Identity

From some of my previous posts, it might be apparent that I seek a common denominator; one that can define, and unite us as humans. A common identity. In that sense, I think this continues on the previous post.
I believe that the institutions of our fathers give us a ground on which to build on, but not to follow without thought. Religion, nationality, community, language, regions... there are plenty of things that we find identity with. These are concepts that can induce tremendous passion and provide its followers with purpose. They provide crucial structure for the development of the individual within the community. They have, in fact, shaped the way civilization has developed to this point.


However, over the past few years, advances in technology particularly with regard to communication, have been instrumental in changing our lives, our communities, and with those, our perceptions of identity. This has enabled people at different corners of the globe to interact instantly. This, coupled with easier travel, has erased many a boundary, wherever that existed. Traditional definitions of closed communities are rapidly being overthrown to bring in concepts of larger, global communities, a 'global village'. National boundaries are of no concern. Trade has become global, ideas flow with no regard to location, race, color... In this melting pot of cultures, concepts that were once considered the basis for one's existence suddenly lose value.
Take language, for example. Though there are millions of languages all over the world, with growing communities, there is an urgency for a common language, and a common platform for communication. In this situation, a person's mother tongue, something that has been a source of 'identity', is now being more or less replaced with another language, purely for functional reasons. Future generations might choose to take up the new functional language as their mother tongues, and with passing time, the initial language can not only lose significance, but can also fade away with disuse.
I am not going to argue the merits and demerits of this; that would be a whole post by itself. But it serves to illustrate how such concepts change over time, or rather, how our identity with these concepts change. Further, it is inevitable over generations. Therefore, as we go stripping down to our cores, the only identity we share with this global community is our humanity.
How do we express, or share this identity? Simply by accepting one another, accepting we are the same regardless of where we come from or what we are.
It also arises that once we accept this humanity as our identity, everything else becomes secondary. Identity will necessarily have to be singular. Therefore, concepts that we hold dear will have to be re-evaluated.


What do I mean by identifying with humanity? It is accepting that our further evolution lies not just in individual advancement but in the advancement of the global community. It is accepting that contributing to this community transcends national, religious, or communal interests. I think it was best put by Asimov in his Zeroth law of robotics, a law that preceded protecting an individual human being, which was the First law: A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm. Just imagine the possibilities of such a community. Instead of warring over land, we fight against poverty, disease... improve the lot of mankind. To cope with our population explosion, we should be putting all our energies into actually exploring outer space, to find alternatives to Earth, to push our boundaries, to advance. The alternative is surely degeneration as our resources deplete.


The ideas are all there. We know where the truth lies. Are we ready to accept it? Will we put aside our differences for our common humanity? Religion had/has the ability to induce passion and fervor. It bought people together, to rally under a banner. Would we feel the same way about our humanity? Is this just an idealistic dream, totally free from practicality? I don't think so. It makes the most practical sense. But how do we bring people to realize it? What is that common denominator? A visionary leader to show us the way, is that what we need? Or, is there something apart from our humanity, something else that can appeal to everyone on earth and give a basis for our unity? I have more questions than answers. 
Maybe we do need a global catastrophe to actually help us realize it.

Lovin'

There floats a lot of stuff about love... vague definitions, about it being unquantifiable, unmeasurable, and not comprehensible to rationality. Many say it is a 'feeling'. A feeling of deep attachment to something/someone, the withdrawal of which causes pain. Since it is a feeling, it also has the ability to arouse tremendous emotion, which is also confused with the definition of love itself... if the emotions associated with love are removed, would love make any sense at all to many people? So, what is the perception of love in those of us, with the 'emotional capacity of a teaspoon'?
I think love is something that stems from an initial selfish need that then evolves to accommodate moments of selflessness. There's a book by Stephen Covey, where he compares the 'love' in any situation to a bank balance. You put something in, you take something out. You sometimes go on overdraft, but for the account to stay active, you got to put back in, to reach a healthy bottomline. It makes sense. After all, no one wants to be giving all the time. No person is selfless all the time, not even a mother. So here, love is about understanding, accepting differences, and showing willingness to work toward a common goal.  Why do we do it? Because we benefit from it, it gives us happiness. It does not involve emotions, feelings, or intimacy... things that we normally associate with love. And this love, is applicable to a global sense. I can love humanity. I can love you. I can probably even love loud neighbors. There's a friend who says that true love is when you can actually 'love' a person who has harmed you... how do you love a person who has raped your sister, or put a gun to your head? It seems a tall order, but in this definition, it is probably possible. However, my love doesn't mean I condone the person's actions, but I accept his weaknesses, his inherent humanity. He will be punished, but does not become an object for hate. So hate, I assume, has to be the utter opposite; an unwillingess to accept/understand someone. So there, to all you unbelievers, I've stripped love of all its glamor, gloss, and it still makes sense. The emotions that we experience are normally a product of our interactions, our intimacy, and not a product of love. The expression of love, or the lack of it, induces all emotion. Feelings for a person is not equal to love. But the intimacy, the emotions, the testosterone, the oestrogen, and the feelings, all of 'em mix with the underlying love and create the colorful, beautiful, and totally imperfect 'love' that we share with 'that one person' :) Gotta love biology for that!
So, there you go kids, now you know what to look for! All you girls that sit starry-eyed, dreaming for that perfect 'Darcy' and boys who walk about looking for love in the prettiest pair of legs, you know what you gotta do :) And for the ones moaning, crying and wasting over 'lost love', get a life!

Edit 12/26/2010: An npr article that shares the same view, albeit written much better
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/25/132291375/what-is-love#more