Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The big questions we ask ourselves as we get older - How to help others
I had this weird thought yesterday. I was considering some of my old friends from private school, most of whom went on to expensive and very classy universities and now have corporate jobs in huge companies doing marketing, finance or IT. However, so many of them work for just whatever company; let's use Pepsi Co. as an example. I personally could not work for Pepsi. I could not work for a soda company that makes, markets and sells such an unhealthy drink. But Pepsi makes lots of money and can afford to have these great young minds with excellent educations working for them.
So the thought occurs to me: imagine what we could do if those great minds were working for a different company, cause or organization, like "good childrearing habits," for example. Now I'm assuming my old friends don't work for this cause because there is little to no money in it. Too bad. It also seems to me, though, that there could be money to be made in the good causes if we looked at the world differently... but that's a tangent I'm not going down right this second.
So then I get to thinking some more. Our current U.S. government is very hands-off business and this is where my argument is going to get controversial. In my very limited 20-something experience of life, I have noticed that the vast majority of people do not appear have the critical thinking skills required to reason through arguments on their own. Now I'm not sure if this is because they lack the ability to do so, or because they are unpracticed or lazy or what. When you've got all these corporations spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing for products that no one needs in their lives combined with a bunch of people who are more likely to believe the "well-laid" argument of the soda company rather than understand for themselves the pros and cons of their actions, I think we have a bit of a mess.
And I come to my point! I am saddened that the government is so hands-off with corporations. It is not enough to make the cigarette companies spend money on "good deeds." I feel that the government (and myself, and you and our neighbors) are responsible for the messages that we send to each other. We've said it's okay for McDonald's to tell you they have healthy options. And that people must not only fight off the brainwashing marketing campaign, but must then have the skills it takes to read, understand and analyze how healthy that meal's ingredients actually are. And hopefully make a good decision about what they eat, because the individual is responsible for their own actions regardless of external pressures and their skill level. I am not currently convinced that the majority of people in this country truly have the ability to take good care of themselves and their families in the face of so many unhealthy, but appetizing choices. It's as if the vast majority are being thrown to "the wolves" of corporate marketing campaigns. And the fact of the matter is we pay the government to employ people who are experts in fields like health. I don't want them to tell me what to do, per se, but what would happen if they were a little more bold in their declamations of things we shouldn't eat, for example? Or what if they actually insisted meals available to the public were of a certain health standard? It is supposedly cheaper to feed your family junk food right now, putting families who are below the poverty line in a very awkward position.
We all pay the price for this. Poor diet weighs on our health care system, poor parenting weighs on pretty much every aspect of life, etc., etc.
I know this is super long and I hope someone sees how I am connecting this with Buddhist perspective, even though I haven't really typed that out here. I'm wondering how this sounds to other people. And I'm just curious what kind of responses this will evoke from others. I have witnessed a lot of really bad decisions from people I know and am questioning how prepared to cope with these problems they actually were, and who is responsible for preparing people for life. If we know someone is not equipped to handle a certain situation, what is our role in the matter? I know I feel partially responsible, even if only through the decisions I make in my personal life.
So the thought occurs to me: imagine what we could do if those great minds were working for a different company, cause or organization, like "good childrearing habits," for example. Now I'm assuming my old friends don't work for this cause because there is little to no money in it. Too bad. It also seems to me, though, that there could be money to be made in the good causes if we looked at the world differently... but that's a tangent I'm not going down right this second.
So then I get to thinking some more. Our current U.S. government is very hands-off business and this is where my argument is going to get controversial. In my very limited 20-something experience of life, I have noticed that the vast majority of people do not appear have the critical thinking skills required to reason through arguments on their own. Now I'm not sure if this is because they lack the ability to do so, or because they are unpracticed or lazy or what. When you've got all these corporations spending ridiculous amounts of money on marketing for products that no one needs in their lives combined with a bunch of people who are more likely to believe the "well-laid" argument of the soda company rather than understand for themselves the pros and cons of their actions, I think we have a bit of a mess.
And I come to my point! I am saddened that the government is so hands-off with corporations. It is not enough to make the cigarette companies spend money on "good deeds." I feel that the government (and myself, and you and our neighbors) are responsible for the messages that we send to each other. We've said it's okay for McDonald's to tell you they have healthy options. And that people must not only fight off the brainwashing marketing campaign, but must then have the skills it takes to read, understand and analyze how healthy that meal's ingredients actually are. And hopefully make a good decision about what they eat, because the individual is responsible for their own actions regardless of external pressures and their skill level. I am not currently convinced that the majority of people in this country truly have the ability to take good care of themselves and their families in the face of so many unhealthy, but appetizing choices. It's as if the vast majority are being thrown to "the wolves" of corporate marketing campaigns. And the fact of the matter is we pay the government to employ people who are experts in fields like health. I don't want them to tell me what to do, per se, but what would happen if they were a little more bold in their declamations of things we shouldn't eat, for example? Or what if they actually insisted meals available to the public were of a certain health standard? It is supposedly cheaper to feed your family junk food right now, putting families who are below the poverty line in a very awkward position.
We all pay the price for this. Poor diet weighs on our health care system, poor parenting weighs on pretty much every aspect of life, etc., etc.
I know this is super long and I hope someone sees how I am connecting this with Buddhist perspective, even though I haven't really typed that out here. I'm wondering how this sounds to other people. And I'm just curious what kind of responses this will evoke from others. I have witnessed a lot of really bad decisions from people I know and am questioning how prepared to cope with these problems they actually were, and who is responsible for preparing people for life. If we know someone is not equipped to handle a certain situation, what is our role in the matter? I know I feel partially responsible, even if only through the decisions I make in my personal life.
0
Comments
The US experiment has been with a 'hands-off' government and I imagine that the cultural impact of a new paradigm would be considerable - and resisted by many within the USA.
My own Buddhism suggests to me that I need to let go of my own cultural preferences because they are empty constructs and not absolutes. The way to a safer and better life for our children and grandchildren may lie through some very hard times and real sacrifice. In order to prepare ourselves for these very sacrifices, we need to learn and teach the equanimity and harmlessness that lie at the heart of our practice.
In the 'recovery' work, we speak about 'tough love': action or intervention that may cause immediate distress for future benefit.
In addition, the problems that we confront, be they environmental or health and welfare, are no longer simply national. They need supra-national solutions. Once again, as a Buddhist, I have arguments and language which permits me to challenge petty nationalism whilst the deep respect for all beings enables me to celebrate local difference.
In a world of harm and threat, we can continue to embody ahimsa (harmlessness) and can show in our lives how empowering it becomes.
As an A&E nurse i wonder why alcohol can't be made illegal, by far the worst drug in terms of health consequences i see. And the precedent for banning potentially harmful substances is already set. But we all know what the prohibition did state side.
Hi Delphi,
It is truly a puzzle and a problem. Prohibiting alcohol would appear to be one way of dealing with a problem. And I agree, as one who has worked with addictions both personally and professionally, that alcohol is pernicious. Then again, as you say, the US experience does not give one much hope.
What can be noticed, however, is that we did make real strides in moving people to safer sexual practices, for example, and in reducing smoking by concerted education campaigns. It is among the young that we must start. To hell with the "Let's teach them to drink 'sensibly'." Let's show them what alcohol causes. Let's bring up a generation that doesn't want to drink.
The precept against intoxicants may be a counsel of perfection but should we not, as compassionate people let alone as Buddhists, encourage abstinence whilst eschewing legislation?
I guess that's where we disagree. I believe a government's responsibility is to defend against threats abroad and protect citizens from the aggression of others. The state's job should not be to hold our hands all the way through life telling us what not to eat and what not to drink or smoke.
Why should the government regulate choice though? No one forces people to eat unhealthy foods. McDonald's doesn't and neither does any other company. If I want to eat unhealthy foods, I should be able to indulge in them as much as I want (at my own peril of course). If you don't go along with what the government wants you to do, men with guns will show up at your door and lock you up. If you don't give in to McDonald's advertising, the company won't do anything to you.
For instance, I enjoy smoking cigars and drinking wine. No one forces me to do so. I just like it.
I am wary of a government that pretends to know what's best for me.
Would you like to abolish the FDA? The CDC? The SEC? After all, they are 'hand holding' organisations. And what about your system of Medicare? How about getting rid of that and other hand-holding social services?
No, my concern here is that I think there are people who are not capable of understanding that eating McDonald's 5 days a week (let alone at all) is unhealthy. Well, not that they are not capable of understanding, but that they are not capable of reasoning it out for themselves. It takes a lot of mental maneuvering to get past the advertising campaigns, then the "healthy choice" menu, find the food facts card, understand it, and then find a better choice. If there really are people who are not capable of rationally making their way through that process, what is our responsibility? My husband would probably say that Darwin will "take care of it," but what about the drain on the health care system alone in this particular example? It's not as though a "healthy eater" is left unaffected.
I'm not saying I know the right answer. I wouldn't be here if I did. Frankly, I'm here because I don't know the answer, but I would like to look for more solutions.
Having been on Medicaid and WIC (Women, Infants and Children - a resource for mothers, including pregnant mothers) in the past, it is alarming the habits so many people have. They have habits, like we all do, that keep them exactly where they are: poor, jobless, homeless, hungry, uneducated and on and on. I am proof that not everyone in those programs falls under all of those labels, but to sit in the Medicaid building is informative. The behavior and dress of the majority of people in that waiting room says a lot about who these services mainly accommodate. MANY are there for the same problem on loop. Unfortunately, many of them will never be able to become independent from these services. Why? Are they lazy, crazy, unprepared, or just going through a rough patch? Well, they are all of the above, but who is accountable? And what should we do about it?
Right now I'm thinking of the students I have with mental disabilities. These disabilities range from severe (autism, downs syndrome, etc.) to moderate (A.D.D., aspergers, etc.) We have a tendency to look at a kid and if we can tell they have additional needs, because, for example they have downs syndrome, which is physically obvious, we are more likely to understand their needs and accommodate them. On the other hand, kids with less obvious needs get labeled "bad students" or "disruptions" because they can't perform. It's easy to look at a fat person and say, "Well, it's no one's fault but their own, because they eat unhealthy foods. No one makes them eat those foods." And, to a certain extent, this thinking is correct. But this thinking is not very compassionate. There are many reasons a person may struggle with obesity. Let's say it is something they will need external help with, like an over-eating disorder. Are they equipped with the skills/ability required to acknowledge their own needs and seek the appropriate help? If they are equipped but don't seek help, then I think we still can be understanding, but what if they are not prepared to deal with this situation? What if they don't understand how/what they are doing to themselves or why it is bad? What can be done?
I can see how I can personally be more compassionate toward others (and boy, do I need to keep practicing!), but I'm seeking ways to "think bigger."
I am as well. Many people, however, are a bit (or a lot) more trusting/gullible/needy/whatever word you would like to use than we are. What of them?
I guess it depends on what role you believe the government plays, but if it has a place in defendong and protecting perhaps that could extend to psychological threats as well as physical. Just a suggestion.
In the U.K. we also have the moral twist that the health service is funded by the taxpayer, so Mr Joe Smith may well want the government to clamp down on chronic users so that he hasn't got to pay so much for other peoples' health care.
Maybe a short stint of work experience in healthcare may open some eyes of the consequences of actions, as for young people it is often hard to visualise what will happen to you in years to come.
When I was trying to teach 'listening skills' to medical students and (worse still) qualified doctors, I suggested that they go with some small problem to an A&E department where they were not known and share the 'patient experience'.
In my more extremist moments, when I think about the NHS (our 'socialised' health service), I find myself wishing I could compel our legislators to spend a week as a hospital porter and a week as an in-patient before being allowed to vote in Parliament.
Mr. Joe Smith could better spend his time petitioning the government to privatize health insurance. That way, if you actually have to pay for your own health insurance and care, you will be far less likely to abuse the system.
What, just like the lucky people in the US who have no medical insurance?
Socialized medicine entails higher taxes, more bureaucracies, and very long waits at times. It sounds nice to say, "free health care for all", but at what cost?
And what of the costs of having a large population not insured? And I'm thinking practically--like the clogged emergency rooms, since this is where the non-insured person goes when they have to go to the doctor?
Have you ever been on/paid for your own insurance and health care or are you still supported by your parents?
Don't take this as a personal jab, I'm just trying to figure out if your point of view comes from experience or theory or both.
Also I hear in Ireland an A&E attandance costs something like 30 euros regardless.
Means-tested healthcare, the poorer you are the more financial support?
I've never worked in a privitised healthcare arena so i'm not sure how it works exactly, but it has a bad reputation. And the idea that it's your health being assessed and not your wallet is always reassuring. Just think of all those poor buddhist monks who would be turned away.
I was wondering when you guys were going to ask me that.
To answer it, no, I don't because I am only 17 years old. Of course my lack of experience may not bode well for my arguments, but my dad, who grew up in poverty, also sees this issue the same way. And more often than not, children inherit the political and religious views of their parents...most of the time.
A lot of long waits only to find the person you thought you were waiting for either isn't there or is not ever going to give you an answer. At least that's how it was for me. I also found that dressing nicely and being polite, professional and a little sweet was a sure way to turn that sour woman at the desk into a much kinder person. Too bad there are so many people who turn up in dirty PJ's with their screaming kids (or screaming selves). I was too afraid to bring my son with me because I thought he'd get sick in the waiting room. Hygiene seemed to be optional and telling strangers your sob story was popular if you were nice enough to acknowledge the fact they were sharing breathing space with you.
At the time, it made me feel very uppity, like, "Why are we giving money to these people who are obviously never going to get off this support system! They're not even trying!" Although I was so appreciative the system was there to support me when I needed it - what a double standard! But now I see things a little differently and I wonder why we/I aren't/am not doing more to help them, although it must be something different, I think.
You are twice as likely to die by your own hand as by another's. Yet the issue of suicide is rarely discussed.
More people from the US returning home from Iraq have killed themselves in ONE year than have died during the entire conflict.
More young men killed themselves during the Viet Nam period than died in the war.
I could go on. I was trained by a Tibetan Buddhist to be a suicide prevention and crisis counselor. That lead me to consider a career in psychotherapy and the institute I attend has an East/West component.
Entering the stream can mean entering the waters where suffering is at a crisis pitch. Anyone can volunteer to become a hotline worker. They offer the training and you just do it.
Some here know that I spent some 35 years as a counsellor/psychotherapist, working both in the NHS and in private practice. I have also trained counsellors, both face-to-face and telephone support work. It is one of my few achievements that I helped to set up the first safe and confidential helpline in my locality for GLBT young people.
You mention the hidden epidemic of suicide, Island, and I would agree that it is a very serious problem, particularly among young men.I think that real study is needed into its aetiology. We need to listen to people and come to understand the pain that drives them to such an extremity. From my personal experience, we also need to understand that the very medications often prescribed to help in one area may produce harmful mental effects. The psychiatric pharmacopoeia is far from completely understood.
Whilst I think it can be pretty counter-productive to 'prescribe' meditative discipline as specifically Buddhist, I have no doubt that most of the basic aspects of it can be extremely helpful to both the therapist and the 'client'. In many cases, my sessions with clients would start of finish or contain a short period of focussed, silent awareness. In all cases, 100%, feedback was positive and over 75% of clients told me that they made time for silent awareness at home as well. Whether they have continued, I am not sure, although I know that one or two of them have taken up a regular practice of their own.
Having said this, I am also conscious that we need to be skillful in using so powerful a tool.
My training as a Buddhist informs my way of being which then informs my way with those I listen to. I don't do the talking or advise or fix or change or save; I listen. I never want to push any beliefs whatever on anyone. I just think that combining Buddhism with psychotherapy will enhance my practice in both senses and make me a more effective and skillful person all around.
I want to work with serious conditions such as PTSD, bipolar, and borderline. In many many cases, meditation is difficult if not impossible (perhaps even harmful) for people suffering to this degree. Silence too can precipitate decompensation so all of this needs to be weighed in the balance.
Mind you Island, just to let you know... Simon is a seven-year old prodigy.
but she's a nice girl....
Kidding... he's a wise head on wiser shoulders, and he's a special soul....
good team we got here.
Island, I'm glad you made it over. :winkc:
Seven's a very good age. It is the calm before the storm. My only bad memory of being 7 is of a music teacher who convinced me that I couldn't sing. If I had to choose a perfect age, it would be 7. School is still fun and discovery (although only the latter applied to our lunches); the world is exciting and full of joy.
Island,
Great posts! I would like to be a suicide/crisis prevention counselor if it ever became possible to do such work from home as I'm disabled and can't work outside the home. Maybe I'll look into it...
You *can* do crisis hotline work from home; many of the volunteers did! They preferred to be in the quiet comfort of their homes when receiving calls.
I never did so, preferring to go into the office, but that is because I don't really have the privacy to have the space to receive calls.
It wasn't complicated. You do have to do something funky about your phone, like a block on the number to protect your own privacy, but other than that, it is just like working in the office. And there is almost always an answering service that assists you in directing calls or answering when you can't or are busy.
The shifts tend to be about 4 hours in length once a week. Any more than that produces burn out and is discouraged, even with the most experienced.
The training I got was extensive and thorough. After all it is people's lives in the balance. But don't let that put you off. It is amazing to go through the training. I did it again and again because it was like intensive dharma work to me.
We covered 800,000 people but still a shift averaged 2-4 calls in 4 hours of about 20 minutes each. Most are crisis calls, really most are people who feel all alone and need to talk about something. All you have to do is do what Buddhist do best: show up and sit. The rest takes care of itself.
Suicide calls follow a special and different protocol than other crisis calls. Direct questions about safety and such. They were in fact easier to handle because the situation is very clear cut and the procedure too.
The work was stimulating and enjoyable, even if that sounds odd to say about suffering. It isn't because you are helping exactly or saving or fixing. You have to let go of those notions. Rather it is about genuine human connection. When people are in crisis, they are really seeking connection and that is moving and powerful to experience.
I think of the young men who I teach Yoga, Buddhism and English to at a local provinical prison here in Cambodia as being my children and I assit them as I can.
If we can look at all as the Buddhist teachings ask us to, we think, speak, act and live with wisdom and compassion.
But sometimes we may be confused about what this means practically speaking?
One thing that I think is means is that we are patient and not overly atached to things going the way that we would like them to.
Perhaps another is that we make an effort to keep ourselves balanced so we are able to assist others whenever we see such a need in them.
Kind and gentle words are also helpful as they can uplift a confused or unhappy mind, and the thoughts and feelings that accompany those unskillful staes of mind.
Kindness on our words is not a difficult thing to acheive.
Thanks again! I'll be looking into it soon and if anything comes of it I'll let you know.