I’ve had this post of fellow blogger Rose Vettleson, Meaningful Intelligent Conversations, in my interesting-stuff pile since first reading it in August of 2022. I had the idea of writing a post on each of her questions, but I still can’t quite wrap my head around how to do that. So I’ve finally decided to reach out to the blogosphere for suggestions. It’s not on me or any one person to provide answers to such deep questions, but, as Rose says – as she pleads – we must have fully engaged conversations about each of the topics she brings up. Our politicians and corporate leaders just aren’t doing it. We just have to look at how hollow many of the promises at COP28 are or at the geopolitically-motivated support for one faction or another in any number of the horrific wars currently raging around the world to see that voices of reason (not tied to power, profits, shareholders, lobbyists, or votes) are few and far between. The question is: how do we facilitate such a process? How do we make it work?
From Rose’s blog post:
I’m always curious to know what people really, truly, deeply think and feel. I want to hear about their creative, inventive, innovative, brand-new ideas. I have millions of questions I’m seeking answers to.
Here are a few examples:
- What are people’s thoughts on how to end wars? Can we utilize similar tactics parents use to get their children to stop fighting? After all, we are one big human family…
- With our wide variety of personality types, and competing interests, how do we produce a world that works for all of us?
- How do we develop a more equal society, yet preserve everyone’s individuality?
- How can we balance the spirit of competition with compassion?
- What does the future of politics look like? Will we always have two warring factions who refuse to peacefully compromise? Or might we one day really have politicians who want to find solutions by fully understanding truthful consequences?
- Will we save the planet and ourselves from climate change? Why isn’t everyone taking this topic seriously?
- Why do we have so many people suffering poverty and starvation, and what should we be doing about it?
- How do we keep from overpopulating the earth, and at the same time eradicate deadly diseases?
- What is the best education we can offer future generations? How do we decide what they should learn?
She ends by saying:
One way to find better solutions is to have better conversations. We need the kind of discussions that fully engage our brains, our hearts, and our creativity. Better answers should involve thoughtful logic, and deep caring, and a profound quest to find brand new ways of doing things.
If we don’t engage, bravely share, kindly listen, open our brains and hearts to their hugest capacity, how will we ever help this world, or the universe become a better place?
You can see why I saved this post and have reflected on it many times. Remember that she wrote this 6 months after Russia had invaded Ukraine, which seems like a lifetime ago now. There was no indication that the horrors of Israel-Hamas would happen. None of the ravages of wildfires, floods, droughts, and other extreme weather-related events of the 2023 seasons had happened yet. These questions were already critically important well before then.
I agree with Rose completely. We all need to be having these conversations, and then we all, or at least many of us, need to help act upon proposed solutions. Some of these questions may be completely intractable. The first question comes to mind in that regard. How do we end wars? If we look through history we’re quickly reminded that war is one of the things humans excel at, or perhaps I should say that wars are something powerful leaders turn to in order to get what they want. If one segment of the world agreed to end wars – maybe put limits on arms manufacturing for example – I can imagine how quickly the other segment(s) of the world would rise to take advantage of this unexpected opportunity. No, I’m not taking on that one.
But what about some of the other questions? For starters, why aren’t we having significant discussions around the question “How do we develop a more equal society, yet preserve everyone’s individuality?” Or, “How can we balance the spirit of competition with compassion?” Or, “Why do we have so many people suffering poverty and starvation, and what should we be doing about it?” Or even the uncomfortable question, which might be needed first, of why so many people don’t think an equal society, with compassion as well as competition, is what we should be striving for?
I think you can understand why these questions had such an attraction for me. I think you can also see why I’ve struggled to see how anyone could move forward with them. But the fact that most of us feel powerless to make a difference – and thus can’t imagine how robust, constructive public conversations could be useful – only provides momentum to the loss of the voice of mankind’s ‘better angel’. We can be so much better than this.
So, my question to you who are reading this is: which of these questions are manageable conversation starters? My question to you is: who do we have the conversations with? My question to you is: how do we, the grassroots, move forward with any actionable outcomes of these conversations? Phew, so many questions! So much thinking!! But these questions are all about what kind of world we want for our children and grandchildren. Do we want them to live on a healthy planet in a society that values kindness and compassion, or do we resign ourselves to imagining them living in an increasingly weather-ravaged, fractious, everyone-for-themselves world? It is at least partly up to us.
Thank you for inspiring me with these questions for nearly 16 months now, Rose. 🙂
All thoughts are welcome.
Robby Robin's Journey 
I remember this post from Rose and for me this is the crux Jane …
“ Or even the uncomfortable question, which might be needed first, of why so many people don’t think an equal society, with compassion as well as competition, is what we should be striving for?” …
Plus – we seem to be great at doing many of the things needed at a local community level but when it comes to wider areas and global issues it seems the barriers go up. We resort to ‘we need to look after number 1’ at the cost of losing togetherness and working towards potential progression and solutions for all of us on this planet.
I have absolutely no idea what the answer is!
But time is of the essence. 😔
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks so much for this, Margaret. I realize now that responding to comments about this is just as challenging as trying to address Rose’s questions in the first place! 😂 You’re right, we are much better at working towards collaborative and compassionate solutions at the community level. Hmm, I wonder if we need to be even more at the brink than we already are to take it up a notch. I agree that time is of the essence. We have to get back to working across divides instead of the current retrenchment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ohhh my, what a Post💜 This one about Equal Societies:
the only way I can wrap myself around any such Theme, is when I think things here are temporary.
That quickly levels entitlement, pride, judgment…
It gives me Ears for the other.
If I think the other person / representation may not be here the next day, am encouraged to begin to try bridge any gap. If that makes sense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Wow, thank you so much for this reply. It does make sense. You’re talking about empathy kicking in when the full realization hits of the ramifications of our actions on others. Empathy for others and their right to exist, and exist in some level of security and well-being, has to overtake the remarkable strong instinct of self-interest. We are definitely a work in progress.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes! You put that so well. Thank you, will remember. “.. empathy kicking in when the full realization hits of the ramifications of our actions on others.”🌷
Too, knowing how transient all human existence is, shortens selfishness.
Awe kicks in. Awe at God, and awe too, at how little I know, to dare rattle another’s security.
In the Light of politics/ war/crime, this may sound dumb. But it’s my reality. It helps me humble down.
LikeLiked by 2 people
These are important questions that need asking, repeatedly. The answers vary across cultures and centuries, which is why I guess philosophers have been asking these questions, or variations of them, since forever.
From my own reflections, the reason it is difficult to answer these questions is because people have underlying worldviews, beliefs and value systems that are not commensurate with each other. For example, if we take the question “How do we develop a more equal society, yet preserve everyone’s individuality?” there are several underlying assumptions behind it:
1. An equal society is a good / desirable thing
2. It is possible to define what “equal” means and achieve it. (Or that equitable is a an acceptable stand in for “equal”)
3. Individuality is a good / desirable thing
4. People are motivated, at least occasionally, to place the needs of others before their own.
5. etc.
Within homogenous groups, these assumptions have common answers. Maybe all people reading Rose’s and Robby’s posts would think the answer is “Yes” to all the assumptions above. And a conversations would be productive or insightful in many ways.
Once the group becomes heterogenous, people have different assumptions or responses to these assumptions.
So if some people in a group believe for example, that individuality is not a virtue or to be protected (as in some cultures) – conversation is way more difficult.
In any group, in my humble opinion, there are way too many non-commensurate underlying beliefs, which we may or may not be aware of. And this dissonance is what makes conversations difficult and solutions even more difficult.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you so much for these important reflections, Manasvini. You articulate exactly what I also think are the stumbling blocks to the concept of an “equal society”. Although I don’t like to think about it this way, it’s the tribalism in us, the “we” vs “them” that we go looking for. In our shrinking globe, we need to rise above that instinct somehow, for our survival as well as because it’s the right thing to do. We have to learn – and teach – mutual respect. No small task, but it sure is worth trying. Sigh.
LikeLike
So much good could come from your insights, Jane. A society with elements of compassion, competition and innovation – a shared desire to preserve, protect both humans and the planet. So much to consider in what you shared. It puts a spotlight on the need for energy and effort instead of inertia and defeatist attitudes. Thank you so much for bringing the hard realities forward. Make haste, all. ❤️
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks very much, Vicki. Now, if we only knew how to get there! 😥🙏
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agree…and as we struggle with that, I’m grateful to you for continuing the conversation, with facts and fervor. Appreciate you. ❤️
LikeLiked by 1 person
😊💕
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here’s to better conversations! Marshall Rosenberg (Nonviolent Communication) and Adam Grant (Think Again: The Power of Knowing What You Don’t Know) are worthy guides.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh my, thank you so much for these book recommendations, Natalie. I’m on it! 😊
LikeLike
I think people misunderstand what a conversation is- a non threatening exchange of ideas. It does not mean necessarily coming to a conclusion or finding a specific answer, but is an opportunity to seek useful input as a whole. There’s a lot of fear surrounding hard, unanswerable questions so many simply avoid it all together. All of the questions that Rose puts forth are amazingly complex to contemplate and probably seem overwhelming if the focus and responsibility is only on answers. I don’t think you can even get close to answers without a whole lot of open and honest ideas being tossed around.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Deb, you are so right. And now that you say that, I can immediately envision what was one of my favourite things to do during my working life, a series of well-structured roundtable sessions. I wonder how people without hidden agendas could be encouraged to engage in roundtable discussions virtually! Hmm. It wouldn’t necessarily change anything, but it might get more people thinking. More people engaged in thinking about what could be.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you read Doug’s (DM) blog…Iowa, farm, etc? He started the private blog to toss around what many might find to be controversial topics, hard topics, things that some would be uncomfortable voicing for many reasons. Clearly it has to be done in an open yet totally respectful way. Discussions are possible even among folks who have broad viewpoints but it takes really wanting to be someone who yearns to engage, learn and think beyond their own space and interests. Sort of what and/all of our local and national leadership is supposed to do when we elect them to positions of power yet they seem to get so horribly lost between winning the election and fulfilling their roles…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, yes, I read DM’s blogs for sure, for probably 20 years now! Very good example. I’ll have to give this idea and a few others some serious thought. Thanks a lot, Deb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, these are beautifully profound questions. Yet, also challenging. Thanks for sharing, Jane. 😊
I’m a huge nerd and have spent thousands of hours of reading on these topics, so I’ll plant a seed. Based on my understand of the whole array of topics, I personally think “broken money” is the root cause of several societal ills, and an interesting place to start a discussion:
Throughout the modern world, legal tender is not backed by a physical commodity (e.g., gold) and money is freely printed, as needed. In the US, for example, the debt-to-GDP ratio is 119.47 and national debt is $33 trillion. In all of history, no country/government has ever recovered from this level and, if history repeats itself, many countries are on the slow march to societal collapse. The only way to stay afloat is to print more un-backed money. The only way to obscure the consequences of the subsequent hyper-inflation is via the war machine, as was done for WWI and WWII (both prompted by a too high debt-to-GDP ratio). While the wealthy have their assets secured, the uninhibited money printing harms low income people because money is devalued while costs of products and services rise disproportionately to wages. This leads to usury/credit cards, enriching the lender at the expense of the borrower. I think the answer to at least some of the problems Rose listed is returning to backed money that cannot be freely printed and the ability of an individual to self-bank, rather than borrow money and/or have their assets under the control of another entity. It’s not necessarily an easy solution, but I believe it would level the playing field and bring the opportunity for individuals to forge better lives for themselves and their families.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks for this quite unique and unexpected suggestion, Erin. I’ll have to give it more thought, but I do have some initial questions about this theory. I don’t think anyone could argue about the questionable overspending by many countries. The govts do the same thing we’re all encouraged to do (in capitalist countries, at least, spend beyond our means. But if the U.S., just as an example, spent far less money on armaments and munitions and increased the tax rates for the wealthy, their debt ratio would go down significantly. I can’t help but think that putting compassion ahead of profits and power is what’s needed everywhere to level playing fields and work towards equal societies. But you certainly raise an intriguing perspective!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we’re 100% on the same page, Jane! It’s not just the overspending, but what countries are spending on. My partner is disabled and his benefits are not enough for anyone to live on ($720 living, $82 food per month).. how many don’t have a supportive partner and are forced to the streets or programs like MAID? Then, they don’t audit those systems, so well-paid individuals take advantage of welfare programs, harming those truly in need. Government, the US and otherwise, are wasting so much money on weaponry. Those in power are patting each other on the back and implementing policies that benefit themselves, but harm or disadvantage everyday folks. I think greed is the root cause of so many problems, and I fully agree that compassion across the board would level the playing field. I guess the question then is, how do we convince those who benefit from profits and power to instead embrace empathy and fairness? It’s a much harder question, isn’t it?
LikeLike
I’ve had war, education, and compassion on my mind. Recently I saw Born in Gaza, a documentary filmed in 2014 and airing on Netflix. Just knowing about people and their situations and traumas gives me a sense of perspective and compassion. I wish I had all the answers.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for this, Crystal. I just read a book about Palestinian history that gave me a similar sense of perspective and compassion. I guess we’ll continue to be a work in progress. 😥
LikeLike
❤️🩹
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for opening these questions to discussion, Jane. It’s so interesting to hear the variety of suggestions, and insights from people. ❤️ This is a powerful statement you make, “what kind of world we want for our children and grandchildren. Do we want them to live on a healthy planet in a society that values kindness and compassion, or do we resign ourselves to imagining them living in an increasingly weather-ravaged, fractious, everyone-for-themselves world? It is at least partly up to us.” I’m so hopeful we can create a healthier world. It is on us. One way to begin is to listen to others and share what we value for the future.
LikeLike
You posed such powerful questions in that post of yours, Rose. Everyone agrees with the need to address them, it’s just the weighty question of how. We have to keep chipping away at them, at finding the paths that will get us back on track for a healthy, compassionate future. As you say, it’s up to us.
LikeLike
Pingback: Profound Questions… – Of All The Things I've Ever Dreamed
I understand why the questions attracted you and I understand your struggles with them. I have no easy answers right now as the questions deserve contemplation. You’ve had some engaging and insightful comments, and I hope that there are many more people in the world who want to sit down and talk and try to work things out. For me, it starts with empathy and kindness and tolerance, and reaching out to others, which hopefully sets an example for my grandkids. Lately, I’ve been feeling an increasing pull to do more volunteering in a meaningful way that makes a difference. Now I wonder if it’s because some of those questions have been circulating in my subconscious.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re so right that making positive changes has to start with empathy, kindness, and tolerance. Volunteering is such a good way to make a positive difference in our communities. A previous comment made the valid observation that we’re better able to effect positive changes at the community level. At least that’s a very good start.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I think that’s the way to get things started 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Gandhi put it quite well, “We must all be the change we want to see.” In OD, we used a Force Field Analysis to ascertain the forces moving us forward and those pushing against progress or pushing us backward. Such an analysis usually gives a very nuanced view of the problems and issues facing us. I think one on your topic would be very complex. I don’t think a single answer would suffice to remove all backward or negative forces. Which force would we start at? The easiest to remove or the most difficult but probably the most important? Thanks for another interesting blog Jane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your input, John. You’re right, these problems are too complex, mostly because they involve so many people with so many different perspectives, and in too many circumstances led by people who are motivated by greed and self-interest. This has not been a good year for optimism about the ability of mankind – or at least of our political and corporate leaders – to take the high road wrt doing the right thing for the common good. Not a good year at all!
LikeLike
Could not agree with you more Jane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow – what a interesting and huge topic, Jane. This sentence really hit home with me, “But the fact that most of us feel powerless to make a difference – and thus can’t imagine how robust, constructive public conversations could be useful – only provides momentum to the loss of the voice of mankind’s ‘better angel’. ”
I resonate with feeling powerless to actually change anything. I try to make responsible actions within my own household on any number of important topics, I vote, I donate money, but the continuum between me as an individual and the whole world feels far out of my control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for weighing in, Wynne. It seems like we all feel pretty powerless, at least beyond the community level. Certainly those actions you are taking are ones we should all follow, especially voting, but your description of the world feeling far out of your control sure resonates with me. My guess is that it resonates with pretty well everyone. As I sit here thinking about whether I have anything more to say, a thought occurs: I wonder what advice your father might have. 🤔 Probably he’d say that those of us who are following paths similar to the one you described are doing what we can.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, what a good question about what my dad would have said. My guess is that he’d say 1. do the next right thing 2. do it cheerfully because without it we burn out and with it we draw others to us and 3. relax in the faith that there is a power/perspective bigger in us that we can’t see so that we don’t sweat the details that are above our paygrade
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting. I like the first two. I wish I had faith that the third point works without our intervention. There are different levels of power/perspective bigger than us, and those at one level (Trump, Putin for starters) we should be sweating big-time. And taking action. Or we’ll deserve what we get! And I can’t imagine that the biggest power of all wouldn’t agree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm, I think our intervention is counted in #1. In my understanding, it means doing everything that we can in our power. Whether that is running for election against the bad candidates or giving away a personal fortune to climate action or standing up for someone who is being treated unfairly – whatever it is that’s in our power to make this world a better and more inhabitable place is the right thing to do, over and over and over again. And, in my dad’s advice, when we’ve reached the boundary of our power, whatever it is, that’s when we practice #3. It’s a way of not letting what we can’t control bleed away our energy and therefore undermine #1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Aha, got it! 😊
LikeLike
No wonder you’ve been thinking about this for 6 months – those are some huge questions.
My quick & dirty reaction is that ego is a big problem – there’s far too much of it in those who have the power to make policy, and far too little decency in the same group. And the focus on causing divisions and to “other” people currently is terrifying.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I know. Our world just seems to be getting nastier and nastier. 😥
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Fatherly Wisdom – Surprised By Joy
Jane, this is great, and these are great questions. For me, I think that they sort of revolve around the same sphere, not really changing concept, but dynamic of application. To end war, you have to understand who is starting it, and if there is a back-end arrangement. In my conspiracy, each war is benefiting someone- if it is the economy through needs of products, the government in regards to gaining land or making a “stand”, or the place being destroyed as it normally is rebuilt by one of the countries within the war. I fear that these day it is more monetary and ego based than purpose driven, and that is why it would never end. The people who benefit would rather risk those that don’t benefit, than lose what they gain.
In connection, our personality types are what make the egos of the leaders the most dangerous. It is their internal feeling of inadequacy that creates conflict, or the lack of ability to find harmony. In war this is really the root, the inability to find harmony because one person wants to be right, or better. To create a world that works for all of us means that we would have to accept someone is better, humble ourselves to listen and not be heard, as well as come to an agreement on what the future should look like TOGETHER, and not just based on a disconnected mindset. The world is the world, not the w.o.r.l.d. This thought process also ties into people and society. Unfortunately in the US greed, being the best, and being externally successful is the main drive of almost every citizen. When you go into other countries, you can see the radical shift. We are the land of opportunity because you have the opportunity to do or be whatever because it is all offered, and we forget we are born with individual gifts. For society to stop competing, again, people would have have to appreciate what they lack, just as much as what they excel in.
In the ending questions of poverty, education, politics, global warming, and over population, they keep this circle of thought going. Back to the world, and not the w.o.r.l.d- global warming is something that we as curious and competitive individuals fuel because we use whatever to get ahead. The world is just reacting to what we are doing, and so to stop the world, we must too stop ourselves. Stop from over consumption, processing, and delivering internationally as much. The globe would have to start working within it’s boundaries to provide as much as they could, and use a very strategic logistics schedule to avoid displacing the environment. The over population may very well be deemed untrue if we as a global society used our resources properly, and not continuously try to evolve outside of the natural foundations and rules of nature. The future of poverty can be subjected to the ideas and concepts of importing work to home countries, not giving as much, or even developing programs to get those back on their feet. This will all start with the education, and the education I foresee are the alternative educational philosophies (montesorri, regio, waldorf) allowing our children and adults to break from the work-based preparation, and explore their true essence with nature along side.
Our world needs more people to stop being neutralized by paychecks, understand their needs vs. their wants, and find ways to survive on what they are born to do. The Bible states that they had a place where food was freely grown, and when you have people who are so comfortable as to realize that there is no taking of the pie, but sharing of the abundance, you will find those humbled, less ego driven persons. To change education, politics, and the world, our ability to learn from others creates empathy, and compassion because they are based in love of another human. No, this does not because you align totally, but because you are able to appreciate that this person too is on a spiritual journey, just like you, that requires their failures, and success for the betterment of the chain reaction of life. I think you have started that conversation, but each person choosing to be the change is what can make the global grass-root change.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow, Samantha, what an amazing response. Thank you for all these very accurate observations. We’re going to need one gigantic grassroots wave, but I fear that is about all that’s going to do it, unless we end up with a few enlightened dictators in a few places, and they never last for long, nor are they an answer. But most of the current democracies seem to be suffering from everything you describe, but nearly complete gridlock. Thanks again for your comments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jane, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts! I spoke to someone in South Africa once and they said when democracy came about that is when things started to go wrong. I fear that the structure of politics is going wrong. If, and from my knowledge, you go back when kings and queens ruled (pretty much like your dictatorship example) they still had advisors, counsels, and governing bodies that spoke with the ruler of how it would play out in different scenarios, and they did well for a big part. There too it went wrong when greed from taxes came about and the people felt unheard, unseen, and misused. If the dictators cannot come about, how could a giant grassroots wave be broken down and become so powerful that it makes the current system obsolete? One thing I have recently been speaking with friends about is how people in power only have power because people give it to them. What if we all started to ignore the rules, and those in power?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not so sure. Things went wrong in SA because of corruption. And before democracy (when Mandela was released) they sure weren’t better for the more than 90% of the population who were Black or Indian. And the previous monarchies only did well for the aristocrats, not for the majority of people. In fact, it’s as if several current democracies are reverting to former models of preserving everything for the haves and tossing breadcrumbs to the have-nots to keep them from rioting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmm. I may need to do some more research on this. It would be interesting if the theory you were presenting was true- monarchies working within the name democracy- and would change a lot once a full blown. In truth, if you consider technology as the ruling Septar, it is a quick blip before corruption could leave us all with crumbs (IE: you get technology time if you complete 40hrs of work, etc). I enjoyed this chat, thank you!
LikeLiked by 1 person