Well, my friends, it's been a couple of days, and I find myself with a few moments to spare, so I thought I would come back and revisit the thoughts immediately above.
While I am thinking of it, I will mention that today I am listening to Natasha St. Pier. Her album De L'amour le Mieux has the beautiful song Nos Rendez-Vous. Elle chante les belles chansons, mais elle n'est pas reellement Francaise, ainsi je suis heureux.
But I digress ...
Why is the world worth saving? I know, it sounds like a stupid question. I think I can say, without risk of revealing anything about myself, that the world is where I live, and I am either related to or on friendly terms with many of it's people. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, it seems to be in a rapid state of deterioration. It brings to mind many ethical questions. For example, are you a person who believes in legalized assisted suicide, living wills, or euthanasia of any kind? If you cannot justify the use of heroic measures to save the life of a person, can you justify the use of them to save a species, genus, or even a planetary population?
At what point does one let go?
At the risk of argument ad Hitlerem, I would ask you to consider the following. We decry tyrants and despots throughout history because of the evil they have caused. Idi Amin was a fine example, if I remember correctly. Outside of his immediate family, he had few mourners. I'm sure you can think of others yourself. Has not humanity caused an equal, if not superior, amount of suffering to itself on its own? It is true that humanity has produced some good as a species, but for whom? Joseph Stalin had some lovely buildings commissioned, and the people in charge of the Inquisition had some lovely architecture as well, in addition to beautiful music. At what point does evil outweigh good?
The answer, I believe, is what I believe to be a startling revelation, an epiphany, if you will. Good and evil are not concepts to be balanced, or even compared. They are independent entities.
There are those that believe in a Balance. They propose a Yin and Yang approach to life, that light must be balanced with darkness. Should you walk up to one of these people in the middle of a good time and stomp on their toe, though, they will not thank you for restoring their balance. When they are fit and in the prime of life, explain to them that, in order to preserve the balance of forces in their life, they must spend an equal amount of time in poor health. Conversely, if you go to a person struggling with a debilitating illness and suggest to their family that it is nothing to be concerned about, because they will be well later in life in order that the balance may be preserved, and they will, at best, think you an insensitive idiot.
Good and Evil are not sides of the same coin. Most people, as a matter of fact, would have a difficult time defining them, much less finding a balance between them. In current society, evil appears to be defined as, "things that happen to me, or things that I have heard of happening to someone else, that I don't like". Remember, though, that if someone was responsible for an action, then someone got some pleasure from it. If you can't define Good or Evil, you certainly can't relate them, much less equate them.
Therefore, if Good and Evil are independent concepts, then the question no longer is, "How bad does it have to be before we give up," but "How good does it have to be in order for us to be willing to keep it?"
Therein lies my reasoning. To quit trying to save the world, I must admit that it was all a waste of time in the first place. I don't think that I am willing to do that. Because Good and Evil are not brothers, but opponents in a war.
Essentially, if there is any good in this world, any at all, it is worth any effort, to include my own life, to see that the Good is perpetuated. Wars were meant to be fought, and they were meant to be won.
And I am not fond of losing.