A Tragic Dilemma

Lately I’ve been seeing rather frequent headlines for plane crashes with many fatalities. The nature of this news and it’s morbid presence amongst the rest of the news inspired the following write-up.

Background:

Every day, people die. Despite the obvious, it would seem that we view death with a rare and uncommon eye — but the advent of unprecedented connectedness throughout the world allows us to see otherwise. Many choose to ignore these headlines, primarily under the logic that dwelling on such a thing is only sure to generate negative and depressing thoughts and attitudes. What many fail to realize is that to hide such information is to delude reality. You cannot simply pretend that these horrible events do not happen, despite how hard it is to empathize with that which seems impossible to one’s own lifestyle. News-based media reports on tragedy for that reason, as it generates attention because I think, deep down, that we all wish we could make our peace with the very simple fact: “You will die.”

A Tragic Dilemma:

  1. Not everyone wants to read about death in the first moments of their mornings.
  2. However, you cannot exclude tragedy, because above everything else it’s inhumane not to, at the least, acknowledge the existence of the suffering of fellow human beings.

The Solution:

Offer a website devoted to tragedy, thus implying that other media outlets should perhaps devote a portion of their own medium to tragedy. Create an outlet that consistently reports on tragedy, as to allow news to cater to things that affect the reader on a more localized level (and in the year 2011, localized means everything and anything anywhere on the globe that either impacts or interests you). Having a separate medium ENTIRELY for tragedy would have the potential to increase overall empathy to humans in other parts of the world, without adding a deathly slant to what’s immediately relevant to your day. This is why I’d love to see someone start a project of this nature, or at the least see news websites move tragedy to it’s own section. Such a project could easily come to life online, posting links to various tragedies currently generating discussion throughout the global community. Ideally the aim would be to provide an archive of relatively significant tragedies available to the general internet public, while being self-aware of how taboo the concept is viewed when facing such an open audience.

Organizing The Taboo:

The question is, how Meta do you take such a concept? I believe that is possible to allow for a rating system prioritizing certain tragedies over others if we are not looking at such a thing in a personal manner. If you step back and realize that death is a very common concept that seems to have been tucked away into taboo discussion, it quickly also becomes apparent that there are non(/hardly)-preventable, uncommon deaths that generate a higher interest level simply due to their uncommon nature. Why not categorize? Why not make the navigation of an archival of such events easier? It is in this light a rating system comes off less amoral and more logical. This hypothetical website could present this medium with a slight hint of self-awareness, as if to say the events reported upon the website are clearly excellent examples of unexpected tragedy that remind us of that very fact — you, will, die.

Profit:

The only way the website would be able to maintain a sense of moral standing is if all future (if any) successful profit from ad revenue would be given to a reputable charity (which genuinely gives all of its money to those in need). If there is to be any profit off a website which maintains its existence by reporting upon loss & injury, it should go directly into the pockets of the victims in need. This is why to report upon death in such a way and not donate at least a portion of one’s profits to charity is absolutely amoral.

Conclusion:

Why share this idea?  Why not simply start the website on my own?  To truly make this a successful project, one would have dedicated a significant amount of time each day to aggregating tragic news, sorting through what is most significant.  I feel that such a task would be too depressing to come back to day-after-day.  However I throw it out into the open because I believe that if someone with a decent moral standing were to undertake this idea, the end result could potentially benefit charitable organizations and thus those whom these tragedies directly affect.  Additionally, the initial observation itself (“A Tragic Dilemma”) which inspired the idea for the website is worth pondering.

Existence as system-like whole

Imagine a relationship between two concepts:

  1. The essence of existence as a functional, system-like whole, and…
  2. The perspective of one functioning part in that existence (this being realized through conscious awareness).

Macro:Micro. Creator:Creation. The “creator” is the designer, the architect, but will never be able to enjoy it’s own creation, for that is reserved for the inhabitants within said creation. Being that the universe is here and we presently find ourselves within it’s confines, it makes logical and rational sense that we use our conscious awareness to develop our sense of what’s positive and what’s negative.  This allows us to perfect the filtering of the negative to enhance our overall experience in this existence. The premise being that “The Creator” is simply existence itself, and that we can choose to see any aspect of it in any life imaginable, because the endless nature of existence allows for this creativity/freedom.

In the metaphorical sense, it makes sense for the creations of “The Creator” to enjoy that which has been created solely for unlimited experience. Suffering is undergone and enjoyment is undertaken, but clearly both are the resulting choices of each individual creation, particularly for conscious humans, as we experiment with the endless situational and reactional possibilities.

From The Creator’s perspective, it’s entertaining to witness all the variety, but to see creations so happy with the creation no doubt encourages The Creator positively. This metaphor allows us to grasp the notion that perhaps existence itself is conscious in some abstract manner which we as individual parts of a grander system could never truly understand (much like cells, bacteria, insects, and other smaller lifeforms than ourselves all either form larger life or contribute to a  grander ecosystem).

Essentially, Earth happens to be a place in the universe where everything lined up just right and existence finally had a chance to experience itself consciously (through human awareness).  There are smaller worlds within our Earth, just as we are but one small portion of life upon our planet, as it is one portion of our solar system, which is one small part of our galaxy, etc — but none of this takes away the significance of conscious existence.  From our vantage-point, it does seem as if we are in the exact middle of a scale where the smallest and largest components of our universe are similar in measurable extremes.

This is a fallacy of conscious awareness, however, as regardless where we find ourselves on “the cosmic scale”, if conscious, we would likely perceive the smaller degrees and the larger degrees of life in relatively equal proportion. Technology naturally allows us to see to our absolute limits, but this will always be seen in a relatively “even” light.  Why would we be able to traverse to the edge of the universe but find ourselves unable to zoom in beyond bacteria, or vice versa?

The underlying point here is that because of this fallacy, regardless how primitive or advanced we actually are as a global community, our existence is profound.  It is profound because without our awareness, the universe would continue to exist with all it’s mystery and absolutely no one to soak in the experience of it all.  We’re aware, and regardless how limited of an awareness, it is still very much an awareness.