I am a World Before I am a Man

The world is building toward a collective society, a world society. As history shows, interconnectivity grows over time. With the invention of the internet, we are now able to share live information across many channels on a nigh-instantaneous level. As these connections improve, miscommunications (which are at the root of many societal problems) diminish. This leads to a slow, but steady movement toward a world society. 

Selfish actions become diluted and discouraged as the world evolves. If you disagree with this, you imply that selfish actions are indeed needed. To continue this thought, you would logically imply that the human race/genome would profit from selfish actions (what else could you argue?). I disagree and argue that the time for community action is now.

This is not just an informational piece telling that generally people are more worldly, but a call to consciously shift the decisions you personally make to favor the worldly whole, as opposed to selfish gains. Wholly selfish decisions only create hardship and strife for those around you, while incorporating your community's health into your decisions helps yourself and everyone around you. 

You are a world before you are a man. Now act on that knowledge.

Wrong by Action Rather than Wrong by Inaction

When faced with complexities in which we are forced into decision we often consider the decision to wait things out or to choose inaction. However, it is often the best social decision to make an action-decision.

In many cases people stall taking action or consider inaction because they are afraid of being wrong. But what is more wrong is inaction. Even though it seems like the safe choice may be to remain static and wait to see how situations play out, it is often better to take action.

Why?
We look for the simplest correct answers to solve our problems. This is a fact. And although in any situation, you will consider your range of decisions or inaction/delay, any decision in that range will overall have a greater positive social impact than inaction/delay.

There are generally 3 paths in decision making in this situation, 2 of which are divergent paths. First we lay out all of our options of which there are 2+. The first is an action-decision, the second is inaction. The 3rd path emerges as the choice to make the action-decision unfolds into what we predict will be "right" or "wrong" choices in the situation. 

Though inaction may seem socially "safe"it is decadent and rarely solves problems. 
For every situation in which you choose inaction/delay: 

• You decay the social strings that bind people together
• You remove yourself from the situation
• You discourage discussion
• Others interpret your indecision as uncaring
• You become less influential over time

Once you realize that even incorrect actions/decisions avoid these social pitfalls, it is far easier to make a choice, regardless of your prediction of correctness. 

Keep in mind, that though extreme, all the negative connotations of delay are present along a delayed decision making process. This means that, the longer you take to make a decision (even if it an action-decision) you increase the tensions mentioned in the bulleted list above. This is not to say that you should reach decisions immediately when presented with problems, but that you should keep in mind that too much time spend considering a problem, brings a social problem of its own.  

--

This idea becomes a bigger issue with small groups of people, but less so with larger groups.

Delay may be more advisable in certain situations with more than 2 or 3 players, where the choices of others have greater affect. In this case it may be advisable to withhold action in the light of creating a sterile environment for those with the power to make those larger choices. 

Influential Social Motion

We all are in movement physically and more importantly, socially. Our actions (and whether they are purposeful or not) all influence those around us. And just as a normal item in motion pushes and degrades other items around it passively, so do our actions do to those around us.

The key note is that both ambient and passive actions push people away. So even as you act passively towards those in your life, you push them away. The only way to combat this is with purposeful actions that draw those you want with you closer. Inviting people to events, calling them, engaging their values.

You push away those you do not actively pull in simply due to the nature of influential social motion. Remember this and keep who you want, and realize those whom you assume will always be there due to sheer historic momentum, will slip away.

Picketing for Peace

Picketing for peace or other great-issues is a waste of resources.

You can't fight the greater demon of war unless you start solving interpersonal problems even unto household and community disputes. The same chaos and strife you experience in these areas is only expanded into the larger social and political circles that few fully understand. 

How can we even kid ourselves to attempt to bring peace with picket signs when we can't solve simple, small-circle misunderstandings?

Hug your children, volunteer at a soup kitchen, join a walk-for-donations campaign, call your congressman, donate to local non-profits. These things all directly relate to social improvement. Sitting all day with a sign does nothing to change anyones minds or actions. 

I may even go so far as to say picketers in this sense are delusional and even subtract from the social-improvement of others. As we've identified picketers for peace are generally not aiding the problem of war, then they are wasting resources. Even the occupancy of the street corner can interfere with normal (possibly value adding) actions of those passing by. 

It's one thing to picket for fair wages or something with a clear-cut solution. It's entirely another to try to deal with geo-political arguments through decorating signs.

Ambiguous signs that just say "peace now" or "no war" are the worst. There will be always be war.