hopelesshappiness.com

This week after the Kansas City Chiefs marched downfield and scored on the first drive of overtime, thus sending the Buffalo Bills home without having a chance to possess the ball, there has been considerable commentary and controversy surrounding the NFL’s overtime rules; (no less than the Wall Street Journal and NPR have weighed in). Cries of unfairness and injustice! Demands that the rule must be changed! The rule states: “Both teams must have the opportunity to possess the ball once during the extra period, unless the team that receives the opening kickoff scores a touchdown on its initial possession, in which case it is the winner.”

The odds of an offensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 5; 21.12%.

The odds of a defensive TD on a given drive are approximately 1 in 100; 1.26%.

So, by receiving the kickoff, (by virtue of a coin flip), a given team is 16.73 times more likely than the other to win on that first possession. And in the playoffs I would conjecture this number is somewhat higher because in theory these are above average teams. And furthermore, the odds favor the team who receives the first kickoff, even when they do not score on that first possession. It does seem a bit lopsided. And this, coupled with the Kansas City Chiefs being on the other side of the rule three years ago in a playoff game against the New England Patriots, will likely lead to a change in the rule. In the NPR article, Philadelphia sports reporter Taryn Hatcher was quoted saying, “NFL overtime rules are so trash, which is honestly an insult to trash.”

As said, by creating an uproar many believe there is a reasonable chance the rule will be changed to allow for more equitable opportunity. Equitable opportunity. We can reasonably propose equitable opportunity to the NFL, but it frequently appears to be a truly novel concept in the arena of social justice. Though I am a football fan, and I do agree the NFL overtime rule should be changed, (as do many members of the Kansas City Chiefs), I was struck on Monday by not only the quantity of commentary but by the passion felt for this obvious abuse, when, with not much research I found similar numbers illustrating a bigger injustice that has been going on much, much longer. This is from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), as quoted from brookings.edu: “three-generation poverty is over 16 times higher among Black adults than white adults (21.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively). In other words, one in five Black Americans are experiencing poverty for the third generation in a row, compared to just one in a hundred white Americans.”

In poverty’s overtime, Black Americans are winning. I feel that should be said one more time: In poverty’s overtime, Black Americans are winning.

To complicate further, according to the Congressional Research Service, a black child is more than 10 times more likely to be born into the bottom 20% than the top 20%, compared to a white child at 3.7 times or an Asian American child at 1.4 times. To the child, the circumstance they come to is the flip of a coin, and as pointed out by the overtime controversy, if it is necessary to flip a coin we should do what we can to provide equitable opportunity moving forward.

But, according to this study quoted in Vox, white children are more than 4 times more likely and Asian-American children are more than 10 times more likely than Black children to move from the bottom quintile of income distribution to the top quintile. This does not reflect equitable opportunity.

Unfairness? Injustice? Traditions and rules that are an insult to trash? Yes! Where is the uproar? Where is the demand for equitable opportunity? Where is the rules committee?

The numbers, the facts, tell us a story of how difficult it can be to overcome circumstance that is not of one’s own making or choice. If you can see the injustice of the NFL overtime rule, then you must see the inequity of race that is built into our American way. Or is it really more fair that Black Americans are born fighting such odds than that your NFL team is sent home from the playoffs? I started to ask, are we really this superficial? But I believe the relevant question might be, why are we this superficial? Some might claim that the parents make the circumstance, but there are so many avenues to go down, so many numbers and facts and real life examples throughout our entire history, up to and including today, that show how odds have always been more highly stacked against Black Americans.

As a nation, we were founded on these words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” And as a nation we have failed to live up to those words, but that is not the point. When we have a vision, an objective, we will never attain it in its perfection; we are meant to work toward it. Those who are disappointed that we have not lived up to those words must get over it so they may expend their effort toward improvement. The NFL overtime rule is perhaps a way to wake up a few sleepwalkers and redirect the attention of a few whiners to perhaps work together toward “a more perfect Union.” And if along the way we’re able to get the rules committee to change the overtime rule? Great! Because equal should not exclude those who start out on defense; which I suppose does describe Black Americans.

If I define work as any effort, (physical, mental, emotional and/or spiritual), directed to accomplish something, then it appears to me that any purpose must include work. The simple act of asking the question 'why am I here' is work, as is any less daunting, more specific objective. So in this regard I understand the claim that asceticism as a result of hard work is a sign of salvation; it follows that work as reparations (to repair) serves as a salve (atonement) that can redeem one’s soul. But because it is logical, does that mean my driving force, my overall purpose, should be merely to work? And if, (as many do today), we include making money beneath the umbrella of ‘what is work' are wealthy investors guaranteed their spot in heaven? Or those who inherited their wealth? I believe work is a beginning. I believe work is the means. I believe that though work may make money, making money is not work. And I believe work for the sake of work or work for the sake of money or work to create a soul-saving asceticism is short-sighted. I believe each successive desire below represents a more far-reaching, higher-order objective toward which our individual efforts may be directed. And of course each objective below involves effort, i.e. work.

1. Survival.
2. Pleasure.
3. Comfort.
4. Systematized Improvement.
5. Betterment / Growth.

I put survival first because survival should be instinctive and I believe as an individual effort, from the ego, it is. But as a species, today, I might place survival as the most far-reaching, highest order objective there is. Or, perhaps, as a species we are missing the requirement that we should constantly circle back to the beginning to ensure that we do not confuse a social or political structure with Humanity, and to be sure goodness has a chance to play its role. As a species, to circle back today, we would first need to become unstuck from the objective bog of systematized improvement and then somehow incorporate survival into our efforts from goodness toward the betterment and growth of Humanity.

This progression of individual effort is nothing new. It has been said before in many different ways. Humans direct their efforts toward happiness; (however one in a given moment may define happiness). But there is another factor to consider: the source. As implied in the paragraph above I believe the primary (instinctive) source is one’s ego, but with discipline and practice I believe, as a human, I can additionally choose to project from goodness. Which leads me to ask, can I potentially adjust the relative value of my results by increasing my effort from goodness? I believe the answer to be yes. The more I am able to override ego with goodness, the more I believe I am able to manipulate and control the results of my efforts, thus, (I would argue), work from a combination of goodness and the inevitable ego increases the value of my work. Unfortunately, our system disagrees. This exponential increase in the value of work from goodness does not always (or even often) result in an increase in my personal pleasure or comfort because the efficiencies that may be gained only serve to create a demand (from the system) for more production thus also limiting my potential for personal growth. Put another way, when I am ego driven, I am instinctively inclined to direct my efforts in a manner that best serves the system because that is how I am typically rewarded with survival, pleasure and comfort. So when I am driven by goodness, the system only recognizes and rewards efficiency/productivity gains that may come about as a result; and these efficiency/productivity gains will not account for and will almost always fall short of the value (of my work) relative to goodness. And depending on how one’s ego defines happiness, the recognition and rewards for work from goodness also often seem to fall short of the actual value.

If the purpose of the system is to gain efficiencies in order to increase production ultimately to grow profits, and if the purpose of Humanity is a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All, then the system and Humanity are at odds. Compassion is not efficient. This was illustrated to me this week by an email I received from my employer, (a large state university), in which the Chief Audit and Compliance Officer described an incident of “financial mismanagement” and named a person who was terminated obviously implying guilt. Three years ago, to an office also involved in the investigation of this incident, I reported an incident of very clear mismanagement of people, (specifically students). In that case no one was terminated and nothing was made public. To this day, (as far as I know), the students harmed by this mismanagement are unaware, still believing the system worked and was not manipulated. These two incidents tell me that when a human takes advantage of the system, the system demands swift, harsh, public justice, but when the system takes advantage of a human, or, by extension, when another human takes advantage of a human within the system in a way that 1) actually improves efficiency or productivity or 2) does not impact efficiency or productivity and/or 3) by setting things right would in some way negatively impact efficiency or productivity then fairness, justice and accountability go out the window. Impropriety becomes less consequential, and in the specific circumstance I refer to, it was swept under the rug. I will say it again: Compassion is not efficient. It is okay for the system to take advantage of humans. It is not okay for a human to take advantage of the system. And many would (do) argue that the double standard is correct; that it should not be okay to take advantage of the system and that nothing should be done to thwart the demands of the system. And though the saddest part for me in this ongoing cycle of gained efficiencies and increased production, is the fact that I am missing opportunities for the sake of the system, the real crisis for Humanity is how we have lost sight of our survival and how we have relegated our betterment and growth to the back seat. What we describe as ego at a personal level, at a species level has become this loop of systematized improvement, and within this loop there is really no place for Goodness. One more time: Goodness, specifically Compassion, is not efficient.

So is there a way to break free? Or am I destined to continue working for the sake of the system? I'm not sure I have a choice. I could play mind games; (and I do). I could work to convince myself that the limited personal growth I am allowed is enough. And that the 'possibility’ of good from personal goodness is enough. But when it does no practical good for the species, and it serves my ego more so than it serves goodness, and as long as we as a species are on our current trajectory, it is mighty discouraging to essentially continue to work simply for the sake of work when I so badly want to work to save the world.

Either everything is okay or everything is not okay.

Everything is not okay.

Based on this premise (that everything is not okay) I see three different groups each characterized by their response, and each represented equitably across the political spectrum.

The majority pretend everything is okay and/or believe everything will be okay. I'll call this group the preebies.

The alarmists work to tell people everything is not okay. An alarmist may also work to offer solutions and/or make things better.

The crazies speak and act rashly and therefore sometimes dangerously; but the large majority of them do so with good intentions.

There is some crossover. For example, I know of some individuals who are (in most circumstance) a preebie but by choosing to ignore consensus science and remain unvaccinated, they qualify in this regard as a crazy. And, how many politicians can we call out as both alarmist and crazy.

A typical alarmist is (if not well-informed, at least) somewhat-informed. I believe a preebie should be required to become an alarmist before they are allowed to test the waters of crazy; though a well-placed alarmist who crosses the line into crazy has potential to do much more damage. And of course we cannot restrict the freedom of an uninformed or ill-informed preebie. If our leaders can traverse crazy, we must allow everyone that right. And I do agree with the essence of this equality, but I might work to mitigate the damage by somehow keeping ‘everyone’ from crossing that line. Some may argue that rash words and actions have some genius potential, but I would argue that there is a difference between rash and drastic; (keep reading).

I am an alarmist. I am an alarmist who believes in consensus science and acknowledges consensus fact. I am an alarmist who is also a consumer and a capitalist, though not by choice. But I am not a well-placed alarmist; and I am not doing a very good job.

Some of the preebies laugh at me.

Some of the preebies feel sorry for me.

Most of the preebies ignore me.

There is a growing movement of alarmists; and there are substantiated reasons, (see consensus science and consensus fact), that this movement is growing.

Most of the preebies dislike alarmists.

Some of the preebies hear some of the somewhat-informed alarmists and test the waters of crazy.

Some of the preebies hear the more well-informed alarmists but become overwhelmed and throw their hands up in despair and go back to being a career consumer believing everything will be okay.

Some of the preebies hear the more well-informed alarmists but because (as career capitalists) they believe they are personally okay, they find reasons to not react accordingly.

If one acts rashly, (without due consideration), they have for that moment crossed over into crazy. Due consideration requires thoughtful analysis of consensus (and opposing) science and fact, and it requires a certain amount of prescient forethought; (i.e. an examination of possible outcomes). With those elements in place, (thoughtful analysis and prescient forethought), one is justified in acting drastically for the sake of improvement and progress. Yet frequently, within the bounds of tradition, and within the bounds of consumerism / capitalism, some drastic actions that have been given due consideration appear to be rash, and the perpetrator of said drastic act appears to have crossed over into crazy. A protest against police violence for example, put against a backdrop of tradition and misremembered good old days, appears to be rash and unnecessary; but against a backdrop of human rights and the prevalence and injustice of implicit and explicit bias, it is the proud, gun-toting protectors of America who are acting rashly and who have crossed over into crazy. The same can be said about the prevalence and injustice of the high costs of housing and education, and the number and ease of evictions, and the ever-increasing wealth gap when looked at against a backdrop of consumerism / capitalism vs. a backdrop of Human rights. It is the wealthy and the landlords and the dollar-driven universities and the system itself that has crossed over into crazy. We must learn to differentiate between rash and drastic and we must recognize the context. Progress (and today, I believe survival) requires thoughtful, far-reaching, drastic action.

I am an alarmist.

And the forest is dark and scary. With trees encumbered by thick, knotted trunks and branches that from here, ground level, don’t look like the appendages of trees. So many obstacles. Briars and brush and undergrowth. Rotting wood and slick, moss-covered stones. It is hard to move from here to there, and it is even more difficult to find direction.

If opportunity is a favorable inclination and if goodness is the essence or nature of Humanity, then opportunity is God

Whereas, if opportunity is a favorable inclination and if ego is the essence or nature of Humanity, then opportunity becomes oppression.

Am I moved by goodness? Or am I moved by ego?

Am I moved by God? Or am I moved by earthly power?

Am I moved by we? Or am I moved by me?

And if I claim to be moved by we, how do I define we? A small group of like-minded individuals? City? State? Nation? World? All sentient beings? All life? All existence?

I believe it to be true that opportunity is both God and oppression. And I believe it is only by way of Humanity that we come to justice and injustice. Opportunity by itself, without goodness, without ego, is blind, random, dumb luck. In this sense, opportunity is (Martin Luther’s) grace that insists on a respectful, unpretentious, humble compassion for All.

I cannot create a self-serving opportunity from goodness. I can only take advantage from ego. Self-serving opportunity is only progressive when it is also oppressive.

I believe progressive opportunity that is equitable must come from goodness and must utilize ‘all existence' as the definition for we. I believe all existence to include all past, present and future realities and possibilities.

Goodness is skewed by my definition of we. But practically, to advance a more equitable, progressive opportunity I must choose realities and possibilities that will make a bigger difference; which in turn will exclude some of we; which in turn will skew goodness. Today, to try and be all-inclusive is to stand still. I must start with all existence but then I must prioritize and choose to act upon only some realities and possibilities.

I choose consensus science. I choose consensus fact. I choose the future. Sadly, what I choose will continue to have very little influence as long as our leaders continue to choose today and ego and whatever their limited definition of we happens to be in a given moment.

If goodness is skewed by my definition of we why would I choose a smaller definition? To feel safer? More comfortable? More in control? Less afraid? I refuse to believe that God would skew/limit/lessen goodness. And any individual who excludes other individuals, who excludes other life or sentience or existence, who believes they are one of a select chosen few, is not serving God, they are serving their ego.

Goodness is skewed by my definition of we.

“[Capitalism is] inimical to poetry, eloquence, memory, the beauty of wit, the fires of imagination, the depth of thought. It is equally disinclined to reward gifts that cannot be turned to its uses.” (Page 27).

These are words written by Marilynne Robinson, (some borrowed from Alexis de Tocqueville), in her 2018 collection of essays, What Are We Doing Here.

So, what are we doing here? If an outsider, say a Tocquevillesque character, visited us today, I believe they would observe that we are functioning within the confines of a system that requires ever-increasing efficiencies at the expense of cultural, social and individual humanity. On this continuum of human intelligence to superficial intelligence to artificial intelligence that is required by this system, as a whole we are rapidly passing through superficial intelligence and fast approaching artificial intelligence. If we maintain this trajectory, the only question that remains is will we take on AI enhancements to ensure subservience to the system thus becoming a different species, or will we plateau a moment before full-fledged artificial intelligence thus maintaining a brittle shell of humanity. Dramatic? Maybe. Valid question? Yes.

Humanity: the quality or condition of being human, including its desire for beauty, truth, justice and perfection, and its proclivity toward fear, ignorance, pleasure and ego. Our trajectory, our system today, takes issue with humanity because humanity impedes efficiency. And, our system today impedes our humanity. The system would prefer aligned perfection with no ego. So, are we here to advance our system? Or are we here to advance our humanity? What are we doing here?

Those who buy into the system, (perhaps more so those who are wealthy and buy into the system) are dangerously duplicitous. The system is inhumane. An inhumane human is duplicitous. In this sense, perhaps we are all to a degree duplicitous, but those who stand against meritocracy and credentialism and human freedom as employability and the monetization of every aspect of every thought are likely not dangerously duplicitous. To value and champion “poetry, eloquence, memory, the beauty of wit, the fires of imagination, the depth of thought” is to stand outside the system and see how it is narrowing our vision and excising the very essence of our humanity.

To regain our humanity, to turn around and move back through superficial intelligence and toward human intelligence, we must somehow, within the universal bounds of civilization and citizenry, break then reconstruct our system. I so much want to believe we are capable. In this moment, monetary and political power have become primary, driving, (while stripping away layers of), our humanity. We have it backwards. Power is not the benevolent ruler it pretends to be, granting individuals their freedom and defining/dictating their purpose. Power is a consequence of cultural, social and individual humanity and is in place to protect humanity’s (cultural, social and individual) pursuit of freedom. We must recognize and live within this fact, or, continue on our current trajectory.