There sure is a lot of negativity in the news these days: gun violence, terrorist threats, economic inequality, ecological degradation; the list goes on and on. Some think the situation is so dire the collapse of civilization as we know it is immanent: apocalypse on the horizon, I guess.
In order to preserve the way of life we’ve come to know, the thinking goes, we must take these world-threatening issues and deal with them. We’re bombarded daily with ideas advocated by the powers that be or would be on how disaster might best be avoided. The solutions offered vary considerably but the goals are the same: to preserve our way of life as we’ve grown to love and tolerate it.
There are other thinkers, however, that believe the harder we try to solve the problem, to prevent the disasters we anticipate, the more quickly we move toward their realization. The suggestion is, I guess, that these dire problems we face are inherent within the paradigmatic social, economic and cultural structures that define our lives. If these innovative thinkers are right, I suppose we might as well suck it up, embrace the imminent demise of the world as we know it and prepare ourselves for a great leap into the unknown, remain open to the unimaginable and to seek a dramatically different reality than the one we now know.
I must admit I’m at a loss as to how to think about all this: if working toward solutions to potential disasters will only hasten the consequences they portend, I suppose I could just ignore the issues of the day all together, but that seems pretty irresponsible. I’ve been reading a lot about zombie infestations lately that I’ll bet have to do with glitches in bio-genetic engineering. Maybe this will be the new reality. I think I’ll start reading apocalyptic sci fi more seriously.