So as promised I spent my day coming up with something of significance to blog about. What I ended up with was going to the beach, walking on the board walk and having a very interesting conversation. Don't ask me how we got into such a random topic, but basically we were "arguing" how to live ones life in relation to other people. Pretty broad sounding topic but it got rather pointed during the discussion. I centered my argument around the topic of the ocean, seeing as how we were right next to it. Basically my view has a lot to do with the tragedy of the commons. If you don't know exactly what that is I will summarize. Any resource, commodity or space that is available to everyone in an uncontrolled capacity will without fail be abused by someone. The ocean is literally the textbook example of the TOC theory, it was in my Biology textbook. So fishing in the ocean my be controlled in countries, perhaps like the USA. Our government regulates how many fish, what kinds of fish, etc. etc. The tragedy is that the USA is not the only country that is fishing the oceans. All countries in the world share the same ocean and some countries may not be as "developed" as the USA and thus their regulation on ocean fishing may not be up to par. I go a bit beyond "up to par" and say that due to the greedy streak in human kind, some people out there will just grab as much fish as they possibly can. So while some countries try to regulate and protect the ocean and it's fish, other countries or groups of people could careless. They earn money off the fish and no one can really control how much fish they take from the ocean. So eventually the ocean runs out of fish. But wait! we here in the USA regulated our fishing. We made sure to only take what the ocean could replenish and were careful not to damage the ecosystem, why do we get screwed out of the deal. That is because not everyone cares as much as you do and did abuse the system if you will. So the final result is that no one has any fish, and the regulations by the USA may have stalled the inevitable outcome, but did not change it. So my opinion is that why not live life acknowledging that in situations where something similar to the TOC could occur, BE REALISTIC. Don't short-change yourself under the pretenses of saving the planet, or taking the moral high road, when in reality all you are doing is stepping out of the way for the less moral, and more greedy person to come and abuse the situation. I must clarify that I take this view on some but not all issues. I am not saying live life as an immoral and greedy bastard, all I am saying is that people need to put some thought into their actions, question whether they do certain things because they are actually helpful to a situation or if they are simply portrayed by society as being "positive".
As for my mother, I will do my best to summarize it. It is her view and if I miss represent it she will have me fix it. I think that: My mom's view is that in these situations, like being active in ecological preservation work, the outcome is more or less irrelevant. You take the action because you are true to yourself, and you feel that it is the right thing to do. Whether or not you may be hurt by the eventual outcome is again irrelevant. You took action in a positive manner because you felt that it was the right thing to do. In the end the only thing you have control over is yourself. No matter what happens to you, no matter what people do to harm you, they can never control how you think or feel about it.
I think that she thinks I am to cynical, but I think I am just being realistic....
What do you think?
-Kyle Griffith McChesney
No comments:
Post a Comment