October 22, 2006
-
end of the world talk
End of the world talk is getting pretty common. In one book I read (hint I mentioned it before) starts off by noting that human beings have been around for perhaps 100,000 years and that the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years. Another book I just started, the Long Emergency asserts that we are very much unlikely to ever replace the carbon based economy with one of renewable energy. His predictions just get darker from there. And those are just a couple of recent books I’ve been reading. The idea that our time is limited and that the risks for us are greater than they’ve ever been before is common in the media. You basically can’t avoid it. There is definitely a sense in which people feel that a lot is happening and that we stand upon the edge of a precipice. Perhaps fifty years from now we’ll all look back and laugh at our fearfulness and happily enjoy our symbiosis with nature and our world wide peace. That’s unlikely to the point of absurdity but who knows. The best likely case is that after fifty years we’ll be in a situation pretty similar to how we are now, still very fearful, some key things having improved (thankfully preventing our annihilation) but some things having also gotten worse and still uncertain whether humanity will survive the next century. I suspect this kind of tension is draining and wearying for people. It’s hard to live in constant uncertainty and terror. It’s dangerous. We certainly need to move toward a world where we can persist without the constant fear of what happens next. It’s just that the path to get there is very rocky indeed.
The other day on the radio I heard an interview with a famous Christian leader who believed totally that we are living in the end times, the time of revelations. This was a fascinating interview not because the speaker believed the world was about to end. How many times have we heard that throughout history? No, it was fascinating because the speaker took this to influence policy. He believed that that there were certain choices governments and people need to make to be in accordance with the words of the Bible. In other words he thought we had to make choices that God would approve of based on the words of the Bible and he was willing to try to influence foreign policy in order to get our nation to act in that manner.
Now here’s the thing. I’ve got no problem with someone believing in the Bible or believing the world will end. I’m not too confident of our future myself. But what bothers me a great deal is this attitude that you have to make choices in accordance with these written words rather than in accordance with your own reasoning. I could never accept that idea. If we were to determine that a certain course of action in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict were the one we believed to be the best chance for peace, and happiness and to ensure the people do not suffer and can live content fulfilled lives, and you try to argue that we can’t do that, or that it has to be wrong because the words in the Bible say otherwise, I’d say you’ve gotta be kidding me.
Perhaps the Bible is true. Perhaps our very best guess as to what is right really is the thing that God will judge us harshly for having done or not done. I say so what. You have to do what’s right. First and foremost to the best of your ability to judge the right. And then when the time comes if there is a God I believe you should look Him in the eye and tell Him you did what you believed was right. And if that means judgement and condemnation and fire and brimstone so be it. You do what you think is right first, and take responsibility face the consequences if you are wrong. I believe, that’s what being moral is all about. And I believe governments and people have to behave morally first, not, necessarily, according to divine scripture. I don’t believe anyone should be more on the side of the words of prophecy than they are on the side of real people and real facts and honest analysis and truth. You have to be a part of humanity and you have to do everything you can to help humanity to the best of your ability.
You see that’s the thing about the end of the world. If you see it or suspect it or fear it coming sometimes there is an inclination to become despondent, sometimes this grotesquely manifests into a desire to even try to help hasten the end. This is just wrong though. No matter how stark your vision or how sure you are of what is to pass, I believe you have a moral obligation to try and ensure our survival. I believe that you simply must do all that is in your power to stave off whatever impending destruction you see coming or ensure that a part of our species survives it if it cannot be stopped. This is your obligation even if you think that it is inevitable, prophecized, or simply impossible to prevent. If you don’t want to help you should just get out now and let people who still have the courage to believe struggle for their survival. We just can’t afford to simply give up.
