Picture of Your Life
To you, life is like what?
If you ask people what life is, their response is less of a
philosophical type and more like what human mind is more used to: to
think of it as similar to something they know, something they
understand and can find similarities to. Meaning is closely linked
to personal experiences. What people have not experienced, they
cannot define well. If you ask someone what justice is, their
response can sometimes become too abstract if they never had
experience of it before. The same is with defining life. What people
would do is usually to simplify the meaning of life to a picture.
Something that they have had direct experience of. Something that
they find similar enough to what they know and understand about
life. And something that would inspire them to go on and continue
living. And this is what I call “picture of life”. Some might say
it’s a metaphor for life. But I stick to the easier word.
Let me give you a few examples. In the diagram below you can see
eight different pictures that people might use to tell you how they
see life and what it means to them. There are billions of pictures
out there. Each individual has a unique picture in mind and even if
two people have exactly the same picture, their description of that
picture and of the dynamics in that picture would be different.
These are only examples and I would use them to put my point across.
Life
as a journey (A)
People who choose this picture usually describe a road, a river, a
walk etc. in which they are walking, driving, swimming or sailing.
They describe different levels of control over their path, speed and
direction. Some would say the end is important and some say the
journey itself is important.
Life as climbing a mountain (B)
For these people, life is an upward movement, something that
they have to spend energy to achieve something. The end could be
reaching to the top or simply the process of going upwards. People
might be competing for the same peak or each might be climbing a
different mountain. Some mountains are quite challenging and some
are easy to reach.
Life as a puzzle (E)
For a philosopher, a scientist, a researcher, a business
consultant life might be a big question mark or something full of
question marks. Problems to be solved. Questions to be answered.
Finding the missing link. Acknowledging that something is unknown
and they should try to know it.
Life as a millstone (C)
For those in very routine lives, life can be defined as going round
the circles, turning around the millstone. Boring, maybe. But if you
look at it closely, there are many cyclical events in the world that
urges people to think like that. Day-night cycles, seasons,
life-death matters. And most importantly patterns of work and its
routine cycles. I don't blame people who define and picture life as
a big millstone that they are attached to it.
Life as a competition (D)
In many competitive cultures, people tend to picture life as a
competitive sport in which their role or mission is to 'win'. For
some who realized that for every winner, there are several losers,
they change this picture to a game that everybody is a winner, and
the end is to enjoy the game rather than winning it. Those who see
life as a big 'project' and themselves as its 'project manager'
might also look at life as picture B or D as they are the one who
wants to achieve certain goals and beat or leave behind others in
that process.
Life as a story, play, novel etc. (F)
In this metaphor, the narrative side of life becomes important.
There are good people, bad people, happy endings, suspension,
dialogues, and many characters who come and go. You might see
yourself as a lead character or in a support role for others. The
goal is not usually the ending of that story, but the processes and
interactions happening in between. It's a beautiful metaphor.
Life as an animal (G)
If you don't consider yourself as a privileged being, the value of
your life doesn't become more than other animals. For some people,
this notion becomes central in defining the meaning of their
existence. Life becomes following instincts and one's physiological
needs. Reproduction, sex, eating, sleeping and selfishness become
central in life and the rest become less important.
Life as a burning candle (H)
It's just one example of looking at life from an alternative point
of view (maybe more spiritual). You see the simplicity of this
picture. Burning, giving light, giving warmth, attracting the
butterflies and then dying. Powerful image, and very strong in
'giving' aspect of life.
So what?
1. If you think about the picture of 'your' life, you can learn more
about yourself and what your priorities are. People are usually very
good in describing a picture and telling the story of it, its
purpose, their role in it, significant elements in it etc. I think
it's a good preoccupation to think about how you picture life in
general and your life specifically.
2. There is a significant life and work implications out of this
concept. People live together, work together and interact with each
other. The amazing fact is that no matter how similar people's
backgrounds or education are, their pictures of life can be quite
different. In a couple relationship, one might look at life as a
competition and the other as a story. There might a match in these
two viewpoints, but to me, for one of them winning is more important
and for the other the interactions between people is more important.
Counselors or even dating agencies can use this technique to improve
the compatibility of couples. Organizations can use it in team
development and organizational effectiveness trainings. Politicians
and diplomats can study these pictures when interacting with other
politicians and leaders especially from other countries. In some
parts of the world, the competitive pictures are almost
non-existent. In some others, the spiritual pictures are very rare.
And although we cannot and should not aim to make people think the
same, but with good understanding, we can improve harmony and peace.
3. In the past, I guess there were less variety in these pictures.
Even now, for most religious people, the pictures are usually as
prescribed by their religions. Life as a big testing place for a
good or bad outcomes in the afterlife. God is very existent in their
pictures, as is heaven and hell. My other point is the influence of
nature and lifestyle on our pictures. I grew up in a city with very
impressive mountains (Tehran). To me, the symbolic existence of
mountains and how I used to climb it every week has had an
everlasting effect. For someone living by the sea, the picture
becomes quite different. And so on.
3. Please try to be non-judgmental and then ask your friends,
colleagues, even your spouse these questions: "How do you see (your)
life?" and/or "To you, life is like what?"
Context of my life when thinking about these concepts:
London, Winter 2008, after reading the history of Western
philosophy, planning for second immigration, well-organised and
balanced life.
Where from? Where to?
Where do you come from? Where are you going to?
When you see a stranger, one of the first questions you ask is
“where are you from”. Looking at life, we can ask this question from
ourselves. Thus, ‘where-do-we-come-from’ is not necessarily a
question of where we were born; it becomes a matter of where we were
and what we were doing ‘before’ we were born. But to answer that, we
first need to know what we mean by ‘we’, ‘I’ or ‘self’. Some argue,
it’s the physical I, some say it’s the spiritual I and some would
argue it’s the consciousness we develop at some point in life. But
let’s forget about that bit of technicality and focus on possible
scenarios.
To make this discussion more interesting, let’s also add another
dimension to it and ask at the same time about “where are we going
to”; or simply, what happens after we die.
Again, there are lots of other uncertainties involved, such as “when
does actually our life begin”. Is it when we are conceived, when we
are delivered by our mothers, when we develop consciousness or else?
Also, when does our life end? When our heart stops beating, our
brain stops functioning, our soul (if there is one) is detached from
our body or else? Let’s put all these matters aside and suppose that
no matter what our beliefs are, we can assume a beginning and ending
for life.
Now, we can think of basically three simplified models, models that
have been proposed and advocated by prophets, philosophers, leaders,
and thinkers; models that probably 95% of people on earth have
adopted and built their lives on top of it. There are probably 100s
of different variations for these models, but if we simplify them,
we'll come to these three. I am not saying that there aren't other
models out there. There are probably tens of others; but I say let's
understand these three first and then go for the rest.
No-before,
No-after
In this model, we came out of nothing. There was nothing before us
and our creation was a lucky or unlucky event in the universe. There
is no soul and no continuation after death. It's just our body and
its bodily functions. We might believe in consciousness, but not as
a separate entity. Mind is a complex function of our brains. When we
die, it's finished. No rewards or punishments after death. If we do
bad things, we must be punished in this life and if we do good
things or work really hard, sometimes we can expect rewards and
sometimes not. It depends on other aspects of our philosophy of
life. Quite simple, straightforward and concrete, isn't it?
No-before, Lots-after
In the second model, which is probably more appealing to
religious minds is based on our creation from nothing, living a life
as a mortal being in this world and then going to an eternal
after-life of either good or bad. The decision on whether our
outcome would be good (going to heaven) or bad (we go to hell) is
based on our deeds during our limited life-span. Lots of pressure,
lots of responsibility, lots of 'hope' (for those who suffer or are
unlucky in this world) and lots of opportunity for controlling
people using this model, e.g. "If you do X, you will go to hell! And
if you do Y, you go to heaven." This model in essence is a very
moral-based model and if we think of life like this, every action of
ours would then fall into that dichotomy, it's either good or bad.
And probably some actions would be considered mediocre. But who
cares about the neutral acts? Not many. Notably, all major religions
in the world have adopted this model and prescribed it to their
followers.
Some-before, Some-after
In the third model, life is a continuum, very similar to nature. We
existed as another life form before we were born and we will be
another life form after we die. And there is no other entity (like
God or angles or prophets) who are going to judge us and either
punish or reward us. It's ourselves that would be placed higher or
lower in some sort of a scale. Some move upwards in that ladder and
some downwards. But interestingly, if we do bad things, we might go
one (or two) steps down the ladder for another life cycle; which is
totally different from the second model that told us, if we do bad
things, we would go to hell FOREVER! This third model is believed by
billions of people and probably originated from the East (India and
China the most).
So what?
1. If you believe in one system of looking at life, it's probably
very difficult to change it in one day. In 99.9% of the times, I
don't even recommend changing it, because you would lose everything
in your system of belief. What I want you to do is to look at the
graph above and think about it. Think about yourself. And see how
different other people might think about their lives. It's amazing.
2. I have seen so many people confused in between the first and
second model. They have been brought up in religious families (or at
least believers); then at some point, they lost their faith and went
for the first model. But as I said in the first point, it's not a
matter of simply switching from one model to the other. It will come
back and most model 1 people with model 2 family backgrounds return
to their religious origins when they grow old. It gives peace and
hope for something good to come after the end of life.
3. I think we as human beings are stuck with very bad models of
explaining life! In one model, we live a short life, work hard like
a dog, earn little or lots of money, enjoy part of it, suffer the
rest and eventually die and there is no prospect after that. People
forget 99.99% of us in a matter of years and move on. That's it. In
the second model, we are told whatever we do can lead to an eternal
life in agony or bliss. We might accept injustice, disease,
suffering etc just hoping that we would go to heaven afterwards. But
there is no guarantee and no proof. What a gamble! The third seems
to be reasonably better, but still there is a prospect that we might
come back to life as a worm or cow or anything and there is no
escape from it. And we are not a white canvas when we are born
either; we actually inherit all our past lives' good and bad. It's
frightening.
4. Let's hope that mankind can find a good model soon. We really
need it.
Context of writing these notes: Waiting for some
good news, frustrated of small and big things, hoping big changes
would come and plans working. In Central London, partly on train and
partly at the office. But generally thinking deeply about what to do
in life.
Global Homeostasis
What will happen if we don't do anything?
In the first part of my global vision trilogy, we saw how we ended
up here: by making the world a better place to breed and by burning
fossil fuel reserves in 100 years and changing the atmosphere in a
very bad way. In this chapter, I am going to look at this phenomenon
from a
homeostasis
perspective.
Homeostasis
means that living organisms such as humans have a system that
automatically maintains a constant and stable condition within. For
example, if we drink too much, we would urinate too
much. Otherwise, we would explode! I am going to use the same
concept for the globe and argue that even if we don't make any
minimal or drastic interventions to combat global warming and
climate change, there are mechanisms that would ensure the status
quo
would be achieved again.
N.B.: I would take a relatively optimistic view that whatever we
have done to the earth, is not too much and can be reversed. I
personally don't believe the planet wouldn't be livable ever again.
The consequence of what humans have done can be even that billions
of people might die, but eventually there will be a return to a
normal climate status, I hope! OK, now let's begin.
N.B.2: Oh, another thing. Please bear in mind that I have
over-simplified the system that I am going to explain in order to
put the main ideas across and present it in a 4-minute chapter. I am
very well aware of many complexities in the real system and am quite
happy to discuss them in a more suitable occasion.
Well, we start with three basic assumptions:
1. The climate is undeniably changing.
2. There are probably too many of us humans in the world.
3. The mass use of fossil fuels will end some time in the next 100
years.
Now,
we can trace what would be the consequences of each assumption:
1. Climate change: I really do feel for the poor
polar bears that are sticking to the pieces of ice and am horrified
when watching big Hollywood movies about climate change. But in
reality, there are other effects that have a much sooner and more
effective impacts to our daily lives. And those are probably more
storms, more draughts and more floods. These three phenomena have a
direct and major impact on farming and agriculture. The food will
not be as abundant as it used to be and the price would start to go
up. Another factor that raises the food price is the increasing cost
of fuel and transport. When petrol or gasoline is more expensive,
bringing food from farms and food-producing countries to the
supermarkets of destination countries becomes more and more
expensive. Now, let's leave it here and we will come back to this
shortly.
2. Over-population: There are numerous consequences
of over-population. But in this simplified model, let's just think
about how people would start to compete for limited living spaces.
This competition to live in not-enough houses would create an
impetus for a rise in home prices. Therefore, home prices goes up,
i.e. mortgage rate and renting fees go up.
3. Oil depletion: Thirdly,
oil reserves would start to decline. Or accessing them
can become problematic (e.g. an oil-producing country that stops
exporting oil to increase prices). Wars and conflicts also usually
increase oil prices. When oil price goes up,
transportation costs go up. And that has consequences.
Now, we need to combine all these intermediate consequences and see
what happens. When there is less food, people instinctively make
less babies. Part of that is physiological, and part of that is
psychological. It doesn't mean that the process stops for everyone
in the world. It just means that more people would 'consider' not
having 'a' baby or 'another' baby when the future of the world is
not so clear. In under-developed countries, feeding children becomes
more difficult and there will be some impact on their children
mortality rate and adults reproduction rate.
Rise of living costs (food, home, transport) directly translates
into one thing: less disposable income. We become conscious about
how we spend and what we are spending on. We become short-termists,
in a sense. We make less children because they are a life-time (or
at least 16 years) of financial
commitment for
the parents. We buy less, especially when the item is not that much
essential. We try to avoid unnecessary journeys. We might cancel
long-distance holidays and spend more time at home. And less of us
are tempted to risk buying a home when there is no certainty about
the future. Why bother making a 25 year commitment? Let's survive
now.
I am not going into much detail about the consequences of these
changes of behavior. But I can tell you that the impact is going to
be huge and today in 2008, we are only seeing a very small part of
it. Economies would start to shrink or collapse. Factories will be
closed. Financial hardship would become commonplace. The population
growth would stop at some point and the global population starts to
fall. As a result, markets will become smaller, commuting becomes a
luxury and CO2 production will
eventually fall
because there would be less people, less cows (!), less cars, less
planes, less factories and less oil reserves.
Can we call it a global climate reset and homeostasis? I think so.
The question remains that how soon or how drastic these events would
be. I don't know that for sure, but I know there are things that we
can do to make it less painful. And this would be the topic of part
3 of this trilogy.
So What?
1. I am sure some of you would say that the home prices are falling
now. Why have I used an upward trend of home prices in this model?
The current fall in home prices is not a result of over-population.
It's the result of less money (or credit) being available to buy
homes. Let me explain it this way: Mr Brown earns £2000 a month. He
has a home, which he bought 10 years ago and he pays £500 for a
mortgage. After paying tax and normal living costs, he still has
£300 to save, invest, or spend on non-essential items. Miss Wilson
has bought a similar home 2 years ago and pays £800 for mortgage.
After paying for the same expenses and tax, she is left with no
money to save, invest or spend. Ten years ago, we had lots of Mr
Browns, but now due to rising home prices and other prices, we have
lots of Miss
Wilsons. The result
is that less money is given to banks or industry or use it as credit
to lend to others to buy new homes. When they have less money (or
credit), they go bankrupt. Nobody has money to lend. When there is
less lending money available, the home prices start to fall. If this
trend is orchestrated with population trend, then we will maintain a
stable situation (economy slowdown in paralle to population change).
Otherwise, the prices will go up and down until we get to a stable
situation.
2. Unfortunately, war and conflict is going to be an inseparable element of all these changes. Oil-producing countries would be a focus of attention in this regard for a while. The economical impact on developed world and richer countries would be immense. Let's remember that these wars are less territorial based and would become more strategic.
3. From medical point of view, I am quite happy. Because there would be less to eat and more incentives to walk or cycle; and maybe these changes could solve the obesity problem in many rich nations.
4. The climate change and oil depletion are very strong forces, but the main homeostatic factor that would create a sustainable situation is population. With 6.8 billion on earth, we are not going to achieve much in terms of reversing the climate change.
5. I am not suggesting that we don't intervene and not aim for a smaller carbon foot print. But to be honest, I think the majority of us humans won't change behavior until we have to. That's why I think those major forces will make us humans change. The more we resist and be stubborn, the more pain the nature would inflict upon us and the more catastrophic the consequences will be.
Context of reading this part: Petrol 113 pence per litre. Where we live, one square meter of an apartment is £5000. Curry houses in London are being closed because of rising rice price. I saw on TV last night how a house near a cliff was washed away by the sea at about 60 years sooner than the council predicted. Thinking about the future is one of my constant preoccupations.