Solving any issue begins with acknowledging we have one, why, and then by using the power of critical thinking to defeat the arguments from the defeatists.

[image: northeastern.edu]

Solving the Issues of the Day

What must it be like to be against resolving virtually every major issue that would help humanity, and in favor of those that would make matters worse? It is a fair question to ask because that is the nature of the chasm that now separates all who inhabit this place where we all live; this tiny planet whirling in the cosmos that we call home. This chasm is stark, contrasting, and devastating. It reeks of greed, and politics, and lies, and ideologies, fear, hatred, and religion. It separates and divides us as never before. Is there any way that sensible, intelligent, compassionate people can transcend this chasm and find a way of building bridges to a better future? I don’t have the complete answer, but it must start with acknowledging that the chasm exists, and why it is there. Without such acknowledgment, change is not possible. Let’s start that discussion now.

Among the major issues of the day are these: climate change, energy exploration and use, pollution, transportation, public health, hunger, slavery, inequality of incomes and wealth, population growth, educational opportunities, economic growth, taxes, equitable immigration, war, and terrorism—in no particular order. Urgencies and priorities will change among different countries, but this list applies worldwide. Moreover, those best able to make pronouncements about these issues are experts in the physical and social sciences who devote their time, talents, and efforts toward their resolution. We can challenge them to make their cases for change, demand that they do not fudge the data, and insist that they lay out clear and convincing pathways to the future. We can argue, debate, and modify their plans within the constraints of what is possible. After that it is up to the rest of us to prioritize projects, and find the time and resources needed to bring about the changes. We know the outline. We know the steps. Why can’t we implement them?

One reason for our stalemate is that we do not debate issues from a level playing field. Today the rich and powerful are richer than ever and more powerful than ever. Not only have they amassed enormous sums of money and wealth, they have also corralled their needed alliance of people (bankers, politicians, and workers) plus the resources to force their will on all of us in spite of their small numbers, and in spite of the logical steps that would bring us all into the discussion and to the table where the fulfillment of our needs could take place. They love the status quo, the conditions and circumstances that have permitted them to amass their fortunes, and they want to keep things as they are or increase their advantage.

Who are the wealthy? According to Forbes magazine the 1,645 billionaires around the world are worth a total of $6.3 trillion dollars. That sum is larger than any national economy except China’s and the US’s. I won’t name persons. Suffice to say they could easily put up $1 trillion to defeat any effort to upset the status quo. Expand the circle outward to the top 1 percent and it would enclose 70 million very wealthy people. They have a mindset of their own. Let’s examine that mindset.

We know that excessive wealth causes excessive poverty. Logic alone shows us that when more and more is taken from a finite pool, there is less and less remaining for all others. We also know that poverty is the condition that spawns a host of socially undesirable issues such as hunger, lack of education, illiteracy, drug usage, crimes, mental health issues, disease, suicides, and others. We also know that wealthy persons will deny that their wealth causes poverty and all the social issues just presented. Why do they make their denials? Because it would take moral courage to make an admission of guilt. They prefer to shift the blame onto those who must suffer the consequences of poverty. By such a diversion, a hungry person, for example, is not only the cause of his or her own hunger, those who have sucked all the wealth and income away from the hungry can rationalize away their own guilt. “I did not take away anyone’s food,” they note. “Food is available everywhere. All anyone needs to do is to work for it.” They have thus pointed to a proximate cause of hunger instead of their own excessive wealth as the underlying cause of poverty. Standing one link away from poverty in the causal chain allows them to feign innocence as their defense.

In addition to proximity, they like to argue that we are a country of laws, and the rule of law stands high on our list of civic virtues. There is no law against excessive wealth, for example, while there are many laws against stealing, or drug use activities that rise as poverty worsens. Thus proximity and the rule of law buffer the wealthy from many of the consequences of excessive wealth.

Ignorance is a third element that protects the wealthy. It requires more than a moderate degree of understanding the rules of logic in order to see the connecting issues surrounding cause and effect between excessive wealth and poverty and the social ills that flow from poverty. The rules of logic are fundamental to understanding and using the tools of critical analysis, a subject that is woefully absent in our school curriculums. And that gives us lack of education as a fourth element in our discussion.

There are many persons of goodwill who understand and support each of the issues listed in the second paragraph to this essay. The arguments that favor reducing the bad effects, and improving the good effects are also fairly well known, but there is substantial opposition to putting changes into effect that might decrease the volume of wealth that flows to the wealthy.

The solution to broadening everyone’s understanding of each of these issues and how to solve them must start with education. And the most important element in that link is knowledge of and how to apply critical thinking to these issues and thousands more like them. If we begin teaching critical thinking—in earnest—starting with kindergarten and continuing into every level thereafter, we will have laid the groundwork for defeating every lie, every false argument, and all the faulty safeguards surrounding politics, ideologies, fears, and religious beliefs. Critical thinking, alone, is not the complete answer to any of these issues. But it is a start, and making its importance known is my contribution to how to get some movement into the resolution of these issues. What’s yours?