Planet-killing
psychopaths. Ruinators trying to turn the U.S. into RuiNation.
Promoters of money over lives. Stupid, evil, or both. On social media
I have been saying these things about the people with political and
economic power whose actions I perceive to be reducing the chances of
living in a world that conforms to my values. The terms were
consciously crafted to highlight my judgment of right and wrong based
on those values, while conveying characteristics that appear
responsible for their actions. Because I value honesty, I've used
them in venues where it should be clear that I was stating opinion,
and tried to add context by providing explanatory references to
sources of those opinions.
For
example, "planet-killing psychopaths" (formerly
"planet-killing sociopaths") refers to people and
organizations whose actions excessively increase the extinction risk
for both humans and other species, while apparently demonstrating no
remorse for that impact – if they even have an interest in it. I
use the term derisively because in my value system the continued
existence of life is paramount, especially human life and the species
whose existence supports it.
Objectively,
I understand that such behavior may be built into some people's
nature, or it may have been shaped by personal experience that made
it a way of coping with their own lives. For all I know, it may even
be a sort of safety valve on the growth of our species, ensuring that
we humans are stopped from totally destroying the global ecosystem by
destroying ourselves first, with the others that support us as
necessary collateral loss. Whatever the reason, the result is bad in
my view; and if the result is bad, then to be true to my values I
must discourage or work to disable what causes it.
Similar
logic applies to the other terms. "RuiNation" is one I made
up to describe a "ruined nation" that has had its basic
social and physical infrastructure damaged to the point that the
majority of its citizens are suffering on a regular basis along with
a diminishing life expectancy. "Ruinators" are those who
facilitate the existence of such a country. RuiNation introduces
quality of life to quantity of life as a value. Because
I like to measure things, I include life expectancy, which has a
clear correlation to both values. Any action or combined actions that
increase the chances of making it so are to be discouraged, as a
minimum. Clearly such actions may include reducing such things as:
the quality and quantity of health care; the quality of air, water,
and food; and access all of these.
My
research has shown that money is an abstraction that serves the main
purpose of coordinating acquisition, distribution, and use of
resources to provide people's needs and wants (collectively,
"happiness"). To the extent that it provides needs, it
supports life; but when some people use it to meet their wants with
resources others require to meet their needs, then it reduces life.
This latter case is referred to in shorthand with the term "money
means more than lives," applied to those who apparently value
their own happiness (specifically, their wants) more than the
survival of other people. It is used with derision because of my
overarching valuing of life over the material environments that money
and its accompanying physical resources can provide, environments
that also use resources needed by other species who enable all people
to live on this planet.
In
some cases, it is unclear whether an action is intentional or the
consequence of ignorance. We all have lack of knowledge and
understanding, blind spots that lead us to cause bad things to happen
(however one defines "bad") without being aware of it; I
use the term "stupid" as shorthand for a person with this
condition, particularly if it appears to be chronic. If actions are
taken with knowledge of their negative consequences, then I ascribe
the term "evil" to the person, even though on a more
objective basis I consider evil to be a characteristic of actions
rather than people. Sometimes (and perhaps more often than not), a
mix of intentionality and ignorance contributes to such actions:
trying to do one bad thing and causing another. If someone is in a
position to know the consequences of their actions but appears to not
know them, such as a politician with significant power, then I may
ask which explanation holds (either or both) without excusing them
for the consequences because they should know what they're
doing more than most of the rest of us.
As
I understand it, the most successfully long-lived societies survived
and thrived in large part due to social feedback that promoted
healthy behaviors and discouraged unhealthy ones. Valuing the
characteristics of longevity and health has led me to fully embrace
providing such feedback as a duty, which I have chosen to exercise
through writing perhaps because I am an extreme introvert. I have
also become more and more stressed as evidence continues to mount
that we all live in a very short-lived society, motivating me to
increasingly cry out in pain and judgment against the forces I
perceive are causing that. This has caused some people to brand me a
scaremonger and an extreme partisan. It's not scaremongering if the
threat is real – which it is – and the appearance of partisanship
is a consequence of the reality that there is a strong correlation
between political affiliation and contribution to whether we will
live or die, which is the ultimate value.
