if you see a problem and don't try to fix it, you can become a part of it.
Sure. But, if you see a problem and don't try to fix it you can also not become part of it. We turn a blind-eye to all sorts of issues, on a daily basis. The fact that you're using a computer, means you're doing it right now. By using electricity are you part of the problem? Sure. But, you're not going to stop using it, are you? So, accept your place as "part of the problem"... People have a tendency to be outraged by the world, while continuing to contribute to it. They live their entire lives feeling guilty for eating meat, using electricity... yet they continue to do it. And, this only causes pain... The fact is that you're not capable of reversing the global situation. You'd be better off specializing.
Personally, I'm okay with being "part of the problem".
I've come to terms with who we are.
I don't think we're broken.
The world is fine.
thinking for yourself is enough of a "contribution" I think. Clearly, we can contribute negatively to our planet; I think its illogical to say that we cannot also do something positive.
I don't think we can contribute negatively to the planet, though.
As individuals, we can't dent the momentum of history and human nature.
If we are going to survive as a species, so be it. But, it's not up to us to decide.
So many people take on the weight of the world. It's a bit silly, I think.
We're too critical of ourselves.
Everything has a function, of course.
We can't all just sit around and say, "fuck it".
I'm not suggesting we stop thinking about things.
But, thinking negative thoughts (like the OP is) isn't helpful.
We shouldn't encourage him to continue, in that way.
It's better to think about it in another way.
In this life, you will do what you can. Don't beat yourself up if you're not saving the world.
We shouldn't compare ourselves to history's heroes, because we are not them.
People are so riddled with guilt and shame. We're so tormented.
Everything is blown way out of proportion.
Functionally, somebody has to stress about this shit.
I'm glad, I guess, that isn't me.
By recognizing a problem and not attempting to fix it, I'm not becoming part of the problem.
That's crazy.
Are you a crusader for women's rights and gay rights and transgender rights?
Do you house as many refugees and homeless people as you can?
There isn't enough time in a single life to fix the world's problems.
In the case of people who push their own economic interests aggresively, to the detriment of innocent and uninvolved people, yes, I think they can be described as "bad", in the broad sense with which we use the term.
They should not be described as bad.
You can describe their actions as bad, and I won't object.
But labeling people good and bad is problematic.
If you tell a rapist they are bad, then they will believe it and continue to re-offend.
It's been shown, repeatedly, that it's a much better approach to reason with them.
There isn't something inherently wrong with a murderer, either... In fact, society perpetuating the idea that there is something wrong with them may have lead them to murder in the first place.
If you do bad things, and you accept that some people are bad and others are good, you start to realize that you're bad. And, potentially, you accept it and act accordingly.
The question is continually asked: how people can act like monsters?
The funny thing is, they act like monsters because we make them think they're monsters by asking how they can act like monsters.
Our entire framework is ass-backwards.
I object to the justice system.
I object to labeling people "good" and "bad".
Like Abbot. I've heard his name before.
Most people I encounter don't watch the news or give a fuck about politics, but some do.
My brother has complained about Abbot... calling him horrible names, saying he should die.
Really, we don't know that much about him. Just what the media tells us.
Personally, I'm not willing to condemn a man because TV tells me to.
The way people treat politicians is downright disgusting.
George Bush wasn't great on camera.
He wasn't the smartest guy in the world.
Basically, he was an easy target (for lynch-mob hatred).
If you compare Bush Sr.'s presidency to G.W.Bush's presidency, who wins?
I'm not great on camera, either. But that doesn't mean Tom Cruise would make a better leader.
And Abbot might make bad decisions, but we learn from bad decisions.
People might murder each other, but we learn from murder.
Again, everything has a function.
He is contributing, like it or not.
Everybody contributes, all the time.
You can't not contribute.
Don't presume to know enough about our place in the universe that you can - with any degree of accuracy - separate those who do contribute from those who don't. You may see the positive changes that are caused by one man's actions and not see the positive changes that occur from another.
The holocaust showed us just how far we can go.
It serves as a warning.
We cannot see the good that has come from it, directly. But that doesn't mean that Hitler didn't contribute towards our future and - paradoxically - the security of the human race.
Likewise, making bad decisions doesn't make Abbot a bad person.
It is wrong to call him a bad person, but that doesn't make you a bad person either.
The action of labeling people good and bad is bad. But, there are no bad people.
I do see harm in creating adversaries by labelling some random group as "bad". Such labelling can blind one to reason, if history speaks truth.
Indeed, yet we continue to do it.
Is this a case of recognizing a problem and not fixing it, perhaps?
there is definitely a hierarchy of understanding or spiritual ladder
Maybe so. But it is problematic to label someone spiritually advanced and (by implication) someone else spiritually retarded...
Buddha has become a God.
A lot of Buddhists treat his teachings like gospel.
It is better to think of him as just a man.
Same thing goes for Jesus.