I’ve been reading, lately, how evolutionary theory offers insights into human behavior. Apparently, deeply ingrained within our genetic make-up, we survivors have certain inherent inclinations that, despite how desperately we may want to rationalize them away will always be with us. Our ultimate evolutionary need to pass on our genes has embedded within our psyches the drive toward group membership: like-minded individuals to share values and reciprocal support and the presupposition of a supernatural agency. I guess what happens over (a long, long, long) time is that the group establishes an identity: cultural, moral, spiritual, that separates it from other groups.

So, what this must mean is that we all will forever be divided into in-groups and out-groups. In the best of times, I suppose, toleration will reign, there will be peaceful co-existence. But even when such periods exist, the Ins will know that they are the trustworthy ones who recognize the true supernature, which means that there will always be a sort of tension between Ins and Outs that could, and sometimes does, fester and erupt into violence. And such a situation will be more likely to happen, I further suppose, when one group feels its existence is threatened if political power becomes imbalanced. And, as much as one might like to disassociate oneself from this ridiculous op positional stance, you really can’t since you wouldn’t be here to even think about it all if your ancestors hadn’t passed on the necessary survival genes.

I guess this evolutionary perspective explains a lot about the nature of the world today. I will try to remember that as evolution continues to slowly and erratically move along, in some distant future perhaps it will catch up to an intellectual enlightenment.

I’ve been thinking it may be time for me to step up and do a little more for those around me. I have for some time been the recipient of a very favorable social environment which has enabled me to live my quite serene life of artistic endeavor and contemplation. But, lately it seems to me that simply offering my unassuming, benevolent countenance is maybe a bit lacking; I could, perhaps, do something more for my neighbors. I don’t think I’m a good candidate for public office of any sort and policing or firefighting is beyond my abilities but it sure seems I should be able to find some way to be of service.

A friend suggested, when I put the dilemma to him, that the best thing I could do for mankind is simply stand aside-just stay out of the way, by which I assume he meant I should let those with energy and capabilities make the things that need to happen, happen.

I still think there must be something, some small skill I could share that might be beneficial. I do like to read, so perhaps I could build a little free library. Then I could fill it with philosophy books. It seems to me it would certainly be a good thing if I were able to turn my neighbors into enlightened liberal thinkers.

I’ve been trying to make sense of the term populism which has been in the news so much lately. I’ve always thought being popular meant acceptance by a large segment of people-the populus, I guess.

I’m familiar with the idea of popular culture: art forms like comic books, easy listening music, feel-good movies, reality TV and such that are easily accessible to many. On the surface, it sure seems like popularity ought to be a good thing.

But, whereas one might suppose populism might be about bringing everyone together in support of the common good, what it appears to really be about is dividing and conquering. I guess, when it comes down to it popularity generates the ‘Other’. In popular culture the ‘Other’ is the antiquated or out of style, in religion, those on the wrong path. In the political realm a populist seeks to gain popular support often times by demonizing those less virtuous than his own constituency, who are characterized as in opposition to the traditions and values so dear to his followers.

Given the disparate values –realities, really-of so many, I guess it’s probably unreasonable to expect wide spread agreement about political or religious issues. Still, it does seem reasonable to assume that everyone should be in favor of seeking the common good.