Is this the begining of the end of human civilisation?

This morning, I heard that North Korea appears to be arming itself for battle. At the point of writing, I don't think we should panic. However, I believe the international community should be more concerned than it has appeared to be so far. The threat of North Korea to use nuclear weapons on other countries is too horrifying to contemplate.

I'm worried because any degree of nuclear force, especially in populated areas, would mean the death of millions in a matter of hours and the impact of the nuclear attack would continue to have an impact not just the populations directly affected but to the whole world. Indeed, it would be like hell on Earth. Just do a search on the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We can't afford a nuclear disaster as it would certainly bring about an apocalyptic end to humanity.

I hope the leaders of the world join together to find ways to bring about a peaceful solution to the conflict. Nuclear conflict will potentially bring about the fall of humanity. It's ironic that all human civilisation may be brought down by the energy of a quantum particle. It's equally ironic that a discovery which had the potential to change the world for the better could b used to destroy it. It seems that nuclear energy will remain a threat in the foreseeable future. If there is a future at all.

Yes, there is part of me that is a bit scared of the prospect of a full blown nuclear war. I fear to die and fear to live if I did survive the disaster. I fear to lose the world I know. Yet, I am also aware that our death is always a possibility that is waiting to happen. Unless we don't choose to end our lives, the day and hour of our death remains a mystery to us. I know that this is out of my control but I can only hope and pray that world leaders take the right decision. One that is peaceful and open to dialogue.

Of course, North Korea might remain closed and obstinate in its deadly plans. I'm sorry for the people of North Korea because they have been cut off from the world to the extent that they might not even realise that these actions by its totalitarian ruler could bring about their end and all that we have build together as human beings. This is the time to talk and communicate. It's time to listen and receive. But, then, we may still find ourselves having to face the end of human civilisation.

No, this isn't going to be the end of the Earth. Humanity might leave considerable damage to life on this planet. But, as history tells us, life will prevail and continue to multiply. In this sense, the world doesn't need us to save it. Rather, we have to admit that we may need to be saved from our own selves.

We seem to have continued our old ways in spite of the fact that we knew the environmental damage we were doing everyday. We have gone through our lives building walls between each other based on superficial differences.

Perhaps this is the right time to start building bridges and reconcile together. A time when we can appreciate te the fact we have a common humanity and to celebrate our human diversity.

Even if we may be too late to save ourselves, we still hope in the future. Nobody knows the future. But, we all must die at one point or another. A time may come, hopefully in the distant future, when we will realise how stupid it was of us to think that our lives will remain the same forever. However, when that time comes and we fail to appreciate our Earth and all the people and beings that surround us, we will have to admit that we never enjoyed what we had but now was too late to do anything.

Renewing the Political Contract

Preamble<

 

I hesitate to write about political issues for a number of reasons. One is, of course, that anything I say risks being interpreted in one way or another and I don’t want to be given a political label. Second, the fact that, as a visually impaired person, I am forced to vote in front of what is called an “electoral commission” means that, in a way, my vote is an open secret. Don’t get me wrong - I do trust the representatives of the electoral commission to a point. Besides, members of the commission are bound by law to keep my vote a secret.who are bound by law to keep my vote a secret but everyone knows human nature and how easy it is for people to break that trust for ulterior motives. 

 

I am hopeful, however, that with Malta’s ratification of the United Nations  Convention Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), this situation will be rectified since Article 29 of the same convention sets out to guarantee the right to participate in public and political life (including the right to a secret vote). Indeed, as the implementation of the UNCRPDin Malta goes underway, our country should redress this situation of inequality in voting as the issue of secret voting is one of the areas identified as needing change (according to this press release

 

However, this isn’t just something we, disabled people, will benefit from. True, all of us who are blind or have a visual impairment, those of us who due to a physical impairment can’t use our hands or have a print disability are bound to benefit. But this right will also provide people who cannot read or write, for example, with the chance to vote in secret. Regrettably, I am also aware that certain disabled people, including people with an intellectual impairment or those with mental health conditions are often denied the right to vote altogether.  

 

I admit that I feel anxious when it gets to the voting season. The fact is, as things stand, I know that I must reveal my political affiliations once again to another group of perfect strangers. Trustworthy, perhaps, but still strangers. While I don’t find any problem with sharing my political views with those I trust the most, I’m not comfortable with revealing my positions to others (whoever they may be). The fact   that most citizens can vote in secret means that, come election time, I am unequal when it comes to the secret vote. Moreover, I do fear the consequences  of revealing my political views to members of the electoral commission as they are also    political representatives who may put party or personal interests over my individual freedoms. I am concerned that certain people might not respect my political opinions and might hold my political beliefs against me resulting in unhappy repercussions.

 

Having said that, any political beliefs I might have doesn’t mean I think  of  disability in terms of party politics. Indeed, I firmly believe that disability is an issue that shouldn’t be politicised in the sense that disability  should never become victim to partisan political exigencies. In addition, it would be irresponsible for me to bring party politics into this issue - especially since I became  involved in public life. 

 

However, I also feel that, even if I won’t take a position in favour of some party or another, I am still entitled to comment on what, I believe, is wrong with politics in general and in the local context in particular and what changes I would like to see in contemporary politics. I want to make it clear from the onset that I don’t claim to have any level of political expertise but the ideas I present below are based on my relatively short experience and reflections on the issues of politics and democracy.     

 

Respecting the Principles of Democracy

 

Indeed, two principles that I feel are essential to ensure a true democracy are equality before the law and freedom of expression. However, the latter principle is inseparable from the right of every citizen to equality and freedom of expression. Thus, it’s debatable whether a far right party which campaigns to deny those it judges to be ‘a threat to national identity’ from their rights and dignity have a place in a true democracy if their campaign incites intolerant or hateful conduct. In addition, the secret vote can be seen as a way to allow citizens to express their personal opinions without fear of discrimination or intimidation. 

 

Now, I will try to move from an overview of the principles, I believe, are important foundations of democracy to how, in practical terms, politicians should apply them in their political careers. As I already said, these are only my suggestions on what I observed.

 

The Need for Constructive Dialogue

 

It’s important that politicians:

• •In a debate, listen to each other.
• •Listen to each other.
• •Allow each party to develop an argument in reasonable time.
• •Listen to the people out there.

 

It is regrettable that debates sometimes end up like shouting contests or meeting the public becomes more of an event where politicians seem to be fishing for voters...

 

The Need forCooperation

 

I regret that sometimes it appears as if politicians live in different countries, if not planets. While it may be understandable for each politician to have partisan interests, their duty remains to serve the whole population and not just party followers. 

 

Indeed, politicians of different political views should do their best to serve the people as they have been elected by us, the voters. Any successes and failures a country faces will affect all of us, including them. We remain, as a people, interdependent and, thus,  should be united as a people. It’s unhealthy for certain politicians or staunch party followers to take pleasure when an opposing party fails in some way. If the country fails, it’s just a lose-lose situation. No one will benefit.

 

The Need forReconciliation

 

I can’t emphasise enough of the importance of fostering a politics that fosters reconciliation. We might not agree on ideological grounds and we should value our principles. However, there’s space where we can reach a compromise and put a genuine effort to find a middle ground that will be of benefit to the whole rather than to just a few. This isn’t implying that we should forget the past as if nothing happened for the past can offer invaluable knowledge and insight and help both avoid repeating past mistakes and making sure that future plans are directed by experience.

 

The Need for More  Political Pluralism

 

Our political system has been largely influenced by the British system following years of colonisation. Consequently, we have largely retained a two-party system. While this system has worked well, it does have some downside to it. The fact is that a two-party system tends to polarise parties rather than encourage more healthy debate and exchange of ideas. Political pluralism shouldn’t just remain confined to media (as it is at present) but should also be reflected in parliament or in the parliamentary or similar institutions where national decisions are taken.

 

More voices representing fresh voices can help to encourage a healthier debate and, in way, help ensure that majority parties are kept in check. However, whether a country’s citizens will be ready to elect people representing a third voice is in their own hands. More voices, of course, may create problems in the running of a country but there can be much value in having greater diversity within the decision making process. . 

 

My Final Appeals...

 

To conclude this entry, I feel the need to make two appeals that, first, gather the main points I tried to make in this entry, and second, emphasise the importance of every citizen’s to participate in the renewal of the political contract based on the principles of democracy. Thus:    

 

First, I appeal to local politicians and all those who are involved in politics to respect the principles of democracy. Not to put party or personal interests before the people. To remember that we, the people, have elected you and we expect you to serve us responsibly and with integrity. We also expect you to practice your profession skilfully, including ensuring you engage in constructive dialogue that is based on cooperation. A dialogue, I believe, which should foster reconciliation on matters that affect us all as a people and a dialogue that opens up to more voices. 

 

Second, I appeal to all readers of voting age not to take the vote for granted.  Failing to vote because you’re disillusioned with politics means you’re forfeiting your  right to have a voice and evading your duty. A failure to vote is not a protest vote but simply giving a go ahead for others to decide your future on your behalf. 

 

As someone who is still denied the right to a secret vote, I also wish to express hope that, if not in the next general election (due in a matter of months), I will have the opportunity to vote in secret for a change. Then, I would be truly included as an equal in the democratic process! 

 

Post-Script

 

I hope my ideas have given you some food for thought. Even if it’s important to make it clear once again that I’m no political expert, I have considered these principles and practical suggestions based on an understanding I have gained through my Buddhist practice. In fact, I find that the principle of co-dependence or how we remain essentially dependent on each other in life has inspired large part of my approach.

 

More content by this blogger can be found at gordonGD.com

The 'Normality' of Impairment

Since I adopted a Buddhist outlook on life, I've felt that I've found home. Yes, my experience is subjective and very personal. I don't claim that other ways by which people can create meaning in life are of less value. Thus, I don take any radical position that is extremely secular or religious but focus on its consistence to truth. What I seek to build is and attain a state of genuine love and compassion.

At times, I do forget that by now, I should have gone beyond limiting who I am as, say, defining who I was solely on the basis of my impairment and social disability. This doesn't mean that I've abandoned my commitment to promote equality and uireinclusion. However, this requires me to adjust my approach inachieving equality. I recognise today how a dialogue of reconciliation was far better than one based on confrontation.

After all, while contemporary society still tends to describe me as 'abnormal' and even 'special', this same society forgets that people with impairments are the 'real human norm'. For, as long as we live, we will continue to regress both physically and mentally as we age. of course, we may age differently in old age. Yet, by denying the everyday reality of impairment we are also denying the human value of others whose life is consistent with reality.

Through a personal commitment to rediscover true happiness in my life and reclaim my humanity, I may invariably erected barriers with those who appeared to oppress me. The irony, Oc course, what this result was the last thing I wanted.

That's why I feel more connected with those I might have considered enemies. That's why I believe in taking the first step and take it from there.

I was surprised at what an approach based on the values of love and compassion can have on my own happiness and peace!!!

Faith or Reason?

I am painfully aware of a growing division between the secular and the religious. Or, at least, between proponents who have chosen to adopt an extreme view of what they understand to be ‘secular’ or what they understand as being central to the ‘religious’. I think that it’s unfortunate to be witness to such a conflict. Indeed, as a child, I was inspired by people who came from both camps of faith and reason. I admired people ranging from Albert Einstein, Carl Jung and Isaac Newton to religious leaders such as Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi and Lord Buddha.

However, this is not saying that I was an atypical boy. Indeed, in many ways, I obeyed convention. I tried to follow the precepts of Roman Catholicism and received the sacraments with a certain enthusiasm. I was deeply religious in many ways as a boy and was sincerely interested in living up to what I was taught was good and comply to the commandments, which I was told, would lead me to heaven. But, even as a child, I had many questions. I knew that I was physically different and this meant that I was also perceived differently than others. I was aware of death and the reality of impermanence when I was aware that one of my brothers had died when I was just a baby.

I sought answers in scripture and from reading books on science. I loved to learn about both science and religion. There were times when I rejected religion considerably and when I adopted a more rational and scientific view of the world. Eventually, I would take up a more political or ideological approach. I explored philosophy, psychology and language to understand the world. I have tried to answer the questions that plagued me. I was torn between a rationality that denied the value of faith and a faith that condemned doubt or asking questions.

I felt I had to choose what the truth was. I felt I had to choose between faith and reason. But were my conceptions of faith and reason correct? Was there a point where they could meet?

I don’t wish to oversimplify rationality or religiosity but I can speak about my own experience. For, it’s only our own experiences and understanding of what has been handed us that we can truly claim to have access to.

I find great value in spirituality and religious principles. Yet, I know that scripture was never meant to explain everything about matter.
I find a lot of knowledge and purpose in scientific rationality but I also know that even there we are limited. We cannot truly separate ourselves from the reality we are observing. We are bound, inevitably, to our own preconceptions and world view. Even in the hard sciences, we cannot truly separate ourselves from what we are trying to study. In order to measure matter, we remain dependent on our senses. Even the tools we use ultimately depend on our senses.

The truth of the matter - or at least, my limited current understanding - is that a question that expects us to decide whether we should prefer reason rather than faith or vice versa is a wrong question. For, in reality, our humanity places us in a position where we have to acknowledge our limits.

It is impossible to know all the answers to the questions of life. It’s impossible to claim we know everything about the cosmos. As long as we are part of the cosmos we remain confined to the cosmos as living beings. Our material bodies impose limits. But, yet, we can conceive things we haven’t seen ourselves. We can imagine things that aren’t real. We can be rational or superstitious. We believe we have a certain degree of choice. But, do we really?

For, at the end of all things, I can’t help being struck by a sense of awe and wonder by the very fact that the neurones firing up in my brain right now are permitting me to type this entry. Where are my thoughts when I perform these acts? Do they have a physical basis? Maybe they do and we might find the biological basis one day. But, even then, would we find the thoughts and emotions that were going on in my mind?

I don’t presume to offer secularists or religious people who hold extreme positions on matters of faith and reason. I can only appeal to those who sincerely seek to find truth to remain open to the possibility of dialogue. To be open to the other, however irrational or irreverent one may appear, because none of us can claim to have all the answers. I wish to end this lengthy entry with just a quote and a few paragraphs.

Let me start with a quote. It’s by Albert Einstein, a character I greatly admired as a child and who remains an influence today. Einstein once wrote:

"Science without religion is lame,
Religion without science is blind.”

I admit that it’s perhaps ironic for me to choose this quote I encountered as a child because, apart from the physical impairment that I was ascribed as a child, now I have also acquired a visual impairment. Moreover, it’s perhaps more ironic since this quote has been abused and misappropriated by people holding a radical secular and fundamentalist religious views alike. But, whatever your interpretation, it would be a mistake if we didn’t try to first get to know who Einstein was and what he stood for.

In this sense, Einstein has entered the popular imagination and has often acquired many stereotypes. He has been defined as a Jew who was an atheist, a scientist and, ironically, he has also been put across as a deeply religious person with his famous quote: “God doesn’t play dice with the universe” interpreted out of its proper context or when Einstein was finding it difficult to accept the randomness of the subatomic world where the laws of physics appeared to break down.

But, yet again, Einstein’s ‘God’ is neither the Jewish nor the Christian one. Rather, he was probably upset by the fact that there were things that couldn’t be explained by the science of his time. I can identify with Einstein’s feeling of not knowing. As I got to know more about this man, something else strengthened my admiration for the man. You see, while Einstein did admit that religion could be a form of ‘childhood superstition’, he did not totally reject the human value found in religion. He was defined as being a scientist but little people know he also played the violin with artistic passion..

Unfortunately, many of us see him from a limited perspective. You must read about the man before you can truly begin to understand. But, even then, you will never know who he was - even if there was the possibility of meeting him face-to-face in this lifetime. There are limits to knowledge that are part of our experiences of being human. It’s the same if we consider the debate between the secular and the religious, the sceptic and the faithful.

We may think we can find all the answers in science. On the other hand, we may lay our complete trust in faith. Yet, whatever we choose, I think that we can neither find all the answers in science nor in religion. For, reason and faith are essential for our very being.

I admit that I, myself, have taken up various identities over this short lifetime. I aspired to be a scientist. I am spiritual and can also be rational. I feel, I think and I believe. I hope, I despair and feel sadness and joy. I am disabled and I am impaired. I am a lot of things. I am nothing compared to the immensity of the universe. I know but I don’t really know.

I remain beyond the restrictions of a ‘lame’ rationality and ‘blind’ faith. I can’t keep away from the everyday reality of life but, whatever I think or believe, I still depend on matter to live. I am, at the same time, apart from the universe and, paradoxically, a part of it!

I can’t provide you with any certain answer to the question of why there is pain and suffering in our life. I can’t even assure myself there is such a place as the after-life. I can’t even prove or disprove the existence of a god I cannot see or measure.
I only know that I am human. I only know that there is very little I really know - if that can count as knowledge. I believe that I’m writing this - even if I can’t measure or prove the existence of my thoughts.

We don’t even have to choose between faith and reason. For life cannot be neatly fitted into either extreme views of reality. Indeed, those who think so may be deluded.

For how can I ever truly separate what I believe to be real from what I think is real when these are intrinsically linked together?

For I can say that I ‘have faith’ in the laws of physics. But, then, if I look at the quantum world, all my theories break down. For the very fact that I need light to study light means that as observer I cannot be independent from the observed.

I must be humble enough to accept my limitations. As a human being.

I must seek value in everything that makes our lives as human beings better and richer.

I need to pay more attention to the present.

To the now!

Even if such a realisation is uncomfortable or even painful.

For the future is just a promise and not a guarantee.

It resides beyond faith and cannot be explained through reason alone.

This is our human condition.