We Are So Much More Than They Give Us Credit For

I recently saw a "documentary" on a major cable channel that purports to educate its viewers on what will happen if a country like America were faced with a pervasive national disaster. With a panel of political scientists, sociologists and resource analysts, they have come to the firm conclusion that America would immediately disintegrate into predatory anarchy. Government would rapidly abdicate its role of protecting the vulnerable against the sociopaths, and people would resolve themselves into violent gangs for mutual protection. No other scenario is offered. Is such a projection really intended to be "informative", if it assumes without argument that such a complete functional and moral breakdown of our society will occur? If it is so carelessly false in its projections, then this program is an example of fear-mongering, and what is the purpose of fear-mongering, especially during a time of economic recession and global climate change? Does the conglomerate that owns the channel that produced the program want people to lose their faith in civilization and go out and buy a stock of guns and ammunition? What else can one conclude? But putting aside the motives of such a "socially scientific" documentary of "how to survive the ultimate human disaster", be it from a global pandemic or a solar super-storm, or what have you, is it really true that most of us would just psychologically collapse and descend to the level of savagery? Is all the touted religiosity of the American public so hollow? It is prevailingly evident that most people follow the just laws of our land not because they fear punishment but because they believe these laws enhance the mutual stability and well-being of our shared existence. So would we really allow the sociopaths dictate the conditions of our lives during whatever period that our public resources are challenged? If this is so, we are not fit to take pride in anything our culture and society claim to stand for. One would conclude that all our worth is but a sham. But I do not believe this to be true. America, like any country committed to a just purpose, is the product of many centuries of progressive moral development. If our progress is admittedly under constant harassment by vociferous cynics and well-placed rogues, there are still many more of at least good intentions (even if not always wise answers) who are opposed to those who would lead us into corruption. In short, I do not believe that most people are burning for any imminent opportunity to destroy our peaceful society at the first sign law and order cannot be fully enforced due to a crisis. Even people of different political views, if they are sincere in the higher purpose of those views, will come together in a crisis and help each other out, regardless of the background of their neighbor in need. A common humanity will assert itself. It is fundamental to a normal and healthy human nature to form a cooperative and compassionate community for common success. We have evolved from bands and tribes over hundreds of thousands of years. We are a social animal. There have been other crises large and small in America's history, and the helpful people in those historical situations always far outnumbered the looters and murderers. We must not lose faith in each other and our mutual capacity to band together in a humane way under difficult conditions. The sociopaths have always been in the minority. Were it otherwise, our species would have destroyed itself long, long ago. That we survive is because people of goodwill have always prevailed. What we must guard against are those, for whatever political purpose, wish to psychologically condition us into an artificial attitude of distrust and demonization of our fellow human beings. Should any of us be faced with a geographic crisis, we must not give in to the deception that the only answer is "every man for himself". Most every person facing that crisis wants the best for one's fellow in danger, because "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is more than a mere ethical dictum. It is the expression of what people of sound mind instinctively desire for each other, because we are not a mutually hostile and merely convenient association of selfishly competitive "lone wolves" (my apologies to the wolves, who in actuality are not socially atomized). Those few who lack the capacity for empathy will socially retreat before the constructive behavior of mutual assistance during a time of trouble. The media-driven concept of "rugged individualism" is a load of bunk in terms of its practical much less popular appeal, and can only work as a philosophy for those in a position of independent wealth and security. People who believe that walking all over others to get ahead is something to be proud of because it involves clever ruthlessness have very few real friends in this world, and far fewer when the chips are down. In short, sociologists buying into this counterfeit ideal of a cutthroat business world cannot use it to form the basis of any sound theory of what regular human beings on the sidewalk will do when met with a collective danger. In the healthy psyche, crisis will inspire a beautiful altruism. It is deeply rooted in our collective being. Think of how human beings come out to help each other when a tornado has passed through, or offer assistance when someone down the street is laid up after a surgical trauma. These little acts of goodwill are exactly the stuff that neighborhoods and cities and entire regions use to re-knit and reassert the fabric of community when faced with a larger crisis. There is no difference, whatever the scale. The will is the same, and the response will be the same. Our desire for social order is encoded in our DNA as well as a natural expression of our very souls. We are not mere beasts. We are human. And come to think of it, most beasts treat each other darned well when faced with difficulties -- they nurture and protect their injured, undernourished and vulnerable members (even outside their own species, given the right circumstances). Can we do any less, as superior as we consider ourselves to be in terms of intelligence and moral discernment?