Ubunta

According to my Word Origin Calendar  'ubunta'  is a word 'common to several Bantu languages in southern and eastern Africa, conveying a concept that embraces the interconnectedness of all people and that encourages peace and good treatment of others.'

Such sentiments are subscribed to the world over but there seems to be something inside us or acting on us which goes against it. As soon as resources become scarce the noble principle of ubunta is likely to be eclipsed.

So the idea needs to be sanctified for it to stand the test of hard times. Various religions make it a sacred principle but there are few genuine followers of any religion because of worldly distractions and the presence of bad people in the institutions which purport to convey the source values of the religion. So the onus on today's spiritual leaders is to reform their teaching of the divine moral laws which unite the various classic faith systems at source and to lead people in putting them into practice.

My question to agnostics, humanists and atheists, who, I would argue, cannot deem anything sacred, is how do we internalise this idea so deeply that we don't forget it when our stomachs are empty? If we could do that it would help all sectors of humanity, religious or otherwise, to be governed by it.

At the very least our media and computer games industry should be propagating and inculcating the concept of ubunta. In many parts of the world  there are games which actually reward the player with points for doing evil, albeit imaginary evil. People playing them seem decent and they will assure you that they are well adjusted and just having 'fun' and do not want anyone interfering with their rights. Are they the same people who claim that adverts don't affect their buying behaviour? I hope not, because there is well documented evidence that the billions of dollars spent on  the advertising industry has not been wasted.

On the positive side ubunta could be  encouraged and strengthened through computer games in an entertaining way.

Comments welcome.

John
Author, 2077 AD

Is it OK to be certain you are right?

My first reaction to this question is ‘no: that’s what causes wars.’ But on reflection I think this needs qualifying.

If you say ‘I am right to kill innocent people in the cause of my religion or ethnic group or country’ that is going to cause violence and counter violence and counter counter violence, and so on ad nauseam.

But what if you say ‘It is always right to love your enemies’?  Would that be likely to cause a war? If some other group of people decided to try to make you change your mind by force they would meet with no resistance – hence there would be no war unless others tried to defend you, in which case they would not be loving their enemy and, paradoxically, would not be agreeing to your statement of belief.

The complication comes in when your enemies are threatening your own family and friends. Or  threatening you when you have a family that depends on you.  Then, I feel, one must make a stand. You must try to defeat your enemies but do so without gratuitous violence and with unbounded mercy, i.e. still love them. If everyone forced to fight did so in this way, then war in general would gradually fade away. It might take a long time but at least the practice of war would be less barbaric in the meantime.

Perhaps you have something to say on this or an earlier blog. If so, there are empty boxes in cyberspace  waiting to be filled with wisdom. Just click 'comments' below.

John

Author, 2077 AD

A better world for some?

A short article  by Charlie Stross on Boing Boing is worth reading if you think the world is going relentlessly downhill.

 It argues that although the developed world is currently slipping back things are getting better for the majority of the population. Thanks to George for recommending it. I am sure that a determined pessimist can rake up some bad news to put a damper on this but it is nice to start 2011 with a positive feeling backed by evidence.

The advances in treatment of AIDS has to be a good thing; but the treatment only reduces the viral count . There is no cure in sight and what worries me is that HIV, being particularly aggressive and rapidly mutating, could mutate into something more virulant and which spreads in the same way as, say, influenza (e.g. by droplet infection). If the threat of dangerous, lethal outcomes is removed there will be no incentive to change the licentious behaviour which allows the HIV to thrive and mutate. I'm no biologist - am I missing something?

 I'm not being pessimistic about the past but just trying to do my infinitesimal bit to raise awareness of a possible problem.


John

http://worldpeace2077.blogspot.com/p/short-extracts-from-2077-ad.html