Safaris 101

During our time on safari we visited 3 countries (Zimbabwe, Zambia and Botswana) and stayed in 4 different camps. Each day included game drives; either one in the morning and another in the afternoon (with a break of several hours in between) or one long drive that lasted most of the day. We’d start out early (sometimes as early as 5:30 or 6:00) for breakfast, and then we’d pile in our trucks for the drive. The times are dictated of course by when the animals are out doing stuff (usually hunting or trying to avoid being hunted); most of the time in the middle of the day is Critter Siesta time.

Bush taxi

Bush taxi

Our conveyance was an open pickup truck (usually a Land Rover or similar—amazingly tough vehicles!) with three tiered rows of seats behind the driver’s seat. There was a heavy frame around the seats, with a sturdy canvas roof, but the sides were all open. When we were watching the animals it would have been trivially easy for an elephant to reach in and grab a passenger, or for that matter for a lion to jump into the truck with us. Our guides told us to stay seated, not put our feet our arms outside the side of the passenger compartment or make any sudden movements, as the animals had gotten used to the profile of these vehicles and ignored them (and us, all soft and juicy, just a few feet away from them!) as along as the profile didn’t change. Not standing or waving our arms around apparently didn’t change the profile of the truck enough to alert the animals. They absolutely were aware of us, but amazingly, they totally ignored us even though we were only a few feet away, sometimes even making a huge racket as we crashed through the underbrush in pursuit of a close-up.

Nice kitty!

Nice kitty…

The thing that struck both Cathy and me is how different it is to be out in the bush where the animals are in their natural habitat, vs walking past them in a zoo. It becomes clear very quickly that the rules have changed. We are the ones out of our element; the animals don’t depend on us for anything except to be left alone.

And sitting in those open trucks sometimes less than 10 feet from a big damn carnivore with pointy bits everywhere, we very much also wanted to be left alone.

Posted in Travel | Leave a comment

Cathy and I go on safari…and THANK YOU Monica!!

Cathy and I recently got back from a trip of a lifetime: we went on an African safari. We visited four countries in total, three on the actual safari (Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana), plus South Africa, where we flew in and out of Johannesburg from the US via London. I bookended our trip by giving workshops in Johannesburg before the safari and Cape Town at the end, so we were out of the country a few days shy of four weeks, with thirteen days spent out in the bush. I’ll be posting more details over the next few weeks, but I don’t intend to create a travelogue here; I want to talk more about what I learned on the trip than what I saw (we’re working on creating a book that will incorporate our best photos).

But before I do that, a brief comment and “thank-you” to a good friend of mine, Monica Youngblood. Monica and I have worked together for a number of years. She started out as a sales rep in Las Vegas and Southern California, moved up into sales management, did a successful stint in Marketing and then went back into sales management as our Western Region Sales Director. She and I both report to our VP of Sales; I really enjoy collaborating with her. She also helps me stay out of trouble.

Anyhow, Monica does a lot of traveling and is an accomplished photographer. When she heard we were going on an African safari she asked me what type of lens and camera combination I was taking. I had more or less decided on a small Canon point-and-shoot that we have, which is acceptable for family gatherings and the like but not very adaptable (in fact, not at all adaptable beyond a zoom feature), but has the advantage that it’s small. Tiny, in fact. And would not take up any room at all. Cathy had stated unequivocally that she was not carrying any big photographic equipment, and in fact felt that the camera feature of our cell phone should be totally adequate. (Yeah, I know. But at the time I thought she had a point.)

So when Monica heard that she said “You are NOT going on an African safari without a good camera!!” And she insisted on lending me one of hers—a Nikon body with two (TWO) telephoto lenses. She said it’s not her “good” camera; it’s been “rotting away in a cabinet” (her words) and she was planning on giving it away or selling it on eBay, so she insisted I take it to Africa and brought it in to work. I am so happy she did! I took more than 2500 pictures (in this digital age storage on a memory chip is trivially inexpensive; you take a boatload of photos and delete the bulk of them). Among them are some truly wonderful shots that will help extend our memories for a lifetime.

So…THANK YOU MONICA!! The trip was spectacular and your generosity (and, as usual, good sense) have given us tangible reminders of a life-changing trip!

Posted in Family, Travel | Leave a comment

Two stories to illustrate.

A couple of unrelated events that happened in the last week or so help me to illustrate what I mean by “living The Good Life.”

Last week I was in Fargo, North Dakota to do a workshop for a group of practitioners and watched an event unfold that, had I been directly involved rather than an observer would probably have annoyed me immensely. There was some construction in one of the main streets in Fargo that required traffic be merged from two lanes in both directions down to one lane in each, right at an intersection. Because there was only one lane now, turning left at that intersection from either direction was prohibited, as it would hold up traffic. Since the construction was only a few dozen yards, the obvious and logical choice if one needed to turn left would be to go through the intersection, turn around and come back from the opposite direction, or turn at the next intersection and cut back to the street a block or two later.

Of course, some bozo on a pickup truck (who unfortunately was first in line when the light turned) wanted to turn left and either was too stupid or stubborn to do the logical thing, and backed up the entire lane behind him while he waited for his opportunity to turn. Very inconsiderate.

About 5 or 6 vehicles behind him, another driver in a pickup blasted his horn the entire time in an apparent attempt to get the first driver to reconsider. Or maybe he thought the air pressure from his horn would push the other truck out of the way. Who knows. Anyhow, yet a third person, this time on a bicycle, got so peeved at the horn blower that he got off his bike and started toward the second truck, I guess to offer to do battle in an attempt to convince him to stop honking

I had just walked out of a drugstore where I had stopped to buy some water and watched this whole thing; the entire event probably unfolded in less than a minute. The light turned red, the front pickup finally made his left turn, the other pickup driver stopped honking and the bicycle guy (who had been unsuccessfully trying to get the attention of the annoyed driver), got back on his bike and took off, presumably to go do battle somewhere else.

So as I said, I wasn’t directly involved. But it’s clear that all the honking, threatening and stupidity didn’t change anything; the proximal cause (the first driver) didn’t change his behavior, the two other people got upset (and likely stayed annoyed for a while), and none of them acted in a way that improved anything. The cyclist never got the attention of the guy leaning on his horn, and the guy in the first pickup may even have been totally unaware anyone was honking at him, and was simply upset that he couldn’t turn when he wanted to. He eventually got to make his left turn and everyone went on about their business with slightly higher blood pressure and cortisol levels, all three of them having contributed in a small way to a world a little less pleasant to be in.

The other story was told to me by my friend Mark Elliott. He was on his way to work and took a side street to avoid a jammed intersection, and found the narrow street blocked by three guys offloading some drywall from a truck. He got out, walked past the three or four cars in front of him (also blocked by the delivery guys), and started helping them unload the drywall. He told me he could have been annoyed at the delay, but decided that he could in fact do something that would help alleviate the situation. I thought that was not only a nice thing to do, but absolutely brilliant. I’m sure the delivery guys weren’t happy at blocking traffic; they were just doing their job; the other drivers probably went from being irritated to being impressed by Mark’s gesture, and Mark got to get on with his commute a little faster. It cost him a little exercise (not a bad thing), he felt good about helping the delivery guys, and I am guessing he brightened the day of everyone who saw what he did. Way to go, Mark!

Two similar situations; two very different responses and outcomes. And while each event was only a few minutes long from beginning to end, it’s clear that one made the world just a little bit better. Mark’s gesture is a great example of taking a second or two to think it through, come to a conscious decision to contribute in a positive way, and then to act.

That’s what I mean by “living The Good Life.”

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

Who do we want to be as a society?

In my last post I told the story of the man who treated a person in a way that reflected who he was (as a gentleman), without any judgement of the type of person she was, and how that helps me in my quest to define and live The Good Life. But that same message writ large has implications for our society as well.

In an excellent movie Cathy and I saw a while ago, Bridge of Spies (which is based on a true story), Tom Hanks plays James B. Donovan, an attorney who agreed to defend a cold war era spy when most other attorneys refused. Against enormous public pressure, Hanks’ character argues that his client should not be given the death penalty. Donovan’s argument reflects the message from our story above:  that this spy (Rudolf Abel) should be spared the death penalty not because what he was charged with doing (which was never really in question) wasn’t bad, but because of the type of people we are as a nation. It wasn’t the main point of the film, but I think it made a strong case that we as a people need to rise above petty desires for revenge or punishment and reflect the principles enshrined in our Constitution. (Side note:  Donovan was successful in getting the death penalty taken off the table, although I think the real reason was his secondary argument, which was that we may need a bargaining chip at some point in the future if one of our spies is caught in the USSR. This actually came about some years later when Abel was exchanged for Gary Powers, the U2 pilot captured and convicted of spying after being shot down over Russia.)

On a broader scale, it brings to my mind the men who continue to be held in Guantanamo Bay without being charged with any crimes, allowed a jury trial or even due process. I am not suggesting these are innocents unjustly held, although the evidence against at least some of them is spotty at best; instead I am talking about what it says about us as a nation. Do we believe in the Rule of Law? Do we hold our Constitution as the highest law of the land? If so, it is clear that our Constitution grants EVERYONE (yes, even enemy combatants and terrorists) certain rights, including the right to a “speedy trial, by a jury of their peers.” Our system is predicated upon the belief that it is better to let 10 guilty people go free rather than to convict one innocent person of a crime they didn’t commit. Like it or not, that’s the basis, and in my humble opinion, it’s one of the things that makes this a great country. Now mind you, I am NOT advocating that these guys be released to go back to the Middle East and start blowing things up; nothing could be further from the truth. But our Constitution guarantees “the right to a speedy trial.” Charge them with a crime, try them and let out our wonderful system take its course.

And lest that become a cliché, I think it is useful to look around us in the world and realize just how special this country is. Right now, Turkey’s fundamentalist-leaning government has survived a coup; president Erdogan has purged thousands upon thousands of his political enemies, including virtually all university presidents and academics he viewed as “less than ideologically pure.”

Bring that thought home and consider it in light of our recent fear-fest of a Republican National Convention. Speaker after red-faced speaker told us how bad things are here in the US, how far we’ve fallen as a country, how we’re going to hell in a handbasket and how only (ONLY!!) Donald Trump can save us. It staggers (and immensely depresses) me how many people buy into the hatred and fear-mongering that Trump has been spewing during his entire campaign.

What a freak show. I can only hope and pray that that idiot gets the shellacking he richly deserves in November.

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Political commentary, Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

Because I am a gentleman

There’s a moral-wrapped-in-a-story I think about when I get all introspective. A century or so ago (well before TV, for sure), couples would get dressed in their finery to “take the evening air” by going for a walk in the central part of town. The main reason was to see and be seen by their neighbors, show off their best clothes and catch up on events. As you might expect, there were certain rules of behavior that were broken at one’s peril; social status was very important. In this story as a couple was walking along they would greet their friends and acquaintances with a nod of the head or tip of the hat. One woman who was walking toward them was pointedly ignored by the wife because of her less-than-stellar reputation (whether it was justified or not is irrelevant to the story). Anyhow, her husband did tip his hat to her, which earned him a scolding from his wife, who said “How could you acknowledge a woman like that?! Surely you know she is no lady!” His response was “Of course I know her reputation; whether she is a lady or not is for others to decide. I didn’t greet her because she is a lady; I did because I am a gentleman.” He greeted the woman they passed because of who HE was, rather than who she was.

I think that most of the time we’re not aware of why we respond the way we do; we just respond. If someone is nice to us, we respond in a nice way; if we perceive someone is rude or thoughtless we respond in kind. Last night on my flight here the guy in front of me reclined his seat, which put his seat back practically in my face. This was counterpoint to the little kid in the seat behind who was beating a staccato on my seatback with his feet. My first reaction was to think the guy in front and the mother of the kid behind were being deliberately rude, but I think it’s more accurate to say they were probably simply oblivious. Doesn’t make it OK, but it’s different than being deliberately obnoxious. Of course, I could have said something to either of them, but I opted to ignore it. The seats do recline, so the airlines apparently think it’s appropriate for passengers to do so. It’s not the fault of the guy in front of me that the seats are so close together, nor is it his fault I’m a big guy and already cramped. And the mother was probably not having a good day either, having to travel with a squirmy kid. My lesson from that is to take a moment to think about others around me. Either leave my seat upright (which I generally do anyway), or at least check with the person behind me to make sure they can get their knees out of the way. And since I don’t have kids, try to be more understanding of others in difficult situations.

By the way, this does not mean allowing oneself to become a Foghorn_Leghorn_02doormat; there is certainly an appropriate time (and good reason) to call out someone for being rude or insensitive. But to quote Foghorn Leghorn, “Boy, there’s a right way and a wrong way to do everything.” If I am rude to someone in response to their actions (which, in most cases, are simply unthinking), they are likely to become defensive and the situation escalates. Not what I would have wished for, had I taken a moment to reflect.

But the point is, rather than let emotions (or kneejerk reactions) dictate behavior, wouldn’t it be better to take a second or two and decide what type of response best represents who I want to be?

Posted in General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

First on my list

A while ago I was president of a social club I belong to, and had a monthly column I wrote for our newsletter. In January I put something together about New Year’s resolutions, and I commented on how strange it was that we have this custom of making commitments to ourselves every year at this one time. I mean, January 1 is really nothing more than an arbitrary day in the earth’s annual trip around the sun; why not any other day? I don’t really have an answer and I’m not sure it’s an important enough question to merit much thought, but an underlying point is “Why not do that all the time?” Any time is as good as any other to try to be a better person, right? So why not make it a regular habit? I do think that having some kind of regular prompt to conduct my personal Good Life Inventory makes sense, kind of like how we’ve trained ourselves to change the batteries in smoke detectors every time we set the clock back or forward for daylight savings time. So for me, I think a quarterly reminder might be helpful, so I’m thinking of the two equinoxes and two solstices might be useful. We’ll see how that works. Gotta start someplace!

With that thought (and within the context of “The Good Life,”), I’m going to start off with a List. Like anyone, there’s some things I’d like to do better. (Aside: lest I let this degenerate into some kind of self-recriminatory rant, let me say that in all honesty, I think I’m an OK person right now. I don’t steal, lie, etc. etc. etc., at least not consciously nor routinely…but the fact I have to add those modifiers at the end there tells its own story, I guess.)

Anyhow.

Goofy_MotorMania_04I’ll add to my list in future posts, but the first thing that pops up is that I yell at people when I’m driving. There’s a Disney cartoon from the 50’s showing Goofy transforming from a mild-mannered guy (dog?) in a suit to crazed animalGoofy_MotorMania_02 when he gets behind the wheel of his car. My close friend Tim Katke says that’s me; clearly he’s wrong because Goofy doesn’t have a beard. Anyhow, I know it’s silly, and whatever irritation I actually have passes almost immediately. Plus, the windows are up (in both cars, usually) so no one hears me.

But it’s not just the yelling I’m going to try to stop, it’s the almost knee-jerk irritation at what other people are doing. If they’re not going fast enough (and they’re in front of me), if they’re riding my bumper, if they cut me off or sit too long when the light turns…you get the drill. They’re just driving; most of the time oblivious to me. And the thing is, I know I do the same things. Obliviously for the most part, but still.

As I think about this, it’s not the yelling at people that I don’t like; not doing that one thing isn’t likely to contribute much toward making me a better person; it by itself certainly won’t improve society (as I said, most people aren’t aware of it anyway). It’s more the statement of what type of person gets angry over trivial things, and who do I want to be instead.
Procedurally, I think this will be a two-part process for me. First, learning to stop and make a conscious decision to change my driving habits. I want to be wherever I’m going, and sometimes I don’t give myself enough time as a buffer in case there’s traffic delays. So leaving a few minutes earlier is one thing, which entails better planning. Secondly, becoming more courteous. Driving is not a competition, so letting the other car in front of me, moving out of the way of the guy behind me, not taking other people’s lack of attention, poor planning or even simple rudeness as a personal affront will go a long way too.

So that’s the first thing I want to change about me. There’s lots more, but I am going to start with that one thing.

Posted in Family, Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

Why is it important?

What’s so special about leading The Good Life? Why is it important to consider?

I think there are two answers to these questions: one inward-facing and another facing outwards, toward society.

Facing outwards first, The Good Life makes a positive contribution to society. It helps, even if in small ways, to make the world a better place. Not in the sense of making the world more prosperous, since one could say that John D. Rockefeller or Andrew Carnegie, two of the greatest of the robber barons of the late 19th century, created prosperity by building industries that continue to thrive today. Arguably they brought prosperity to lots of people (to themselves, first and foremost, of course), but I wouldn’t say they exemplified The Good Life. Greed and avarice probably played as much of a role in their drive to success than did anything else; I seriously doubt that concern for their fellow man was the primary motivator! Of course, Andrew Carnegie devoted most of his later life to a remarkable philanthropy (reflected today course of in Bill Gates and Warren Buffet). While this is clearly a very good thing, all in all (building great big things, making lots of money and creating industry, whether you give it away at the end or not) it’s not what I mean by living The Good Life; I’m thinking of something much more personal. To say it differently, I don’t know if Rockefeller, Carnegie or even Gates and Buffet lead (or are leading) The Good Life, but I certainly would not make a judgement based on their wealth or power. Furthermore, lots of people can lead a Good Life without ever amassing a fortune.

A Good Life makes the world a better place in a myriad of ways, I think. First, little things like being courteous and kind to others. Helping people in need. Holding an elevator door. Genuinely listening. Having a smile for a co-worker. Being nice to dogs. (And yes, even cats.)

Sometimes things not so little as well: genuinely trying to see things from an opponent’s perspective. Recognizing (and publicly admitting) our own biases and mistakes. Compromising when a consensus must be reached. (Aside:  I’m not suggesting that abandoning one’s principles is a good idea; in fact the opposite is true if one wants to lead the Good Life; sticking to principles against societal pressure is in fact one of the key hallmarks of The Good Life!)

So there’s lots of ways that The Good Life improves the world around us, but I think it’s also important for what it does for us inside. I think each of us has the desire to be considered a good person. We want to be considered trustworthy, loyal, a good companion; maybe even a mentor or leader. I think it’s a very human trait that we all share. We like companionship; being a loner is generally considered odd. I think we inherently recognize that if we want to be accepted as part of a group (any group) there are certain traits we need to exhibit; these traits are what help us to be a good person as well. Granted, not everyone is successful at this, and some fail miserably, but I think, in general, most would agree with me. Since we want to be “good people,” there is obviously some image of what that means. Maybe we think of a specific individual we look up to and want to emulate that person; maybe it’s someone (a parent?) we want to be proud of us. Or maybe it’s even some “ideal” that may not exist in real life. This last is getting close to the Platonic “form” that I think is kind of at the core of this whole “Good Life” philosophical chain, but that’s for another entry.

However this happens, I think an introspective attitude or personality is necessary to have any control or influence over the person we are or hope to become. Think about it. If we don’t take time to examine who we are and, more importantly, who we want to be, we never have the opportunity to set standards for improvement. I think this is part of what Socrates meant when he said “The unexamined life isn’t worth living.” While an introspective personality makes it a natural process, people without an introspective nature can train themselves to look inward, compare who they are (as objectively as possible) with who would like to be, and move toward their goal.

And maybe, in the process and over course of a lifetime, try to set the bar just a little beyond reach, and by striving to reach it, become better for it and maybe make the world a tiny bit better place to be.

Posted in Family, Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

A good life vs A Good Life

I think it’s important to differentiate between “a good life” and “a Good Life.” Maybe I’m making too much of this; it may be obvious to anyone or even considered a trivial difference but I think the difference is significant. The way I think about it, living The Good Life would mean living a good life, but not necessarily the other way around. You could have a good life, but it would not have to include trying to make the world a better place (which I think is part of The Good Life).

Neither one specifically refers to bearing up under adversity, or overcoming significant challenges. While certainly meritorious, either version of a good life to me doesn’t carry much of a connotation of achieving some kind of victory against odds or challenges; it’s more of a life lived well and what that means. Again, I am not saying either a good life or a Good Life are in any way superior to a life lived well against physical, mental or emotional challenges or handicaps (in fact, it may even be the other way around); they’re just different perspectives.

A good life is to me fairly self-explanatory. It connotes a rich life, surrounded by loving, nurturing relationships and characterized by having a positive impact on others. It’s filled with charity, love maybe contentment and not anger, hatefulness, spite or envy; it includes being comfortable or even happy in whatever circumstances one finds oneself. It also carries a sense of productivity and accomplishment similar to joy in work.

A Good Life is all of that, I think, but also has a sense of setting a high bar and striving towards that. In this sense it mirrors Plato’s Forms, where there is an “ideal” or perfect version of something that exists outside our realm of awareness, but that all other versions of that thing are compared or measured against. So there is an ideal tree in this otherworldly realm that exemplifies “tree-ness” so perfectly it gives us a template or way to identify all trees in our realm. The same for mundane things like a chair, or horse, but also philosophical concepts, including an ideal life.

All three of the early Greek philosophers (Socrates, Plato and Aristotle) had their versions of The Good Life; I’m not going to try to explain each or how they differed but I think it’s an important enough concept (at least to them) that they each developed and refined their own view. And since they were, well, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, philosophers ever since then have devoted lots of ink and brain power to the subject. Socrates opinion of the unexamined life being not worth living gives us a sense of how important being (or training yourself to be) introspective is. Introspection, or some form of personal (hopefully non-judgmental) self-evaluation gives the opportunity to see where we can make improvements in our own personalities and, over time, become the best we can be.

Something to think about.

Posted in Family, Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment

The Good Life revisited

This past week has been both happy and sad. We had family in town; Cathy’s two sisters (and spouses), an aunt and a niece with her family. Several of them stayed with us; the rest stayed fairly close by and would congregate here for many of the meals. As I’ve commented before, I love family events and get along well with all of my in-laws, so it was really enjoyable.

The sad part is the reason we all got spend time together: my step father-in-law George passed away the end of June and we had his graveside service on Wednesday.

George hadn’t been in good health for a long time; I think his system just simply couldn’t keep going. He spent the last four months in a variety of hospitals and care facilities with blood clots, pneumonia, MRSA infections and on and on. It was clear he was probably going to lose a foot from the effects of loss of circulation, so it was probably a blessing that he didn’t have to go through that.

Naturally we will miss George; he was generous with his time and loved being around family. He had a tough life growing up (from what I understand), but maintained his sense of humor, telling cheesy jokes as long as I knew him. He had a surprising facility with jigsaw puzzles too; we had one going on our dining room table over one holiday or another a while ago and he got it put together in record time.

Anyhow, we’ll miss him. But except for his poor health toward the end, I’d say George had a pretty good life. And a Good Life as well.

A death of someone close provides (or even necessitates) an opportunity to evaluate one’s life. What do I think is important? Am I living the type of life I want to? Am I the type of person I want to be? What things can I (should I?) be doing differently? Things don’t always turn out how you planned; in fact they rarely go exactly as planned, but having a plan and working toward it puts you way ahead of not having a plan! I wrote about The Good Life a while ago, and how each of us has to determine what a “good life” really means. Once defined, the next step is assessing what type of life you have currently and how close you are to your definition of a Good Life.

It’s unfortunate that it often takes the death of someone we know to get us to confront some of these hard questions. I’ll be kicking around in my head over the next few days and weeks what I would change about my life to get closer to my definition of The Good Life.

 

Posted in Family, General commentary on the world as I see it... | Leave a comment

Fidelity and civilization

My friend Scott and I used to love to argue philosophy; frequently facilitated with a nice  merlot. At times I accused him of taking “The Argument Clinic” position (a great Monty Python sketch well worth the 5 minutes if you’ve never seen it), but he’s a really smart guy and we’d have some lively discussions about all sorts of things.

I recall one in particular where I said that I thought the foundation of civilization was a monogamous pair. Scott said, as I recall, “You’re on crack! If that were true we’d still be in the stone age!” And he’s right, as many of the marriages today are not monogamous (probably true all through history as well), so I had to amend my position. I said I believed that it’s the expectation of monogamy that civilization is founded upon.

Here’s my reasoning.

Civilization is dependent upon cooperation and the pursuit of mutually beneficial goals. While competition fuels progress, it is cooperation that drives the development of civilization. Granted, cooperation depends up the “mutuality” (if such a word exists) of the pursued goal, but it is still cooperation that allows for the achievement of goals greater than could be achieved solo. In order for cooperation to exist, each party makes a commitment which then must be fulfilled. It is the expectation that each person will fulfill their part of the agreement that drives the process; if any person gets the reputation that they will renege on their commitment, no one will work with them, and they are back to whatever they can accomplish on their own. Not a good prospect.

So it’s this expectation of someone’s word being dependable that allows for cooperation, and that cooperation ultimately drives civilization. And what is the most foundational or basic unit of any society? The family. There are all sorts of implied or explicit expectations in a family relationship, but the most basic of that, I believe is the expectation that both parties will remain faithful to one another. In a primitive society, the definition of “fidelity” may be broadened to encompass a group of females and one dominant male, but I don’t think that changes things much, in terms of my overall “foundation of civilization” reasoning.

When does “pre-civilization” become “civilization?” I am not an anthropologist, but I don’t think a hunter-gatherer based society would qualify as a civilization, as a number of our ape cousins have such; they are usually extended families. I don’t think we would call that civilization. I think the most basic society to qualify would have to be agrarian at the least. I suppose one could argue that a strictly nomadic culture of animal herders could exist as part of a civilization, as we still have that today in many parts of the world, but I would say the foundation of a civilization is not compatible with a nomadic society; civilizations include commerce over distance, trading partnerships and trading centers (i.e., cities), which are by definition the opposite of nomadic.

An agrarian society includes herding and farming; domestication of animals such as sheep, goats, cows, etc. and a systematic planting, nurturing and then harvesting and storage of sustainable crops. No one person (or family unit) is likely to be able to do all those things, so a small community would of necessity have to form. Being tied to a particular area through farming also facilitated moving from tents to permanent structures, which also allowed for specialized buildings both for commerce and storage to be constructed. So now we have a village.

What holds a village together? The common interests of those who lived there. Again, initially they were probably related to one another, but pretty soon that would naturally become unsustainable and several families would make up the community. Still, the shared interests of the community would be what would cause them to stay together as a community, along with the synergy that would come from a larger group. But common interests are not enough; I think it’s the expectation that a person’s word carries weight and can be depended upon. And as I said earlier, the most basic of any of these groups is a mated pair, with the associated expectation that both partners will honor their commitment to fidelity and to one another.

But simply being in a monogamous or committed relationship (however that should be defined) obviously does not quality as a civilization nor even a civilized society, as a number of animals have been found to have lifelong mates. So while expectations of monogamy (or at least fidelity) define a family unit, more is required to define a civilized society, or even a pre-civilized society. Thus expectations of monogamy may be necessary, but not sufficient. I think where that leaves us is that it’s one of the pillars upon which civilization is dependent; and maybe even the main one.

So there, Scott. Maybe a bit muddled and should be tightened up, but I don’t think my premise merits a dismissive “You’re on crack”!

Posted in Family, General commentary on the world as I see it..., Religion and philosophy | Leave a comment