Reflection

In light of the recent election, I got to thinking (a dangerous prospect, I know). Everyone in the US seems so focused on their party winning, their candidate attaining the office. It has been so for years, but I have always found it ridiculous for a country that is all about being united. “A house divided cannot stand” and while that was said about slavery and the conflict between the north and south, it applies to the intense political party competition today. It astonishes me that people truly believe that one way or another is the best way to run a country. How can they come to that conclusion when there is evidence to the contrary all over the place! There is no ‘one way’ that is the right way. In all of human history there has never been a form of government or a policy or set of ideals that has proven to be perfect for every person under it. People can be so different from each other, motivated, or not motivated, by so many different things, be it family, money, love, food, knowledge, whatever. It’s like trying to come up with a mathematical theory that explains everything, from molecular particles to VY Canis Majoris, the largest known star. The differences are just too vast for an all-encompassing frame to fit it.

I don’t mean to say I’m an expert by any means on politics or opposing views. I am the first to admit I don’t pay enough attention to politics and I’m not sure I really have any desire to. But I have gathered, at least to my own reckoning, that one view point is to help people as much as possible even if it might hurt your own success. The other view being to let people make their own way, helping a little, but looking out for yourself. The first view, view A, does not give motive for those in need to better their place in society and hurts those who have actually put in the effort to better themselves, while view B does not help those who actually need it and allows a large gap to occur between those who have and those who have not, the ingredients for pretty much every single revolution in history. So which one is better? No idea, but I don’t think either one is all right or all wrong.

In nature there are no kind and fluffy feelings. If the wolf can kill the baby deer more easily than the old sick deer, it will go after the baby deer. The wolf doesn’t care if the old deer has led a long life and that it is fairer for it to die instead of the baby. The wolf is hungry and needs to feed its pups so it goes after the baby. Since we are human and able to reflect on things like this, able to understand the concept of fairness and rightness, we are compelled to come up with a system that makes sure everyone wins and no one is negatively affected. Which is good, we should always strive to do that, it’s what we do: making order out of chaos. But the other side of that crazy coin is the fact that the laws of nature are called the laws of nature for a reason. You might be able to violate them for a while and come up with something that helps everyone, but eventually nature comes along with a nail studded bat and beats you down, standing over you and laughing at your failed policy. There is an incredibly fine line between doing too much and doing too little, and while we might have gotten close, I don’t think any human society has ever found it. Just my thoughts on this lovely, cold, clear sky day.