What about stewardship?

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to but more appropriately larger than that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny?

I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

The questions I would like to ask everyone are:

Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

I know it's selfish to say this, but I disagree with you. I never liked the idea of stewardship when it was used in England because of its implications such as forcefully marrying off the heirs in an arranged marriage to increase the family's wealth.

What's the point of hoarding all that wealth if neither you, nor the child to whom you will pass it on, nor the grandchild to whom your child will pass it on are allowed to spend it?

Any situation where you force an individual to do something against his own will "for the good of the community" is not all right in my book.

Yes, I agree that we must become caretakers of the Earth. But I think it must be done to improve the wellbeing of the current generation, not the wellbeing of some grandchild that I will probably never have.

Hudzon

You state the problem very well. How is it possible to overcome such an attitude. Perhaps it cannot be overcome. Where does the implementation of this kind of attitude take the planet?

Any attitude can be overcome, however the problem here is that you're not trying to overcome your attitude, but instead are asking everyone else to overcome theirs.

A perfect society isn't one that'll undermine everyone's values and replace them with its own, but one that'll thrive while populated with people who have opposing and contradicting values.

Anyway, to give a more helpful answer to your question, my selfish and egoistical values arose from living in a society where survival is nearly impossible without them. Capitalism and money hoarding are the moral values of today, as anyone without money will fall out of society and die on the streets.

If you want people to adopt better values and attitudes you have to give them the kind of environment where they won't have to resolve to pettiness and extreme egoism to survive.

Crime, one of the consequences of egoism, arises from two things: desire and opportunity. If you can create an environment where peoples desires are quenched without harming others, then they will have no incentive to commit crime.

Interesting topic, coberst. I disagree with your interpretation of "careful and responsible management", for the reasons Hudzon gave. However, there were a few points that Hudzon raised that gave me pause...


nicely put, and it seems a beautiful ideal for the perfect society, in theory, but not in practice since there are all sorts of deviants, like serial killers, whose values you would not want in any society. And to the extent that certain undesirables are excluded from society, there's going to be an imposition of values on certain people.


this seems extreme. I know many people, including myself, who do not place a high value on money because 1) the employment situation is such that we very rarely have to think about it and can thus free our minds to think about other more interesting things, and 2) the cost of trying to make and hoard excessive money is too great to justify, so there's no incentive for it. I can think of some professions, though, where the primary motivation is making money, and it's people in these professions that your claim seems valid for, though the people I have in mind who fit this description constitute a minority of society.

I don't think crime is an integral part of desire. I think it is the outcome of frustration and fear. Given the opportunity to live a life free from fear a person will not necessarily turn to crime to take anything if they have what they need.
If a person is taught to believe in survival by their parents, that some have and others don't, that people are not equal and life is a struggle, that competition is a necessary part of evolution and it is normal to step on or over others to get what you want, then conditions are right for the belief in suffering and lack.
Crime and its fulfillment is not that much different than the fulfillment of most desires in people who can afford to get, what another steals. Food, clothing and shelter would be the basic necessities of life but crime often extends itself beyond the basics.
For instance there are crimes of passion, and obsession. These crimes are not necessarily related to the basic desires of the body and its maintenance, but to the mental conditioning of psychological need.
Children who are deprived of love by their parents who themselves received little or no love and have not developed the capacity to give love without getting it, will pass on their beliefs and experiences in habit and action, creating a tradition of lack and emptiness, if they do not discover for themselves something different.

We teach our kids in school to be competitive and tell them to take what you can when you can, rather than to give when you can and to find fulfillment within the capabilities we inherently have. We also reinforce the idea that we are not equal in abilities or emotional development. That is why we have a short bus, in the U.S.

Following this, society creates for itself a system of compassion where welfare provides some of the necessary things for those who have accepted their limitations and in fear, find it difficult to move out into the world to get what they want because of the experience of failure, taught to them by example.
The conditions created where someone has the food, shelter and clothing for basic needs does not necessarily empower them or appease their psychological need for fulfillment. In fact it only enforces their beliefs in their own lack in the ability to take care of themselves.
This twisting of values then creates distortion in the perspectives of individuals who believe love is not a natural condition, but a condition for the privileged few. To find that the privileged are engrossed in their own desires that often exclude the humanity that has accepted and teaches these conditions, forever creates the tension in separation of castes or division in equality.

In order to create conditions that would seem ideal, it would have to be at birth, to nurture the values of what each has within themselves, to give to the whole without having to keep anything one has from another.
The system would have to be created by those who themselves have no negative conditioning, to pass on to the children who are like sponges absorbing knowledge, and emotional conditioning or the lack of conditioning.

The other way is to allow current conditions to reflect the struggle of the ego to determine what is real, and the spiritual heart within to break through the veil of ignorance that creates the loop of conditions that perpetuate the habit of ego.
This is what has driven some in their own evolution of self awareness into enlightenment. Once you know what doesn't work you stop doing it.
People are pretty stubborn tho, humanity is often like lemmings, out of a billion people, a billion people have died.


The funny thing is, only one who is big enough to understand the growth that takes place in struggle, could observe and guide those who are struggling to greater awareness, and that same psychological and spiritual maturity is the only guide to teach a child to live without conditions.

That is if we are to accept each other as a part of the whole.
Otherwise the ignorance of self absorption will perpetuate the unnecessary need for guidance.

what about the chessboard serial killer recently caught and convicted in Moscow, who claims to have killed 63 people because it made him feel like God? Evidently, this person took great pleasure in killing. Or if you've read Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment", where the protagonist's motivation for killing is desire to become stronger, and is not born of frustration or fear. Granted, it's a novel, but I think it's reasonable to think that there are perpetrators of crime who fear nothing and are not frustrated, but merely commit the crimes because they're exciting to commit. The fact that crime can arise from such natural desires as wanting to become stronger, or wanting more excitement, makes it reasonable to ask, is it possible to create an environment where these desires are completely quenched. Practically, I don't think you can. So if natural desires lead to crime and murder, then what hope is there for eradicating these?

It's one thing to say that you can curb natural desires through an ideal environment, but this ideal environment will be of no use for the few deviants who many people would regard as manifestations of pure evil, and whose evil is inborn and is not affected by environment.

On a related note, if you tried to implement and impose coberst's suggestion, that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth, I can guarantee that this will evoke a counter-movement composed of individuals dead set on destroying the earth. It's just human nature. All these myths and fables of good and evil are but the projection of man's own good and evil nature. The fact that evil figures so prominently in so many of these should hint at its universality.

I see your point, however the reason that I would prevent serial killers from murdering people isn't because I consider murder or some of their other values to be "bad" but because murder causes suffering to people.
If serial killers could kill people without harming people (an oxymoron, I know) then I would have nothing against serial killers existing within my society.

How would that be accomplished? Well, one idea is to create a realistic full-immersion virtual reality, where killers, rapists, child molesters and other deviants can act on their fantasies. If the virtual reality is indistinguishable from the real world, then why wouldn't they agree to commit the crimes within it? Especially since most alternatives include the phrase "lifetime sentence".

This way they can still quench their desires, while at the same time not harming any real people.

Also, I am not imposing on their values, I am imposing on their actions (which I admit, are driven by those values). As I said, not only are their values acceptable with me, but they also offer an interesting perspective on life that most of us rarely take time to consider. Expelling them from society just like that will result in humanity, as a whole, loosing those values. And moral or not, I think any value should be taken into consideration.

In the end, serial killers and child molesters are still humans, and deserve to be treated as such. My belief is that you should judge how successful any society is by the most unfortunate resident within it, criminal or not.

And isn't arguing that a society where you cannot kill people is not free the same as arguing that a society where you cannot cross a highway on a red light is not free? Yes, those are limitations, but hey, we have to compromise at some point.


I realize that I may have phrased it wrongly, but my intention was to say that at this point the moment you come of age you have no choice but to work, whether you like it or not.
And in society where money truly doesn't play a huge role, anyone should be able to obtain basic living conditions without being forced to work (And especially being forced to work at a job that he doesn't enjoy).

And it's not impossible either. Investing in skyscrapers for a large amount of free flats, renewable energy for free electricity and filtering seawater for "endless" water will provide everyone with the basic living needs they need.
Plus, seeing as the 1st world already has a surplus on food, once we reach the point where farms can be entirely automated by machines, there's little reason why we can't allow everyone for a "basic ratio" that they can get for free.

Joeus: You pose good points, (After such a post I have no idea why people complain about you...)
I agree that I overgeneralized my definition improperly. As Lucid pointed out I mainly considered smaller crimes such as theft, and did not consider the more extreme "deviants".

It's unclear whether simulations would appease these desires if the person knew it was a simulation. If they didn't know, then they could be jailed for violating the law even though the crime committed was within a simulation (this was the plot of some futuristic movie that I recently saw)

Also, it's not just serial killers and child molesters we'd need to worry about. The question is, how much is evil an ingrained aspect of human nature? We're talking about general sadism here, the desire to cause harm or pain to others, and so how pervasive is sadism and what effect can environment have in appeasing sadistic desires? If simulations worked, then all the shoot-em-up video games should be resulting in lower crime rates, but many people argue just the opposite, that these violent games encourage people to act out more violently. So why should we expect any different with realistic simulations, which will just be better shoot-em-up video games?

I don't think that anything is a definite part of the human nature, whether it is "evil" or any other concept.

Even the drive for reproduction, which some scientists argue is the sole purpose of life, can be easily dismissed by the existence of homosexuality.

Human nature is both dynamic, changing and undefined. Assigning any attribute to it has little merit.


Oh, it definitely is unclear, but that's the beauty of science!
Also, that's why I placed the word "indistinguishable" in italics - if it's realistic enough for them to believe that it's real, I would hypothesize that it would be enough to appease them. Of course without tests it's hard to say otherwise.


I'm not sure I see the logic here, since if the crime was committed in a simulation then that equates to no crime being committed. Unless you count a failed intention of a crime to be a crime as well.

Though it does raise an opposite point of locking criminals in a simulation without their consent if they committed some horrible crimes in the real world.
(A thought which scares the hell out of me since I immediately begin to wonder whether such a thing is happening to me right now)


I see what you're trying to say and the implications behind it, but as of yet, that is something that I cannot answer.


Well, I've seen some articles and statistics that argue just that, however I'm not sure if there are studies that were done on the subject.

Also, while I see what you mean, I am not suggesting to give developing kids games like "my first molested child". I meant to use those simulations on people who already have those kind of desires to help them quench them without harming anyone else.

The main difference would be that current games are obviously fake and are not fully immersing. A full immersion virtual reality that mimics all five senses would give out the impression of being real enough to perhaps satisfy these kind of people. However, at this point it's impossible to say which one of us is correct on the issue, since no actual studies have been done yet.

That does not remove the idea that he felt less than he did before moving into the killing God feeling mode. Expressing himself beyond the boundaries of the norm allowed him to feel like he could do more than what he was programmed to accept as real and normal.
Fear of being abandoned or ignored by not only society but ones best perception of a supreme consciousness is enough to depress and alter ones sensibilities to being a part of life.
Does it stand to reason that God feels like God by destroying life?
What he felt like and described in feeling like God, is not the same as Being God and creating life.
Twisted perceptions create twisted action. Fear enlivens a wide variety of beliefs and behavior.


Exciting because their is an emptiness that needs to be filled. If one is addicted to filling the senses that have no foundation in fullness, then one is searching for a place in being or to be. This takes any form you can imagine.


The only environment possible would be an environment that nourishes ones own self realization and fulfillment. Then the exterior environment will reflect ones own sense of self.
If anyone tries to feed of the exterior and it fails to meet the need then they will go on to another feeding ground.
Humans can be better than cows searching for the greenest pasture. We can create anything we want to, so it is not tantamount we create the ideal environment for diverse ideas. That environment already exists in the absolute and it is what supports the feeding ground that now exists as a reflection of the diverse psychosis that exists in the projections of belief and identity.


Exactly. Stewardship cannot be based on an ideal. It has to be based in the ideal or the infinite nature that supports all ideals.
If one can live in freedom of attachment and selfishness then one becomes a generator for natural resonance in fulfillment.
Depending on the nature of the receiver one can resonate at the same frequency or not.

In the case of this planet, there has to be a greater amount of resonance to that nature of reality that can override the deviant thought patterns of separation and fear. Like bringing light into the dark to wipe out the shadows. But as long as the balance resides in separation it becomes difficult for those who do not have the awareness of their own inner strength.
Basically it is a playground for conscious recognition in which some play better than others with more awareness of what the playground is.

Like the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, unless you keep it from water long enough to inspire the will to do anything, even kill to have water.

Here is a revised version of something I wrote back in April:

THINK OF STEWARDSHIP AS MANAGING THE TRYPTYCH OF LIFE
The word literally means, keeper of the animal stys--sty warden. In ancient times animals were a form of currency, still are among nomads.
=====================================================
I THINK OF LIFE AS BEING LIKE A TRIPTYCH--a whole picture made up of a set of three panels, which are set side by side. the central panel is that which contains the central and essential e--the one with a stewardship relationship to the other two.

The panel on the left contains the physical me, my nature, which I inherited from my parents and ancestors. The one on the right contains my nurture, that which represents the training and education I received from those who raised me.
=============================================================
The term 'triptych' comes from the Greek meaning three folds. Since the early 1970's I have been involved with a registered charity run entirely by volunteers that I helped found in 1973.

This is a good way of thinking about the kind of information we give to people who ask: What can the kind of program does your Family Life and Community Foundation, offer to people who come to you for help.

THE CENTRAL PANEL
Back to the importance of self-image. Let us call the central panel The Pneuma, or spiritual, Panel. As part of this panel we could also use terms like spirit, soul, mind, self, or even self-image.

It is no wonder that the first chapter of Maxwell Maltz's best-selling book, PSYCHO-CYBERNETICS--A New Way to GET MORE LIVING OUT OF LIFE (1960), is entitled: The Self Image: Your Key to a Better Life.

By the way, the Pocket Book edition came out in 1969. Millions bought the book in its first decade, and it is still selling (2007). Maltz was trained as a medical doctor and a plastic surgeon. I writes that it was his experience as a plastic surgeon which made him keenly aware of the role played by the human mind, or spirit, when it comes to physical and mental health. He also readily admits that many writers before him discovered the need to understand the psychology of self and that it can mean the difference between health and disease, success and failure, love and hate, a life filled with bitterness and one filled with joy and love.

Long before Maltz, Carl Jung--the author of many books, including Man's Search for His Soul--the founder of analytical psychology, called for a "science of the spirit". I wonder if Jung was aware of pneumatology, which we will discuss, later?

ABOUT JUNG
http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/jung.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

http://www.friesian.com/jung.htm

Jung, whose work, generally speaking, I admire--I consider him to be one of my intellectual heroes--had many critics. Here is one:
http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/jungleg.html

ABOUT WILLIAM JAMES
--Who I consider to be another one of my intellectual heroes.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/james.html
On his theory of the soul, the mind, the spirit or self-image.

WHAT ABOUT JESUS' POINT OF VIEW?
I have little idea of what the following is all about, but I find it interesting. Check it out and let me know what you think, okay?
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/james/soul.htm
=================================
For decades, I have been practicing, what I think of as the art of counseling, by asking people, who come to me for help, the following kind of questions:


Are you, personally, willing to be part of the healing process? That is, are you willing to be part of the solution, not just part of the problem?

Then I add: Unless I get a yes, I cannot help you. And, in my humble opinion: Neither can anyone else. Even Jesus could not help people "of little faith". He taught that faith could be as small as a grain of mustard seed--the smallest seed in that part of the world--but it had to be there.

Once I have the consent, or the will, of the person--part of the pneuma panel--to begin the process, without negelecting what is going on in the person's spirit, I move quickly into what is going on in the person's SOMA--the physical panel. Physically speaking, we are what we eat.

SOMA, PSYCHE, AND PNEUMA--THE THREE PANELS
Keep in mind that by 'nutrition' I am talking complete nutrition--physically, mentally and spiritually. Complete nutrition involves the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. It also includes what we ingest mentally and spiritually, as well as physically.

In my humble opinion, physically speaking, incomplete nutrition is what is destroying the physical health of millions of people, locally and worldwide. Incomplete physical nutrition is the root cause of the epidemic of obesity about which we are now being frequently informed by the media.

THE PREVENTION OF DISEASE
Beginning with the study of the spirit, or pneuma, pneumatology, those of us involved in holistic health give prevention priority role in all this. The goal of the FLF (including the community, the total community and students of pneumatology) is the much less expensive route. It is the route of the prevention of disease. Does this include you? We trust it does.

Unfortunately, prevention is not on the top of the mind (the spirit, the soul) of most people. It should be! What about you?

PREVENTION OF PHYSICAL DISEASE IS ABOUT PHYSICAL NUTRITION
By helping us to have complete nutrition--and it is not all that complex. It is the kind of nutrition which is designed to provide us with a balanced metabolism. This can prevent what I call yoyo-glycemia--blood insulin and glucose imbalance--BIGI. Prevent BIGI and diseases such as diabetes will be prevented.

In my opinion, the reward is that we will live by faith, hope and love, remain healthy and happy people, dieopinion, the purpose of life is to live with health and joy, and to die in peace with hope that there is joy is life eternal.
====================================
STEWARDSHIP AND THE ROLE OF RELIGION
By the way: When I say, my 'religion' is...I am simply referring to my way of life--from day to day. In other words, one's philosophy of life IS one's religion. Most people who say they have no use for religion mean organized religion with all the trappings such as dogmas, rituals and politics.

STEWARDSHIP AND ECONOMICS
Economics. The term comes, almost directly, from Greek word, oikonomos, which literally means, 'rules of managing, or running, one's household'. Interestingly, oikos, is the Greek for 'house'. The usual English translation is 'steward'--a keeper of the animal stys.

Before the introduction of metals, animals were basic elements of the economy. Both kinds of commodities made up what we now mean when we refer to a barter economy.

STEWARDSHIP AND THE BARTER ECONOMY
The FLF is interested in the promotion of the barter economy in modern times. We think of it as, not in competition to, but complimentary to the market economy. Check out www,universalbartergroup.com
This system could save many in times of economic collapse caused the failure of currencies.

The members of the FLF believe in the use of complementary and community currencies (CCC).

By the way, we believe that, at little or no personal risk, those who are willing to experiment with this system, will discover that it is a way to employ everyone seeking employment. They will learn how to do many things, which are good, not just for the bottom line, but for the whole of society.

In addition to the hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry and mathematics, this approach leads members of the FLF to develop an interest in all the social sciences, including anthropology, sociology, psychology and ethics.

The Family Life Foundation is a volunteer-operated and non-sectarian and registered charity, in Canada. I believe that all charities should be run by volunteers supported by barter bucks. The number is 888 762 663 RR0001.

Lindsay

I think that your idea about religion and stewardship makes good sense.

It appears to me that reason may not be a useful means to achieve a consensus upon stewardship. Stewardship requires selfless motivation and I suspect reason is not strong enough to overcome the human focus upon self-interest. Perhaps religion is the only means for accomplishing a determination for accepting stewardship of the planet as a fundamental responsibility for all humans.