Hello Good People, who might always be a bit better,
Beyond merely moderating and reducing our worst tendencies of excess desire, anger and violence, callousness and lack of empathy toward the plights of others, jealousy, racism and other examples of divided thinking, all summarized in Buddhism as the "Three Poisons" ...
... in the future, might we develop the ability to go beyond even that, and truly enhance and expand the positives in human character, such as love, kindness, empathy, non-violence, generosity and more? This is a question of, not only toning down our worst qualities, but of accentuating and strengthening our best human qualities: What kind of a world of kindness would we live in then? Would mild increases in certain positive traits be beneficial in the world? On the other hand, would not overly increasing such traits prove counter-productive (e.g., an excessive drive toward generosity and charity toward others could become obsessive, self-destructive, ultimately suicidal for the giver too driven to extremes of personal sacrifice.)
I remind readers: My writings are based on the premise that certain medical, genetic and other technological developments ...
... and I ask, how should such technologies be best employed to heal some of what troubles this world??
Then, having mitigated the three poisons, the most harmful aspects of human behavior which truly threaten our existence, we might choose to go on to other steps which will improve human behavior, thus society and this world. Beyond moderating our most serious negative traits, we might also elect to accentuate some positives:
If we could “up” our inner calling for altruistic behavior, what would be the effects? How far should we go in doing so? Would it be possible to create a world in which people continue to work to feed themselves and their family, and have reasonably selfish motives, but also feel 25% increased levels of pleasure and reward in acts of altruism and charity (exact percentages to be determined)? Could we render the average person just a tad more willing to share, even with strangers?
It would be a world where, while all continue to work for themselves, and not everyone will enjoy precisely equal living standards (for individual creativity, initiative, energy and investment should still be rewarded), everyone would have their basic needs met. Even in a traditional Buddhist monastery, one could argue that the shared system works when individual monks, as human beings, tend to and feed themselves, are concerned with their own path and needs, while also focusing upon the entire community and care of all their fellow monks too. One might say that monks work for themselves and others at varied or combined times, as called for and in appropriate measures, knowing that “self” and “others” in the monastic community are ultimately a whole.
Perhaps just a little more juice to our brain’s “charity cluster” would facilitate a healthy balance in peoples’ attitudes. Likewise for a kick to our “kindness region” or a spiking of our “gratitude genes.” While it is unlikely that we will ever discover one gene or region of the brain solely responsible for charity, kindness, or gratitude, just one place to activate like flipping a single, simple switch, it may be possible that some ways will be found to trigger or suppress specific emotions through drugs, nano-implants, or other bodily interventions. Even now, many users of various pharmaceuticals, both medical and recreational, report that these substances can result in strong, although temporary, feelings of brotherly love, gratitude and generosity. Many of us know the experience of two strangers in a bar, or two old friends, suddenly driven to “I love you, buddy” tears due to the setting or an imbibed brew. Something inside is being triggered. [FOOTNOTES SHOWING ONGOING RESEARCH IN THESE AREAS OMITTED HERE]
Researchers, such as Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin, have placed monks and other Buddhist practitioners into MRI machines in order to identify the parts of the brain which may be linked to increased altruism. Studies on infants indicate that altruism is a natural tendency in human beings from a very young age. If we can identify the associated genetic and neurological regions or triggers, it might be possible to activate genes or otherwise enhance brain chemistry leading to greater feelings of altruism and concern for others. [FOOTNOTES SHOWING ONGOING RESEARCH IN THESE AREAS OMITTED HERE]
If so, what would be the effect on society?
Perhaps we cannot, and best not, turn most of us into full time, self-sacrificing martyrs: It is possible that too much altruism might not be good at all, just as in the case of a fire fighter charging into a burning building who must balance rescuing others with preserving herself, especially if she is to live to care for her own children or to rescue more people on another day. (Even so, we all witnessed the self-sacrifice for strangers of those firefighters who charged into the burning towers of 9/11. Such levels of caring exists within us.) But how about just a little more caring and concern added to the general population and the day-to-day?
Ethicists, psychologists, political scientists, sociologists, physicians, biologists, and religious thinkers of many schools must debate and fashion general guidelines for all these aims, defining which desires and degrees of emotion to keep, which to do without or tone down/up a bit. However, actual implementation may not be as difficult as might be anticipated: Even small adjustments in human personality, the kinds that many of us experience now with simple mood swings (e.g., merely toning down the exceptional excesses of various desires, addictions, anger, violence, and division, tuning up altruism and kindheartedness in moderate degrees) will immediately have great, visible, very positive effects in wider society.
Experiments among volunteer, small-sized sample populations regarding adjustments in improving kindness and charity, for example, or decreasing their overall propensities to violence, are bound to demonstrate rapid and clearly positive effects in the test subjects’ personal relationships and in the groups and communities to which they belong. The changes will not be marked by sudden and fiery revolutions, but simply by how people start to behave in small ways toward each other, both those near at hand and strangers far away. Suddenly, donations to feed and house the homeless will rise, more people will be concerned for refugees and for children living in poverty, simply because more people will start to feel increasingly uncomfortable to see it, think about it, feel the suffering in their own mirror neurons. Obesity and addictions will rapidly decline as desires are moderated, reports of depression and suicide will decrease, there will be less violence in the streets and around the world. The signs of success will soon be measurable and obvious.
We can lightly nurture what are generally considered the best of human qualities (kindness, charity, caring, joy and more) by upping a bit the mental and instinctual influences and triggers for those emotions within the human psyche. These are the qualities represented by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as symbols of excellent human ideals, as well as by Christian saints and humanitarians of all kind. Yes, being too altruistic, overly empathetic or disproportionately joyous can end up as destructive as a lack of those qualities, but moderate increases are all that should be required for sustainable, positive social changes. People need not and best not give away all their food, starving themselves, but merely feel the wish to share a little more, take pleasure in the nurturing of others, so that all have a healthy meal and none go hungry. As a result, the problem of hunger will start to vanish.
In fact, healthy, reasonable degrees of irritation, stress, impatience, sadness and other emotions and drives, often viewed negatively in Buddhism if in excess, are an essential part of being human when not in excess. We would be mistaken to remove these entirely from our characters, both for the sake of preserving our humanness and for human survival itself. Being a bit ‘ticked off’ is one thing, while anger as violent fury is another altogether. Being sad and mournful at the death of a loved one is healthy and human, but not to be overwrought with unending depression, broken in spirit, filled with suicidal thoughts and self-harm.
If we were to strip away too many aspects of human personality, every flaw and rough edge, we would end up removing too much human individuality, vibrancy, unpredictability, passion and creativity, thus depriving ourselves of many good parts of being human, all in an effort to be rid of the bad. It would be something like banning all fires, even those which can be safely managed for light and heat, because sometimes some of us burn down the house; it is as if we eliminated all knives, even those for cooking or surgical cure, because sometimes we might cut ourselves or use one as a weapon. Some very strict, traditional interpretations of Buddhism, in fact, have encouraged a cooling of all fires and a radical dulling of all sharp edges, a path which may be rewarding for some practitioners who so wish. On the other hand, other corners of Buddhism speak of a ‘middle way’ with regard to human emotions and desires. Do we truly want to create humans who are wiped clean of all anger, violent capabilities, self-interest, and strong desires whatsoever? Would the resulting creature not be left neutered, numb, unresponsive, passive and dull, would she even be able to survive for long in this hard world?
Even superficially “good” behavior can be destructive when carried to its limits: For example, being “patient and satisfied” is one thing, but it is quite another if one becomes so “patient and satisfied” that one fails to run from a burning building or to put out the fire. “Peaceful and non-violent” sounds good in theory, but perhaps not so peaceful and non-violent that one lets a hungry tiger eat one for dinner, or a violent dictator to take over the world and march one’s family into gas chambers. The legendary Kung-fu monks of Shaolin temple knew how to turn the other cheek, but only to a point. If we someday have a world without any criminals, terrorists or dictators whatsoever, then it might be a different story. However, so long as villains remain in the world, we shall need some ability to respond forcefully through police action to stop them.
As in the case of being too tolerant and excessively peaceful, “happiness” can also be over-rated, and is destructive if taken to extreme: A world of only smiles would seem, at first blush, to be a paradise. However, it would be inane, stripping away all drama and tragedy while leaving just the comedy. I want to cry when my mother or my dear friend dies, and I want to feel sadness when I see another human being suffering, not smile or laugh. Throughout this book, I will examine perspectives by which Buddhism allows us to feel a certain contentedness even while feeling ordinary human sadness, a kind of overriding Joy (with a big “J”) which includes sometimes being joyous and sometimes not being joyous in life at all. While one should be happy in happy moments, it is also okay to be sad at sad moments. Let us learn to be happy about sometimes being sad.
(to be continued)
A little song from 1944, World War II ... troops dying in the fields, bombs falling on London and soon Dresden, concentration camp ovens burning away ...
Gassho, J
stlah
Beyond merely moderating and reducing our worst tendencies of excess desire, anger and violence, callousness and lack of empathy toward the plights of others, jealousy, racism and other examples of divided thinking, all summarized in Buddhism as the "Three Poisons" ...
... in the future, might we develop the ability to go beyond even that, and truly enhance and expand the positives in human character, such as love, kindness, empathy, non-violence, generosity and more? This is a question of, not only toning down our worst qualities, but of accentuating and strengthening our best human qualities: What kind of a world of kindness would we live in then? Would mild increases in certain positive traits be beneficial in the world? On the other hand, would not overly increasing such traits prove counter-productive (e.g., an excessive drive toward generosity and charity toward others could become obsessive, self-destructive, ultimately suicidal for the giver too driven to extremes of personal sacrifice.)
I remind readers: My writings are based on the premise that certain medical, genetic and other technological developments ...
(1) are inevitable and coming anyway, cannot be halted, cannot be ignored;
(2) have a high chance of being misused by bad actors unless we use them in beneficial ways;
(3) can be shown to be effective and safe to use; and
(4) can be introduced in an ethical way respectful of individual free choice, civil and human rights ...
(2) have a high chance of being misused by bad actors unless we use them in beneficial ways;
(3) can be shown to be effective and safe to use; and
(4) can be introduced in an ethical way respectful of individual free choice, civil and human rights ...
... and I ask, how should such technologies be best employed to heal some of what troubles this world??
~ ~ ~
Then, having mitigated the three poisons, the most harmful aspects of human behavior which truly threaten our existence, we might choose to go on to other steps which will improve human behavior, thus society and this world. Beyond moderating our most serious negative traits, we might also elect to accentuate some positives:
If we could “up” our inner calling for altruistic behavior, what would be the effects? How far should we go in doing so? Would it be possible to create a world in which people continue to work to feed themselves and their family, and have reasonably selfish motives, but also feel 25% increased levels of pleasure and reward in acts of altruism and charity (exact percentages to be determined)? Could we render the average person just a tad more willing to share, even with strangers?
It would be a world where, while all continue to work for themselves, and not everyone will enjoy precisely equal living standards (for individual creativity, initiative, energy and investment should still be rewarded), everyone would have their basic needs met. Even in a traditional Buddhist monastery, one could argue that the shared system works when individual monks, as human beings, tend to and feed themselves, are concerned with their own path and needs, while also focusing upon the entire community and care of all their fellow monks too. One might say that monks work for themselves and others at varied or combined times, as called for and in appropriate measures, knowing that “self” and “others” in the monastic community are ultimately a whole.
Perhaps just a little more juice to our brain’s “charity cluster” would facilitate a healthy balance in peoples’ attitudes. Likewise for a kick to our “kindness region” or a spiking of our “gratitude genes.” While it is unlikely that we will ever discover one gene or region of the brain solely responsible for charity, kindness, or gratitude, just one place to activate like flipping a single, simple switch, it may be possible that some ways will be found to trigger or suppress specific emotions through drugs, nano-implants, or other bodily interventions. Even now, many users of various pharmaceuticals, both medical and recreational, report that these substances can result in strong, although temporary, feelings of brotherly love, gratitude and generosity. Many of us know the experience of two strangers in a bar, or two old friends, suddenly driven to “I love you, buddy” tears due to the setting or an imbibed brew. Something inside is being triggered. [FOOTNOTES SHOWING ONGOING RESEARCH IN THESE AREAS OMITTED HERE]
Researchers, such as Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin, have placed monks and other Buddhist practitioners into MRI machines in order to identify the parts of the brain which may be linked to increased altruism. Studies on infants indicate that altruism is a natural tendency in human beings from a very young age. If we can identify the associated genetic and neurological regions or triggers, it might be possible to activate genes or otherwise enhance brain chemistry leading to greater feelings of altruism and concern for others. [FOOTNOTES SHOWING ONGOING RESEARCH IN THESE AREAS OMITTED HERE]
If so, what would be the effect on society?
Perhaps we cannot, and best not, turn most of us into full time, self-sacrificing martyrs: It is possible that too much altruism might not be good at all, just as in the case of a fire fighter charging into a burning building who must balance rescuing others with preserving herself, especially if she is to live to care for her own children or to rescue more people on another day. (Even so, we all witnessed the self-sacrifice for strangers of those firefighters who charged into the burning towers of 9/11. Such levels of caring exists within us.) But how about just a little more caring and concern added to the general population and the day-to-day?
Ethicists, psychologists, political scientists, sociologists, physicians, biologists, and religious thinkers of many schools must debate and fashion general guidelines for all these aims, defining which desires and degrees of emotion to keep, which to do without or tone down/up a bit. However, actual implementation may not be as difficult as might be anticipated: Even small adjustments in human personality, the kinds that many of us experience now with simple mood swings (e.g., merely toning down the exceptional excesses of various desires, addictions, anger, violence, and division, tuning up altruism and kindheartedness in moderate degrees) will immediately have great, visible, very positive effects in wider society.
Experiments among volunteer, small-sized sample populations regarding adjustments in improving kindness and charity, for example, or decreasing their overall propensities to violence, are bound to demonstrate rapid and clearly positive effects in the test subjects’ personal relationships and in the groups and communities to which they belong. The changes will not be marked by sudden and fiery revolutions, but simply by how people start to behave in small ways toward each other, both those near at hand and strangers far away. Suddenly, donations to feed and house the homeless will rise, more people will be concerned for refugees and for children living in poverty, simply because more people will start to feel increasingly uncomfortable to see it, think about it, feel the suffering in their own mirror neurons. Obesity and addictions will rapidly decline as desires are moderated, reports of depression and suicide will decrease, there will be less violence in the streets and around the world. The signs of success will soon be measurable and obvious.
We can lightly nurture what are generally considered the best of human qualities (kindness, charity, caring, joy and more) by upping a bit the mental and instinctual influences and triggers for those emotions within the human psyche. These are the qualities represented by Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as symbols of excellent human ideals, as well as by Christian saints and humanitarians of all kind. Yes, being too altruistic, overly empathetic or disproportionately joyous can end up as destructive as a lack of those qualities, but moderate increases are all that should be required for sustainable, positive social changes. People need not and best not give away all their food, starving themselves, but merely feel the wish to share a little more, take pleasure in the nurturing of others, so that all have a healthy meal and none go hungry. As a result, the problem of hunger will start to vanish.
In fact, healthy, reasonable degrees of irritation, stress, impatience, sadness and other emotions and drives, often viewed negatively in Buddhism if in excess, are an essential part of being human when not in excess. We would be mistaken to remove these entirely from our characters, both for the sake of preserving our humanness and for human survival itself. Being a bit ‘ticked off’ is one thing, while anger as violent fury is another altogether. Being sad and mournful at the death of a loved one is healthy and human, but not to be overwrought with unending depression, broken in spirit, filled with suicidal thoughts and self-harm.
If we were to strip away too many aspects of human personality, every flaw and rough edge, we would end up removing too much human individuality, vibrancy, unpredictability, passion and creativity, thus depriving ourselves of many good parts of being human, all in an effort to be rid of the bad. It would be something like banning all fires, even those which can be safely managed for light and heat, because sometimes some of us burn down the house; it is as if we eliminated all knives, even those for cooking or surgical cure, because sometimes we might cut ourselves or use one as a weapon. Some very strict, traditional interpretations of Buddhism, in fact, have encouraged a cooling of all fires and a radical dulling of all sharp edges, a path which may be rewarding for some practitioners who so wish. On the other hand, other corners of Buddhism speak of a ‘middle way’ with regard to human emotions and desires. Do we truly want to create humans who are wiped clean of all anger, violent capabilities, self-interest, and strong desires whatsoever? Would the resulting creature not be left neutered, numb, unresponsive, passive and dull, would she even be able to survive for long in this hard world?
Even superficially “good” behavior can be destructive when carried to its limits: For example, being “patient and satisfied” is one thing, but it is quite another if one becomes so “patient and satisfied” that one fails to run from a burning building or to put out the fire. “Peaceful and non-violent” sounds good in theory, but perhaps not so peaceful and non-violent that one lets a hungry tiger eat one for dinner, or a violent dictator to take over the world and march one’s family into gas chambers. The legendary Kung-fu monks of Shaolin temple knew how to turn the other cheek, but only to a point. If we someday have a world without any criminals, terrorists or dictators whatsoever, then it might be a different story. However, so long as villains remain in the world, we shall need some ability to respond forcefully through police action to stop them.
As in the case of being too tolerant and excessively peaceful, “happiness” can also be over-rated, and is destructive if taken to extreme: A world of only smiles would seem, at first blush, to be a paradise. However, it would be inane, stripping away all drama and tragedy while leaving just the comedy. I want to cry when my mother or my dear friend dies, and I want to feel sadness when I see another human being suffering, not smile or laugh. Throughout this book, I will examine perspectives by which Buddhism allows us to feel a certain contentedness even while feeling ordinary human sadness, a kind of overriding Joy (with a big “J”) which includes sometimes being joyous and sometimes not being joyous in life at all. While one should be happy in happy moments, it is also okay to be sad at sad moments. Let us learn to be happy about sometimes being sad.
(to be continued)
~ ~ ~
A little song from 1944, World War II ... troops dying in the fields, bombs falling on London and soon Dresden, concentration camp ovens burning away ...
Gassho, J
stlah