November 15th 2015

Some people know how to ingest and assimilate the contents of their preferred choice of reading matter at any given point in time. I’m useless. Need constant variation. Last week’s last word in reading material is probably abandoned by now and something new or even revisited has become top of the pile. So I roam and explore all sorts of written words to little effect. Last night I came across this little gem. I can read it again and again and keep reassessing its meaning.

See what you think;

Anonymous:

“Against the background of world history and the clearly demonstrated and unalterable behaviour of the human race,
I cannot see that saving lives is of any importance.
The forces of nature so far have not outweighed the unusual power of survival achieved by humans.
Tribal wars, pestilence and even world wars have so far done nothing to stop the proliferation of man the destroyer”.
Pursued to its logical conclusion the inference quite clearly is that there is little or no need to take any measures to improve human health or try to effect longevity in the human species. While mankind has maintained the gradual elimination of many other species on this planet it would appear that no other animal or other life-form is pursuing the demise of man, except himself, and thus far he has failed.

The age old question remains; is survival or procreation the stronger instinct? The Prodigal would go with the latter, but then again perhaps there is little difference between the essences of the questions. If you don’t procreate the species then the prospect of extinction looms, but if you cannot survive then procreation is impossible. Bit like the chicken or egg dilemma.

What is the logic of the desire of every reasonably healthy member of the human species to live longer and longer? What is to be gained? Is perpetuation of self an exercise in vanity or refusal to confront the unknown? As you grow older your faculties become impaired, your libido lessens, your physical prowess flags and your susceptibility to serious age-associated illnesses ever increases. Why bother? Can we ask the question? Of course!

“Every man desires to live long, but no man would be old”.

 

How true is this saying or should I say ‘how true this saying is’. The extent to which society makes older people feel useless is frightening. If you are over fifty and look it you are liable to be looked upon as something pathetic or worse and you are certainly considered very expendable. Your opinion is not merely not taken seriously; it is summarily dismissed. The only antidote to this phenomenon is the possession of buckets of twine.

The barrier of age is certainly lowered if there is enough loot on display. This makes the whole situation even more tragic as it seems to indicate that youth can be substituted if you can afford it. This is further compounded by the evidence that an ugly older man has no difficulty getting his paws on a young attractive woman if he can fiscally afford same. In the case of a man this seems to be something to be admired and sought after whereas in the case of a woman it seems purely pathetic. What does this tell us about standards? I’m sure I don’t know but one thing is certain.

If youngsters regard a man or woman as gone past it at forty five to fifty it is certain that when it comes to the turn of those people who are younger now the age limit will have come well down by that time. In other words they too will suffer ageist and sexual categorization and discrimination much sooner than we do now and good enough for them too.

So who decides what and what input can make a material difference? Is it all about who shouts the loudest and convinces the listener of the validity of the content of the shout? What about the voices that are never heard? Where do they fit in? What about the battalions of humans worldwide that suffer from poverty in all its forms and have no voice? Mother Theresa cited her definition of poverty thus;

“We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty”.

The liberty of having a voice in the Western world is something that most of us take for granted. How automatic is it? What do you say to your fellow conversationalist who is brandishing an AK47? What do you say to a gobshite like Enda Kenny who is living in the lap of luxury amply padded by the taxes of those who survive in very taxing times?

What do you say to the ever-increasing incidence of homeless hapless poverty? How do you explain that you can’t supply what the deserving child needs? Those who should don’t know and don’t care.