Another lingering reflection, on a recent Randoms...?:
Does humanity really change?
When we're talking about the prospect of change in people, it seems to me that we are really working with two things. One is hope; we’re asking whether there is opportunity for people to become better. And, if opportunity, what about likelihood? Is it likely that people will change (are changing)? On the other hand, we are working with the notion that people fundamentally do not change — perhaps because they cannot change and, therefore, we are dealing with something on the order of...the opposite of hope.
If we believe there is reason to hope that people have the opportunity or likelihood of becoming better, individually and collectively, then there would seem to be something that would be enabled regarding working toward the things that could make that happen. If, fundamentally, we do not believe that people can change for the good (or perhaps simply that people don’t change for the good — whether they can or not), then that would seem to lead toward certain other assumptions about what the implications are if people fundamentally cannot become better. What would that mean — that our prospects are limited to only getting worse (many people seem to believe this)?
At one level, it might be important to observe what seems to happen collectively from a historical perspective. Here, we could look at the nature of what we think is happening right now with Vladimir Putin and Russia and the forces that are involved in the dynamic that he is currently perpetuating — one that appears to be consistent with similar things that have happened all throughout history (which, therefore, begs the question about whether things really ever do change).
At another level, it feels important to get down to something a bit more granular, like what about my life or your life? For example, do I believe that I have changed and, if so, in what ways and to what degree? Because it seems likely that answers to questions at both of these levels are not disconnected. If, for example, you or I don’t (or can’t) change, then why would there be a reason to believe that we, as humanity, could change?
It is hard to avoid observing that when we’re talking about change, at an existential level, we are really tempted or pulled into a something quite binary; like either yes we do change or no we do not. When, in reality, change probably is a little more closely relatable to the ideas of evolution — or, how things change. In other words, the change that occurs is often incremental, involves a lot of time, is quite influenced by circumstantial events. And that, that change is often leveraged by opportunists for the good or the bad either to incite activity towards maximizing the good or to energize our more deeply seated fears about our survivability in the face of the threats we perceive in the world.
It also doesn’t seem difficult to observe that the answer to the question really becomes the basis on which most individual and collective activism rotates. If, for example, we are hopeful and optimistic, then we will try to energize the assumption that there is good involved and that we can hopefully anticipate the natural energy of that kind of resource.
Yet if, for whatever reason, we are primarily not hopeful, then it would feel quite difficult not to operate primarily from the energy of fear and preservation and protection that would be needed to prevent the ultimate doom that would appear to be the only logical outcome in the absence of some kind of more hopeful disposition to whatever existence is about.
There is, of course, the question of God, and the agency of God related to the question of change. God would represent some kind of ultimate design which would inform whether or not there is a final summation that ends with goodness prevailing (or not). And, then, the question of the agency of God and just to what degree God is able (or willing) to prevent the doom that mankind, at least historically, seems inevitably capable of creating. Is there something about the nature of God that transcends this human proclivity, left to its own devices? And, if so, just exactly how does that agency work? Is it through an ultimate kind of last-minute intervention or is it more like a kind of ongoing (slow as it may be), but perpetual transformation that, like a conspiracy, continues to exist and develop and grow even in the face of all the evidence against its effectiveness.
What about the element of time? When one estimates such things as the question of change, what time parameters are involved? Do we measure this over the span of a person‘s relationships or one's lifetime? Over the longer ark of recorded history? Or, do we measure this on the premise of some other more ontological basis about the nature of existence itself?
Do I need to land this thing (...are you kidding me, are you really going to end this question with just more questions)?
Despite a lot of legitimate, and unfortunately repetitive and dissuading evidence, I personally lean toward the 'arc' thing (not the ark thing) for the most satisfying answer. It seems to me, the more one knows and understands, the more things point to some version of design, energy, and ultimate progress that perpetuates a dynamic that is sourced in the most basic creative elements of life itself. We often hear things like, "things have really changed" or "things aren't like they use to be". In other words, things are always evolving — realities create new realities, sometimes different realities. Even things that are destroyed seem to eventually grow back (even if in an altered state). And, this dynamic never seems to stop — almost as if it can't stop.
And, so, to me this translates to a vision of creation and existence that has an ever-present tambour of perpetual growth. It is the nature of energy itself. It is full of and fused by what I would call creativity (God). And, it is fundamentally (unfashionable as that term may be) good. It is, at least, in it’s most natural state, predisposed to interdependence, harmony, and continual growth (which is, by the way, what is so insidious about anything that inhibits these realities).
If these things, or these elements, are in fact somehow embedded in the basic constructs of existence in life, then it seems to me that change is inevitable (even if there are long periods where it looks like nothing is happening or like things are getting worse or ...) and because the quality of energy from this inevitability is embedded in goodness, then it stands to reason that change is a constant.
And, if that is true, then I think that informs the nature of the possibility of change in an individual and, therefore, in our collective humanity.
So, while we've now entertained the possibility that humanity changes, how that happens...is for another day.
