The human truth of the human matter is that humanity is a possibility. Just as democracy–mutual fellowship between equal, individual, civic agents–is a possibility and not a given. Democracy is envisioned, created, and sustained through a culture of engaged citizens living within an agreed-upon social framework. The structure, the framework alone, neither creates nor sustains democracy; neither is democracy guaranteed or even necessarily supported by nonhuman laws of this universe. Because of the universe as it appears to people, democracy is possible. It is possible for people to create democracy.
Homo sapiens are not born human. One of the crucial mistakes made by humanists in the past has been to assume that we are all born human, but this is not so. By assuming–to an extent consciously, to an extent unconsciously–the morality they accepted (of whatever particular stripe), they allowed, we have allowed, humanity to diminish. The situation is similar to assuming there will always be clean air, clean water, and nutritious food in the sense that having things in abundance allows their existence to be taken for granted; taking them for granted allows them to diminish.
With all the distractions of modern societies and the expansion of economic values, humanist values have been allowed to diminish in some ways, and consequently, homo sapiens in our global economy come cheap. Everyone on Earth who can understand and communicate language has inherited some form and degree of morality; to the extent that we assume instead of create morality, we may not be viscerally and consciously aware of the limitations of that morality–its potential, its strength, and its fragility.
Inheriting the social forms does not necessarily mean we must reinvest in the same types of forms or functioning, but rejecting unquestioned functioning does not have to be a wholesale rejection of the societies and forms of moralities that have been created and recreated for the good of both humans before us and for ourselves. If we are to pass something on, though, we must invest in something.
Before awareness of global processes, it was impossible to explain and organize global functions. This is a characteristic of awareness and communication, not an indictment of historic humanity. But the nature of humanity is that humanity is a possibility. Humans have the possibility of becoming self-aware, making conscious choices, and creating morality by acting morally; every homo sapien also has the ability to deny humanity to themselves and others. We are not in possession of individual or collective humanity, but each of us has the ability to create and sustain our humanity.
Before awareness of this global possibility, it was impossible to explain and organize and enact this function globally. Before, humanity was led by particular exemplars in particular societies and by perhaps universal, but abstract, ideals. These people and ideals may have provided wonderful examples and heartfelt, compassionate education, but we are not them and we do not live in the same social world they lived in–although, we have inherited this same Earth. We do not live in the same societies they lived in. We cannot simply assume the mantle of their humanity; we must envision, create, and sustain our own. Humanity is not an eternal and inorganic substance distributed equally and metaphysically; it is a living attribute that, if it does not live, dies. It is possible for humanity to perish. That realization changes the global equation. Jesus Christ did not have to negotiate nuclear power production, Muhammad did not worry about how to limit over-harvesting fish from the global oceans, Siddartha Gautama did not incorporate and lead a multinational chemical company, Lao Tzu was probably not intensely interested in global warming, and Martin Luther King, Jr. never had an email address.
It will help to recognize that humanity is not separated then. We are connected to the past as well as to the future. Humanity is not contained in forms or particular societies, it cannot be charitably parceled out or sold at a profit, and it cannot be passed on genetically or mass-produced. It cannot be taken from someone else or accumulated or grown faster by using synthetic fertilizers; each of us decides to engage in this dream or withhold our input; we consistently appreciate this fellowship or we separate ourselves out of it. It is a choice either way. It depends on what we believe.
Because of specialization within societies, multi-cultural exchange, and population growth, I believe that humanity has become at the same time more individualistic and more global.
Up until the development of French existential isolation and absurdity, humanity was affirmed (at least within societies) even if it was often disregarded, especially denied to the lowest classes and often foreigners. Even Camus, though, eventually recognized that disregarding is not a passive process, but, rather, takes an active investment. The twentieth century saw the global elaboration of the costs of disregarding–environmental, societal, and psychological. The breakdown of traditionalist institutions along with the systematization and electronic virtualization of shared social spaces has gone quite a distance towards separating the individual from humanity (one’s own humanity included) by diffusing and redirecting the attention that used to be focused on maintaining direct social relationships and broader social institutions, including the institutionalized custom of affirming humanity.
This alteration in the deployment of attention creates greater permeability within individuals, within societies, and across the globe, shifting the socially created boundaries and changing the way human societies function at a recognizable speed. The increased speed of social change and technological advancement in societies allows greater consciousness and communication of social change, allowing more informed but not necessarily wiser decisions about what, from the vast array of human potential, to support and uphold. At the same time, the rapid rate of cultural exchange allows infinite possibilities.
This brings us to the topics of ignorance, avoidance, and deceit within and between individuals and societies. Ignorance must be a part of this discussion because there are limits to individual and global human awareness that can no longer be avoided. Avoidance and disregard are similar, if perhaps seen as shaded differently along the same continuum. I would argue that deceit is the social expression of this quality which is recognizable within individuals. Deceit is communicated avoidance of truth and disregard for humanity. Disregard for humanity on a global scale is not, in the sense of being distasteful, intolerable; it is, due to our current global circumstances, unsustainable.
If global humanity is unsustainable, homo sapiens will become extinct. Morality in limited situations is debatable. The need for global morality, though, is inarguable.
Copyright Todd Mertz