2012: A Warning

I recently went to see the new movie "2012," and I was impressed by the special effects, and even the interesting story line. It was similar to other "end-of-the-world" films but this one possessed an intriguing quality that others lacked: the realness of a specific date that has people talking.

Of course, most of us are familiar with the Mayan calendar and its ending date of 2012. I am not educated in all the details of the calendar and its implications, but it certainly has started a conversation. Now, people are reading deeper into Nostradamus, the teachings of religious books, and anything having to do with astronomical or mystical import. I have even heard of one case where a biblical scholar, Dr. Wayne Stanton, is developing a numerical code of reading the teaching of Christ, and finding that Jesus was warning us of world-ending events in 2012.

What is going on here? Has there ever been a time in history when humans have entertained the idea of the end of their species with such specificity or degree?

As a younger person, I used to read Christ's words in Matthew 24 about how not to believe the false prophets, and that "no one knows the day or hour," and that the Son of Man would come as a thief in the night. I thought the only sure way to obviate any eschatological encounters with the Son of Man would be to wake every morning and say out loud, "Today, Christ will come again." If no one knows the day or hour, how could you say that on the day? You couldn't, and therefore would save yourself from the "end times"

But when does this talk cross the line from amusing predictions to certain expectation? The shades are gray, but the more we discuss this date, the more it is cemented in our minds and even as I type this, I am adding to the visibility of 2012.

The problem with this cementation is a psycho-social one. We will wake up on January 1st, 2012, and continue on with our lives as usual. But, in these years preceding the date, we will have time to effectively "talk up" 2012, and make it into a year of novelty, standing apart from others. If this talk is successful (in a certain sense) then our days of 2012 will be lived with our minds harboring background thoughts, like shadows of crumbling buildings; "what if this is THE year of THE end?"

My fear is that this question will lead us into expectation, expectation will lead us to more proclamation, proclamation will breed more expectation. If this cycle occurs, then the phobia/reverence/fascination with 2012 will drive people to take matters into their own hands. I hate to say it, but proclamation and expectation leave room for failure and disappointment. If the fear of failure and disappointment outweighs the fear of our own species death, then we have a dire situation on our hands. A dire situation of our own creation.

To use the words of Bill Maher, "The only thing worse than prophesy is self-fulfilling prophesy." If 2012 was not the end, all this talk may make it be.

If you like to think of 2012 and to flirt with the tantalizing idea that it may indeed be the end of our species, then do it. But do it cautiously. Make sure that as you provoke the idea it doesn't provoke you back to do something rash.

Jon Stewart Analyzes FOX News

Long video, but sooooo worth it if you want to laugh....

Wal-Mart: All Your Needs from Cradle to Grave?

Wal-Mart has released the news of its stores now being outfitted with coffins. Just when you thought there was no more local businesses they could drive out of town, they "bury" the funeral competition.

This undertaking (pun intended) aims to be a marketing research strategy for Wal-Mart, to find out what the customer demand would be on cheap coffins. As you can see on the BBC, these coffins run under the model names "Mom Remembered" or "Dad Remembered."

The most interesting thing about this news is the last few paragraphs of the article. When interviewing a "real-live human undertaker" he submits that Wal-Marts business will fail in this arena because people value the "human contact" when it comes to planning and executing (pun not intended) their funeral services.

Now, did the jeweler say the same thing about "human contact" when it came to picking out engagement rings? Because Wal-Mart renders those services quite successfully. Did the local "Cribs N' More" baby store owner brush aside Wal-Mart when it began selling strollers and pacifiers due to lack of "human contact?"

Maybe both of these things happened. Maybe at some point we believed it was impossible for Wal-Mart to sell shoes or underwear or plumbing parts because as a large department store they lacked "human contact." The truth is, they cornered many markets, and a lack of human interaction has not seemed to slow them down.

The truth is, most people aren't looking for the human element as much as they used to. It is sad to see, but in a culture where most things are available for purchase online, we obviously don't value the face behind the counter the way we used to. (Sidenote: How long do you think we will have virtual "shopping carts" on webstores that we must "proceed to checkout." One day, a child might see that and say "Mommy, what is a shopping cart?")

Wal-Mart has set the standard now for marketing and convenience. I certainly do hope that Pat Lynch is right, that we won't outsource something as sacred to our culture as burial to corporate convenience. But the cynical side of me is skeptical (as it should be).

Wal-Mart, our souls are easier to win this side of the grave. Please let us rest in peace, and not by providing a low-cost coffin.

I hope I can be cremated before they are selling urns.

The Psychology of Nigeria and Darfur’s Incentive Plans

The Obama Administration unveiled a new plan yesterday to deal with the genocide in Darfur. While there are no specifics yet, it seems that Hillary Clinton and others are taking an official stand on this issue with the new policy.

From descriptions, it looks similar to the incentive system used in Nigeria, where the Nigerian government has pledged to give rebels a 10% cut of oil cash in return for them to stop sabotaging pipelines and attacking government buildings and personnel.

Obama’s critics are saying exactly what I would say, namely, are we really going to pay people to stop fighting? The current administration has said that Bush’s policies were flawed in that they only included sanctions. So here is the conundrum. Do you make a bad situation worse by instituted sanctions, or do you affirm the actions of violence and revolution by instituting incentives? Cutting people off from the world doesn’t disarm these conflicts, but providing incentives is saying, “if you fight for long enough and hard enough, we will pay you to stop.” It is appeasement at it worst, because we are setting the standard to affirm violent conflict as a means to get what you want. Neither sanctions nor incentives will work.

But they seem like they would, right? According to the psychological laws of conditioning, positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement, the plans of Bush and Obama would both work, just from different perspectives.

The problem is, conditioning doesn’t address attitude. It only addresses action. These sanctions and incentives are responses to undesired action, and they leave the attitude of the movement to continue to fester.

Think of your most heated political argument. Maybe it was with a friend or a loved one, or maybe a total stranger. Here in America, we have some drastically opposing attitudes and many people who are not afraid to voice those perspectives. This is a wonderful thing. But imagine that political argument you had, that, in your opinion was quite fervent, and ask yourself what it would take for you to decide to buy a gun and kill the person who disagreed with you. This is the intensity of these conflicts in Darfur and Nigeria. Now imagine what it would take to diffuse that attitude. This is no small task, and it is not achieved by incentives or sanctions.

The science of psychology has another principle I should bring up. There is a theory called Cognitive Dissonance Theory posed by a man named Leon Festinger. On the surface, this theory is very simple: If you believe something that conflicts internally with another belief, you obviate this dissonance by either (1) reducing the importance of the conflicting beliefs, (2) adopting a new belief that outweighs and diffuses the conflict or (3) by modifying the conflicting beliefs not only in degree but in form.

If I am willing to wage war, and even kill an individual for a belief, I may have created a dissonance in this situation between two beliefs. Let’s say I believe X as a political perspective, but I also believe it is wrong to kill. I have a cognitive dissonance, and I only have a few options of how to deal with it (according to the theory)

I can either:

Under possibility (1) of the theory,

-decrease my belief in X, and face the guilt that I killed someone (guilt being cognitively uncomfortable but not dissonant)

-decrease my belief that killing someone is wrong (this will probably lead to more violence)

Under possibility (2) of the theory,

-adopt a new belief that killing is permitted in regards to X (this will lead to more killing)

Under possibility (3) of the theory,

-change my understanding of the murder to say that I killed not for X, but for something else

-change my understanding of X to say that murder is permissible (similar to adopting a new belief)

Of course, the human mind and emotions are more complex than what I just described, but according to Festinger, one of the above options will inevitably occur in order to dispel the dissonance. (by the way, this psychological theory helps me to understand “thou shalt not kill,” and the non-violence of Christ, but that is another entry...)

It is sad to see that most of these options are noxious, and maybe even more dangerous than the original murder itself. My point is, throwing money at an intense psychological, pathological and sociological problem will not do anything to make these motives and options any different.

In the midst of this criticism, I am at a loss for what should be done in these situations. There may not be any better options, but I hope there is.