I recently saw the movie Doomsday. The movie is set about 20 years in the future. A plague hit Glasgow and other parts of Scotland around 2010. No one could find a cure for the plague, and almost everyone who caught the plague died. London walled off Scotland by rebuilding the Hadrian wall. In the movie, another outbreak of the plague has occurred in downtown London. The Prime Minister sends in an elite team to find a cure behind the wall, because they have satellite photos of survivors. This is where the action begins. But what we see is that human society has fallen into a barbarism behind the wall.
There are two societies behind the wall, one a return to medieval times holding down a castle. The other is a more post-modern, cannibalistic society running over the streets of Glasgow. The idea is that without some social structure, human beings return to their essential barbaric nature.
But that isn't all. Back in London, we realize that the leaders are out for their own interests. This idea is encapsulated in the adviser to the prime minster who runs the show (a Dick Cheney character). He decides to withhold any cure until it best benefits him, and he has no inhibitions in using the military to uphold his will.
This sort of movie plays on the idea that human beings are basically barbaric, which is the idea we find prominently in Hobbes but also in Augustine, who claimed that human beings were "despotic." Hobbes, of course, defends the idea that, without a strong despot, human society cannot survive. Augustine can rely on God as his despot. But both assume human beings to be incorrigible barbaric monsters.
I think this shows that a fundamental choice we all have to make in life is what our conception of human beings are. And that choice determines a lot about our political views and actions. We've certainly seen the dark ages, and if there is a nuclear or enviornmental disaster, we may see another dark ages. But we ought not take the extreme cases as the norm for human beings. Human beings have a wide range of behaviors based in our natural constitution. We can be aggresive and we can be loving. These are potentials in the human person. Which ones we choose to support and develop can determine the future of the world. This is not simply oonce in a blue moon choice, but a choice we make everyday in all of our actions.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dr. Nick,
I really like what you wrote in the last paragraph. That what defines us as human beings is that we are not conditioned. We have the power of choice in our everyday life and experience. I think that is what makes us humans.
When we decide what our conception of what a human being is we should first be speaking exactly of who we perceive ourself to be. The one person I have control over is me. I can chooses to do this or to do that. Whatever circumstances that arise in my day-to-day activities involves a choice and it is up to me on how I choose to deal with them.
The choices that each of us make in our activities definitely affects the world. Who do each of us support when we vote? How do we make that decision? Who is able to influence us? How do we spend/invest our money? How do we spend our time given in our existence? What do we do with all these gifts that God has given to us? Do we desire to listen to Him through His Church, or is it better to make our own "tree of wisdom"?
The great thing that is offered to each of us is an opportunity each day to pursue the "ideal" of who we perceive ourself to be. Each day is an opportunity for growth. Some days are good, others not so good. But how do we react? Do we desire to grow, and pursue the complete gift of life offered to us by Jesus?
Time will tell.
Each person has the capability to make a determination for how he/she wants his life to be. What is unique about the human species is our advanced ability to communicate and persuade others to follow, hence politics and religion. Both can be good things, but they can also be easily abused. There will most likely always be personal preferences and agendas that get interjected into these systems where normal limits and boundaries are temporarily crossed that cause certain amounts of grief within the systems.
Looking at history in a macro perspective shows recuring cycles in the development of humanity where we have good periods and bad periods. How we are doing in general depends on what you choose to use as a yardstick.
We have 6+ billion people living in our world now, granted at many different levels of wealth and poverty, but we haven't pushed the nuclear or bio buttons yet to wipe out significant chunks of them. There is more humanitarian efforts going on than ever before in history. If the a true head count for people being helped/saved everyday due to the kindness and generosity of others was compared to those killed in war and suicide bombings, I suspect the former would be a much larger number. It just doesn't get the press that the bad news does.
So if humanity is truly as "Hobbesian" as some have made it out to be, how then is it that the biggest problem we are facing is how to feed and house 6+ billion people?
Post a Comment