Everyone is right
by P. Ola Jannhov (comments: 0)
If there is one mutual problem behind all problems humanity faces, what would that one thing be?
Everyone is right
A little thought, that I also like to put out as a question: can it be this simple?
If there is one mutual problem behind all problems humanity faces,
what would that one thing be?
Well, I guess everyone is right.
That simple, everyone is right.
Of course also in more indirect and tricky ways. Let´s say I did something, and later I realize that it was a bad thing. So I start feeling guilty, maybe sorry, maybe angry. Being right now means that I am right about my guilt, right about the sorriness, right about my anger. Big parts of German culture / mindset is very right about its heavy burden of its Nazi past. The Germans have a burden. They are quite righteous about that.
This simple thought of “everyone is right” has some horrible consequences, doesn't it?
I.e. democracy will not do well. In a more and more complex and globalized world, more complex understanding is most likely needed for governing. Though, all people are not equally smart and intelligent, all are not equally capable of complex understanding. But all and everyone is right to him- or herself. And has the right to vote. Sooner or later the guys with very simplified messages will win (and they have started to win the elections) – isn't that an obvious consequence? Mr & Mrs Average like to be enough right about their own understanding of the messages the political parties put out, and then they vote on what they've understood.
Interesting is that this might have grown out of the Green meme, influencing also those who may not have developed other and more complex aspects of Green. But the “everything and everyone´s somehow right” is an easy one to pick up on. It´s not fake news, it´s “alternative reality interpretations”.
Democracy devolves towards the quickly graspable and most simple. Maybe you have already read this mocking “conversation” between the EU and the UK? (This article was written towards the end of the Brexit negotiation in 2019.)
UK: We want a unicorn.
EU: Unicorns do not exist. Instead, you can have a pony.
UK: We vote against your pony.
EU: We already discussed this in detail: it´s a pony or nothing.
UK: We vote against your pony.
EU: Alright! Then you get nothing.
UK: We vote against your nothing.
EU: … you really don't get it, do you?
UK: We need more time to think about it.
EU: About a pony or nothing?
UK: We want a unicorn!
Not only towards the more simple, but also towards impossible wants and empty promises. These are elected MPs arguing, but like kids before Xmas “ I WANT THIS”. They actually seem to think they are right, don't they? That UK can “get” a unicorn, a deal only on it´s own terms. One would hope that the best Britain has to present dealing with such an issue as Brexit (it´s parliament and the MPs) would be able talk about the pony. Actually understanding that a deal is a two sided thing and not a one sided demand. But no, the British parliament as whole goes on with it´s obvious silliness – for over three years by now.
The millions of intelligent journalists, concerned academics, thinkers, in short all the smart guys (you, dear reader also, I guess) will ALL be right with their own observations and interpretations of what the politicians with the simplified messages do wrong and what harm is created. But Redneck Joey and his buddies are ALSO right (to themselves) with their observations and interpretations of the smart fucks and their wordy long boring texts and arguments – “the president promised he´d fix it and that I believe in”. So also Joey gets to be right. Though, the “smart fucks” don't really listen to Joey and his buddies .. and are then very surprised that such a person like DT actually could win the election in 2016.
Let´s look at Gretas and alike:
Simplified and short clear message – do take care of climate change now.
She get´s people to listen up, to take the issue serious .. it looks like. But then, society needs to take action .. but what action shall we take? Taking blind action, well, some experts say that's for sure not good. Taking this and this kind of action, other experts say, that would be the right thing. No no, yet other experts say, we better do that and that .. suddenly we´re back in a struggle in which everyone is right. Or at least believes to be right. And a lot happens but very little truly intelligent.
Germany´s latest move looks like an attempt to buy oneself out of climate change. This isn't the first time in recent history that Germany seems to think that its money is the best solution.
So we get a lot of action. Maybe some is actually productive .. but living in Land Brandenburg, the area around Berlin, where wind power plants are put up en mass, cutting down forests to do so, neglecting warnings about various negative consequences .. solving one problem, creating two new big ones, I guess.
Then: caring for the climate costs money (at least that is what most people think – and yes, they are of course .. what was the word again – right, right?) So who is going to pay .. well, again new groups with various ideas enter, this time the economic experts and business professionals. All and each group being right. “Oh yes, of course WE know it”. “Sorry, you don't, because .. “ well, that's not relevant anymore, because .. everyone is again right. Or believe themselves to be.
So is there anyone who admits s/he is wrong? Or let me rather ask about the balance – most communication you receive, are people sharing their wrongs or the rights? Maybe a few percent admit being or having been wrong. But if anyone shares some wrong doing, mostly we get one very specific thing and then an apology. Whereas almost all other stuff we get presented, are by people who of course are fairly convinced that his / hers arguments are sound and valid.
I do so now.
And your response, whatever it is, is going to prove me right.
Assume you agree with my thesis -
The one mutual problem behind all problems humanity faces could be that everyone is right.
– then you would want to be right about your own internal reasons why you agree, don't you?
And if you disagree?
Well, then you've come up with some argument against this thesis – but then, most likely you want to be right with your disagreeing argument, don't´you?
Everyone is right, right?
The last days I've followed this line of thought. I come to a quite dark conclusion: as long as any given group on this planet is strong enough to make itself seriously heard (9/11 is a horrible example of “making oneself heard”) we as a global species will not work together. As the Fridays for Future activists point out, we don't have a Plan(et) B. So what happens when we can not work together for Planet A, the only one we have?
And Everyone Stays Being Right? Well … I do land at dark conclusions, I do.
P. Ola Jannhov
PS: Does anyone seriously think that other people walk around with an internalized kept secret that they think themselves to actually be wrong? In other words, do you think that you are the only one who thinks you´re kind of right with at least a fair amount of the stuff you know and believe in?