Skip to main content

Conversation About Important Things

.
Went to the local Starbucks this morning. Sat in the sun and watched the customers come and go. Couple of men I knew from other mornings in the sun sat at my table and, as we often do, began discussing retirement. Somehow, from that subject someone asked "what is the most important thing a person should do while alive?" After tossing the question around for a while, it was decided that human beings generally believe they are superior to all other forms of life, and as such, the most important challenge is to be here to see tomorrow's sun rise. This we interpreted as "self preservation" and by stretching a bit we felt this included procreation to preserve our species and so forth. The conversation skipped ahead to the "gap" between rich and poor. I know, it was a big skip.

The "gap", we concluded, was necessary to motivate human beings to better themselves. It provides a goal to aspire to, and while discussing this, we came to realize that the "gap" is unfair. Those of us born in America have, by accident of birth, been given the tools of natural resources that make it possible to prosper. Millions of other humans are born in places that have no resources they can use to promote prosperity. Thus, for example, there are people in parts of Africa who starve for lack of food or fresh water. There are people living in many other hostile environments who are also unable to improve their lot, and so forth. We summarized like this: The most important aspect of humanity is self preservation. Next, is the ability and need to procreate in order that the species can survive. And lastly, in our conversation anyway, we decided that the third important aspect of humanity is the (natural?) aspiration of the poor to get richer. Now, does that make any sense to anyone but us old guys drinking coffee in the morning?

Comments

Rain Trueax said…
Deep thoughts for a morning cup of coffee and yes they make total sense. Often when I am traveling around the West, in small cafes, I'll see the old ranchers or farmers come in for breakfast together. I wonder if their conversations are like that :)

Popular posts from this blog

Gloves Off

. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS BETRAYED OUR TRUST AGAIN. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, makes no difference at all. Our legislators voted according to "what's best for them". It was clear that the people want to reduce the costs and improve access to our overall health care system. It was also VERY CLEAR that they did not want the 2000 page legislative monstrosity that was produced by a small number of far left liberal Democrats, who worked behind closed doors to fashion a pork filled blunderbuss that virtually no one has been able to read, or discuss, or debate, or offer alternatives to specific unreasoned clauses. It is (now) a BAD BILL , passed by BAD POLITICIANS, that compose a BAD MINORITY segment of America's out-of-control government. AND WE HAVE NO LOGICAL WAY TO PAY FOR IT EITHER. The far left liberals like to point at  SOCIAL SECURITY   as a text book success. They are wrong and will not admit it despite the concrete evide

Why Blackwater Mercenaries

Over some years the name Blackwater shows  up in the news. It is, by their own estimation, the largest mercenary group in the world. I think I first noticed it when reports from Iraq mentioned they were employed (by whom?) to escort and protect members of the Iraqi government from place to place. Then I became aware that they had joined several of the firefights between our marines and Iraqi enemies. I wondered just how these mercenaries (that supposedly came from the United States) were  hired by someone (who?) to fight? That led to the question of just who would be responsible if a situation involved the accidental killing of an innocent bystander? It  might be a little sticky for an unauthorised mercenary contracted by the United States but not a member of our military forces.  Or suppose a Blackwater type killed a military Iraqi combatant and was then captured by the enemy. Would he be treated as a spy, or as a American combatant, or whatelse?  And would the Geneva Convention

Sarah-palin-itus

. Am I the only one that watches the liberal roar caused by the soccer mom . . . and laughs?   I suspect Sarah is a nice and decent person who will eventually prove to be a better political critic than elected official. But who knows. She projects an effervescent personality, a better than average intelligence, and solid conservative values. Still,  as a political leader of consequence I suspect she is a female Peter. You do remember THE PETER PRINCIPLE don't you. Dixon