Not All Bad

>Even the worst people, do good. It is hard to imagine perhaps, because we tend to focus our attention on the terrible things we see as an individual event, but even with these, there are potentially good outcomes that wouldn't have happened with out the bad. It reminds me a bit of the trees that can only germinate with the help of forest fires. A lot of damage is done, but some good happens too. ---  --- From a personal experience perspective as an example, I think that while I had a pretty hard childhood at school, I believe a lot of good came from it, especially in the way I treat others. However, the same experiences for another, might have had quite a different outcome. As a result, I am a proponent of low-level schoolyard bullying and teasing. Whereas another might be strongly against it. However, a good outcome doesn't make a bad action good, because a good action requires *intention.* Just like the bushfire which has no intention at all, if the intention is to harm, then the action is bad - even if *unintended good* comes from it. There seem to be a lot of people who defend the poor behaviours of people they like, by citing the unintended good that might happen. > Not All Good Similarly though, people with "good intentions" can also cause a lot of collateral damage. Again from a personal experience, it is like when a friend and I returning from a bar stopped at a burger place for a 4am snack, and it was filled with around twenty neo-Nazis. They started being dicks, she started arguing with them and when I told her to stop, she turned to me and said "they aren't going to touch me" - *no, they aren't.* She thought she was defending me in some way, but she was actually putting me in far more danger. I explained it to her after, once we were back at her place, eating our food. Good and Bad are obviously very subjective positions though, because there are people who might be reading this that would be quite happy to see neo-Nazis threaten people because of their skin colour. This would be considered a good action from the perspective of some. Though, most of those people tend to hide those kinds of opinions from public view - which raises the question about their integrity, or if they actually see it as a bad action, but don't want to acknowledge that they are actually a nasty individual. > Compartmentalisation. I think that one of the problems we have created in this world of ours is the growing separation of events, without recognising that they are all interconnected and all affect each other. We see one event independent from others, which makes it easier for us to judge, but harder for us to identify what is actually going on, or what to do about it. The simplification of mental compartmentalisation takes off cognitive load, but this doesn't stop the interactions between parts in reality. We end up less capable to deal with the complications, because we have simplified as if those complications do not exist. This means we end up treating the symptoms, not the causes. Yesterday I was writing about Trump and the supporters, but at least from my perspective, Trump support is a symptom of many wider complicated problems. Trump is the outcome of those issues, largely because many of the problems weren't addressed openly and honestly and were instead compartmentalised and locked away, without real consideration. The health of society, or the environment, or anything at a large and complex scale, requires a holistic approach. Focusing on individual pieces without consideration of what impacts or is impacted on that piece, means a lot of collateral damage happens, even with good intentions. Often, more problems are created than solved, where there is improvement in a narrow area, but degradation on the wider range. > When in doubt, zoom out. And this is is the problem with compartmentalising, because if focusing on a particular good, things might seem okay. But if zooming out, we may see that on average, things are getting worse. I believe that on average, things are getting worse in society than better, across many different indicators. But, if I mention this, most people will cite some narrow improvement as indicative of the general view. It is like someone having a six-pack and being considered healthy and fit, while their body wastes away from cancer. There is no one size fits all good, but there are probable general goods that are pretty good fits for nearly everyone. A bit like how healthy eating could be standardised for the majority of people and everyone would benefit. Yet, many people still wouldn't be happy, because it means they would have to change and their *preferences* wouldn't be met. > Preference doesn't mean right. It obviously makes sense to simplify much of our life, creating heuristics to keep us on track and heading toward where we want to go. However, we also have to realise that at times, we have to recognise that our habits are omitting vital information that we should be using to adjust our "world-view" and the part we play in it. Experience is a good teacher, yet we are increasingly relying on digital content and the impression it gives us, without actually diving into the details of the topic, nor why we feel a certain way about it. > We are being led, not living. Is that good, or bad? Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ] --- **Be part of the Hive discussion.** - Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences. - Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network - Engage well with me and others and put in effort **And you may be rewarded.** ---