What happens when the solution which the world looks to science for really tells us we must be more responsible than ever imagined?
We tend to seek a quick fix through facts yielded by science. Perhaps someone in history asked: "What happens when we exploit a heavy element like Uranium?" With intent to answer a perceived need: "we need something to make us more powerful in this war".
The short term answer they sought was yes, atomic reactions can afford a user tremendous power. But the fundamental truth derived from it was an answer that asks the inquirer "are we responsible enough to consistently meet the challenges that emerge from consequences of this never-before imagined scale of magnitude?" Whenever we discover a new level of complexity, the responsible answer immediately resets to a decisive "no." Until everyone is capable of understanding complexity and the ethical implications of the system, it is irresponsible to engage such a system, especially when much of the world potentially has access to it or its potential impacts.
I gave a parallel example to a problem I've been thinking about spurred by a domestic (well, domestic in a national sense) human rights advocacy issue. It isn't nearly as destructive, but the implications in the science are tremendous and unsettling. It's not information that you can broadcast to the world unless an established and thoughtful community dialogue of substantial reach is already in place to handle any unrest that may arise.
That said, the issue itself merits action, and countless people are already working on it out of ethical drive even without having all the "hard" empirical data at hand. This is the uncertainty of courage. Even if you have few or any reason for an optimistic outcome, it's better to act so that you least put forth the effort. It's an odd balance of ebb and flow: there comes a point when one may be the best acquainted and prepared to bring forth challenging and discomforting issues--you become the smartest person in the crowd simply because you know enough about the problem and its possible solution to manifest the transformation of reality. Therefore, you are responsible for bringing it to light.
Understanding this status incites dramatic shifts in the default attitudes enforced by most of society--we're used to delegating responsibility and may even draw from a sense of entitlement in attempt to justify doing so. It's ingrained into our elections, in our governmental agencies, and at almost any workplace. Any time you hear the phrase "it's not my job" in response to another person's problems, I challenge you to carefully reconsider the statement. What matters fundamentally is not the individual's job, it's their responsibility. Usually, a "job" is the prescribed objectification of an identity and its associated responsibilities. This beguiles many in becoming an excuse for them to deny their ability to discern and act on their own behalf. There exists privilege in being a dedicated audience: knowing what you do now from hearing--which may place you among a select few--you have the ability to focus your discernment and learn on a different level than others who create. In doing so, you may cultivate wisdom and act upon it from a different perspective. Yet bringing wisdom forward with persuasive authenticity requires a degree of courage that almost necessitates one to act beyond measured reasoning. You anticipate no favorable response from the people you interact with, but you reserve hope your assertions will find constructive reception.
I'll add a slew of paraphrased quotes that reinforced several of my convictions in late February (the 20th) of this year: The Honorable Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit came to the University of Michigan-Dearborn to share her experience as a grassroots elected representative. She urged everyone to "be an ambassador... [despite knowing a lot of people who love their city], they don't have that Detroit fire-hunger... The people here now need to vest and be an example, ultimately that will draw the new Detroiters".
She also reaffirmed my belief that apathy and complacency only serve to perpetuate injustice. In response to a question regarding disenchantment with elected officials and Detroit's municipal government: "When people get apathetic and step away, aren't you endorsing that corruption? By doing that, you take away your positive energy--the only checks and balance for the desired status quo."
Jackson followed up by saying: "local safety, clean neighborhoods, some problems are too big for government to solve--that's one on one, hand to hand community work that must be done." [I have 80% confidence in retention of original words in this last one as I wrote them down in shorthand at the event.]
I'm convinced I need to act swiftly. I cannot un-learn what I've discovered in the research, and it would be irresponsible to leave the issue of concern as is. Yet without proper educational and community context, I'm definitely concerned about disclosing all of the details to people whom I cannot maintain a face-to-face dialogue with at this time.
We tend to seek a quick fix through facts yielded by science. Perhaps someone in history asked: "What happens when we exploit a heavy element like Uranium?" With intent to answer a perceived need: "we need something to make us more powerful in this war".
The short term answer they sought was yes, atomic reactions can afford a user tremendous power. But the fundamental truth derived from it was an answer that asks the inquirer "are we responsible enough to consistently meet the challenges that emerge from consequences of this never-before imagined scale of magnitude?" Whenever we discover a new level of complexity, the responsible answer immediately resets to a decisive "no." Until everyone is capable of understanding complexity and the ethical implications of the system, it is irresponsible to engage such a system, especially when much of the world potentially has access to it or its potential impacts.
I gave a parallel example to a problem I've been thinking about spurred by a domestic (well, domestic in a national sense) human rights advocacy issue. It isn't nearly as destructive, but the implications in the science are tremendous and unsettling. It's not information that you can broadcast to the world unless an established and thoughtful community dialogue of substantial reach is already in place to handle any unrest that may arise.
That said, the issue itself merits action, and countless people are already working on it out of ethical drive even without having all the "hard" empirical data at hand. This is the uncertainty of courage. Even if you have few or any reason for an optimistic outcome, it's better to act so that you least put forth the effort. It's an odd balance of ebb and flow: there comes a point when one may be the best acquainted and prepared to bring forth challenging and discomforting issues--you become the smartest person in the crowd simply because you know enough about the problem and its possible solution to manifest the transformation of reality. Therefore, you are responsible for bringing it to light.
Understanding this status incites dramatic shifts in the default attitudes enforced by most of society--we're used to delegating responsibility and may even draw from a sense of entitlement in attempt to justify doing so. It's ingrained into our elections, in our governmental agencies, and at almost any workplace. Any time you hear the phrase "it's not my job" in response to another person's problems, I challenge you to carefully reconsider the statement. What matters fundamentally is not the individual's job, it's their responsibility. Usually, a "job" is the prescribed objectification of an identity and its associated responsibilities. This beguiles many in becoming an excuse for them to deny their ability to discern and act on their own behalf. There exists privilege in being a dedicated audience: knowing what you do now from hearing--which may place you among a select few--you have the ability to focus your discernment and learn on a different level than others who create. In doing so, you may cultivate wisdom and act upon it from a different perspective. Yet bringing wisdom forward with persuasive authenticity requires a degree of courage that almost necessitates one to act beyond measured reasoning. You anticipate no favorable response from the people you interact with, but you reserve hope your assertions will find constructive reception.
I'll add a slew of paraphrased quotes that reinforced several of my convictions in late February (the 20th) of this year: The Honorable Representative Shanelle Jackson of Detroit came to the University of Michigan-Dearborn to share her experience as a grassroots elected representative. She urged everyone to "be an ambassador... [despite knowing a lot of people who love their city], they don't have that Detroit fire-hunger... The people here now need to vest and be an example, ultimately that will draw the new Detroiters".
She also reaffirmed my belief that apathy and complacency only serve to perpetuate injustice. In response to a question regarding disenchantment with elected officials and Detroit's municipal government: "When people get apathetic and step away, aren't you endorsing that corruption? By doing that, you take away your positive energy--the only checks and balance for the desired status quo."
Jackson followed up by saying: "local safety, clean neighborhoods, some problems are too big for government to solve--that's one on one, hand to hand community work that must be done." [I have 80% confidence in retention of original words in this last one as I wrote them down in shorthand at the event.]
I'm convinced I need to act swiftly. I cannot un-learn what I've discovered in the research, and it would be irresponsible to leave the issue of concern as is. Yet without proper educational and community context, I'm definitely concerned about disclosing all of the details to people whom I cannot maintain a face-to-face dialogue with at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment