Inconsequential Existence

Each of us is inclined to believe that our existence matters—at least to ourself, if not to others. This is a way we may express that we want meaning in our life. Each of us naturally feels that our life has some significance; that it matters, if only because we are inclined, from our perspective, to believe that the universe revolves around us. We seem to be at the center of it all. That is the natural way we perceive our world.

In fact, that is the perspective of most creatures—particularly those who do not enjoy the attributes of a developed consciousness that we humans have. We, unlike other animals, have the ability to imagine getting outside ourselves, to take a more objective view of things. When we do so, we can do a pretty good job of understanding that other creatures—particularly those with a less developed consciousness—have a much more confined view of reality. Nonetheless, we can't help but view our world from a self-centered perspective.

If we ponder the vastness of the universe, however, we are forced to conclude that our individual existence is not at all of consequence to it. Consider first the physical scale of the universe. I am but one individual among billions (even trillions) of beings on planet Earth. Earth is but one planet among several that orbit our sun. Our sun is but one star among billions in our Milky Way Galaxy. Our galaxy is but one among billions of such galaxies in the universe. Add all those multiple billions up, and you can see that each of us is an infinitesimal physical snippet of our universe. So how can I be at the center of it all? How can I be of any consequence to this mind-boggling cosmos?

Let me demonstrate the minuscule nature of our existence even further: now in the time dimension. How does my life span compare to the age of the universe? I might be lucky enough to stick around for about 80 Earth years. The planet has been here for some 60 million times longer than that. And the universe has been around for about 170 million times longer than that. But my life gets even more negligible, if I peer into the future and come to understand that the universe is at present in its infantile stage. It may be almost 14 billion years old, but some astronomers estimate that our universe may last some 100 trillion years! It's just getting started. So, from a spatial or temporal point of view, my existence is so vanishingly small as to be completely inconsequential to the universe. I am not at the center of it all. 

So, what do I make of my insignificant relevance to the cosmos? To some people, this can appear to be a nihilistic message—my life is nothing... it is meaningless. I disagree. It's only meaningless if I have bought into the message that the universe was created solely for the pleasure of mankind—which is an extremely limited and self-centered point of view.

Rather than believe that I am at the center of it all and then feel devastated when I come to see that I'm not, I think it's far more meaningful to understand that I'm blessed to be a conscious part of something so vast and magnificent and to be able to know that. Let me celebrate my being here, and my ability to comprehend its majestic nature, even if I'm an inconsequential part of it all.

The next posting will consider my existence from the other side of the coin: If I am an inconsequential part of he universe, how can my life matter... at least to me, and what do I do about it?.

Helix Nebula

 

This gorgeous photo of the Helix Nebula--a planetary nebula--is some 700 hundred light years from Earth. The white dot in the center is the star that blew up to create the nebula, which looks like an iris. (NASA) 

Inequality Incongruences

One of the more troublesome aspects of human societies is the persistent inequality that is present in most cultures—some worse than others. Prior to our settling down into settled, agrarian enclaves, some 10-12 thousand years ago, human communities were far more egalitarian. Hunter-gatherer bands were inherently more equal, as all members contributed their labor. Hierarchies came into existence after permanent settlements were formed and people began to acquire more things. Mechanisms for division of labor and power surfaced and began to establish different degrees of control and authority.

Inequality has plagued humanity ever since. Hierarchy has created societies in which some members are perpetually held down, into classes that are considered inferior. Others have assumed superior positions, which they then come to regard as their rightful place.

The hierarchical and oppressive nature of societies has swung from extremes of outrageousness to some degree of moderation—depending on who holds power; whether it's the elites or the masses. The poor have occasionally prospered, usually following disasters or revolts against the rich. Thus the pendulum of the degree of class and inequality has often swung from one side to the other.

For example, a century ago the severe inequalities of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries led to the Great Depression of the 1930s. After recovery and including the effects of World War II, economic disparities were significantly reduced for a few decades. Many people on the lowest socioeconomic levels enjoyed a period of moderate comfort, as many of them moved into middle class lives.

Since about the 1980s, however, the pendulum has swung the other direction, as the wealthy classes have once again dramatically increased their assets—creating another period of extremely high degree of inequality once again.

If people the world over were to be surveyed, I believe that the majority of them would likely agree that inequality has both increased and is widespread today. Even many of the powerful and rich would agree. Most people would probably also maintain that inequality is harmful. But that's where a consensus would end.

Strong disagreement would quickly appear if people were asked about specifics of inequality, such as: (1) how did it come about?, (2) how unjust is it?, (3) what could be done to create more egalitarianism?, (4) is the current (or any) level of inequality acceptable?, (5) do some people deserve to be poor, by having brought their poverty on themselves?, etc. Maybe the lack of agreement is partly responsible for the persistence of inequality: there may be wide concurrence that it's harmful, but little consensus on what to do about it. Some people feel it's inevitable, some are seemingly ignorant of its scale, and a few are even quite content with it. Does it need to get even worse, before enough people rise up and insist upon change?

Corporate Command

Half a millennium or so ago, businesses were small, and usually in the form of partnerships. A business was begun by the parties investing their own money, or from loans. If the enterprise failed, the partners suffered the direct consequences—either losing their money or sometimes going to jail.

Larger business enterprises were needed in the West by the 17^th century, because governments could not finance all the adventures that they desired—such as expansion into colonial domains. The first corporations were formed at that time; such as the Dutch and English East India Companies. These entities were chartered by the state, and were expressly restricted to entering into market efforts for public purposes only. So the state held considerable power over corporations, to be sure that their ventures were for the good of the people.

In order to promote the creation and success of these first corporations, the state granted them considerable political and military power, in order to protect their investments in far-off lands. The money to establish a corporation was raised from wealthy investors, who then realized large profits from these lucrative enterprises. Unlike partnerships, the charter of corporations contained limited liability provisions—that protected the investors from failure of the venture. The corporation might become bankrupt, but the shareholders were not financially liable—at the worst they would lose their initial investment.

Due to this support from the state, these first corporations often were very successful. The markets established in India and other Eastern countries earned their shareholders enormous gains—to a large extent due to their political and military power that they wielded over those weaker states.

By the 19^th century, corporations had gained sufficient power to begin to be able to influence laws back in the home country. Some of those laws allowed corporations to enter markets that no longer had to conform to public needs. In this way they accrued ever greater profits and power, which allowed them to become increasingly independent of the state.

Into the 20^th century the conflicting demands of corporate shareholders, boards, management, and employees brought about a jockeying between these various interests. By mid-late century, corporate boards began shifting priorities to the needs of shareholders and management (thus away from employees and the public), when they began to link management’s pay to the share price and profits.

This gradual accumulation of ever-greater corporate power encouraged risk and entrepreneurial adventures, which allowed corporations to become the behemoths that are now often international in nature and beyond the control of any state. Today corporations command almost unlimited power, no longer needing even to consider the needs of citizens—let alone their employees.