arose, often to emphasise the newfound ‘differences’ and counter-act other families’ differences. This was facilitated by propaganda in which rulers attempted to brainwash the populace into thinking that are in fact superior and very different to their brothers and sisters. Rivalry and anger were fuelled, just like an older brother trying to compete with a younger brother. Fights broke out and the same blood was spilt. Only after a large war is there a sense of optimism. A realisation of just how far things went wrong. This feeling of optimism is constant, it was demonstrated in the Treaty of Westphalia, the creation of the League of Nations after World War I, the creation of the United Nations after World War II and the fall of the Berlin Wall and eventual ‘collapse’ of the Soviet Union. The victorious parties always proclaim that ‘this time it will be different’ but it never is. Hope always fades. Eventually the process starts all over again; one family starts to believe that they are different, anger grows and war again. Only in exceptional cases, are families finally united as happened with Eastern and Western Germany after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But that is a reunification of a mere fifty years, a true blink in life of the human race. More ambitious ideas have been promoted with the European Union. One of the goals of the European Union is the ‘unification of the peoples of Europe’, not of the countries. This ambitious goal is to unite this one family that have been separated and fighting for so long. It is my strong belief that one day we will be able to unite all the families of the world in the same way. Unfortunately, this will probably only be possible after a huge disaster, like a war that brings people together and makes them forget about petty differences. I hope it will not have to come to that. But first we must accept our limitations, give priority to non-material things and ask oneself if a family is only a few individuals with the same last name or the whole human race.
