Mindless Ramblings...

How does anyone know what normal is?
For someone who has lived in poverty all his life, receiving less than the "basic" necessities is a good life.
To the rest of the world, he has lived in a life of depravity, deserving of pity.

Perhaps it is by a standard set by scientists and politicians through careful work and research.
If you fall below it, you are sub-normal and need external help.
If you at least meet it, you are normal.

In essence, whether you are normal is entirely dependant upon comparisons.

What then if there are no comparisons to be made?
What if the distinctions are not immediately discernable?
For example, how does a person know if he suffers from a low self-esteem?

Sure, you could provide symptoms and let people check off the list on their own examination.
And there will always be people who exaggerate their own problems so as to chalk up a list of problems.
It is human nature: the more problems you live with, the greater the hero you seem to become.

Straying from more spiritual issues, even medicine has committed this error many times over.
Judging from the symptoms that the patient exhibits, there have been instances -- albeit few, but nevertheless significant in number -- whereby science has wrongly diagnosed the condition that the patient has.

More relevant to the issue at hand, science with all its checks and balances, still commit such errors.
What more if we were to scrutinise our own life and symptoms for conditions such as depression or autism or hyperactivity, for example?
How do we ever know?

Bad Singaporeans

There are often only 2 ways to unite people for a common goal. One is to appeal to their sense of community and the other to appeal to direct, immediate benefits. We have often chosen the latter option, strangely enough. Take a look at my favourite example: environmental concern.

For a period of time that coincided around the conception of the term "environmentalism," there was fierce battle between science and commercialism. Environmentalists like Aldo Leopold was penning philosophies about land ethic while others were desperately trying to make known their findings that the Earth was being irreversibly damaged. On the other hand, industrialists were proclaiming the dawning of a new age, of a future that holds promise of employment and wealth. They too, had their own team of people specialising in downplaying the research data of the scientists. It was a most confusing time for the common person who was interested in issues regarding nature.

Today, things have changed. It all started when the hole in the ozone layer was discovered around 1987. Since then, firms have been desperately flinging themselves onto the bandwagon of energy efficiency and environmental consideration. Spearheaded by Shell, HSBC and a whole host of vehicle manufacturers, companies are driven by success stories like Tesco which by going green has managed to save phenomenal amounts of money, translating into tremendous profits. Timberland is promising to plant a tree for every certain amount spent on its product while most other fashion labels are starting to utilise recycled or environmental-friendly materials for its clothing design. All these certainly seem to be suggest hope and promise.

Purists are definitely crying bloody murder over the fact that these people are not driven by a sense of duty or, as Leopold would put it, a sense of harmony with the other beings that you share this world with. But their voices are weak and continuously dwindling. Even amongst their ranks, many quietly agree that ideals could never have inspired such a concerted effort to conserve what precious little we have left. All it took was for people to have a reason to act, and it is only rational that private, tangible benefits is enough reason.

But what of those who stubbornly refuse to change? I am referring, of course, to the recent move by local supermarkets to designate specific dates to advocate a reduced plastic usage level. In brief summary, plastic bags would cost 10-cents per piece, so patrons were encouraged to bring their own grocery bags. Admittedly, it sounds pretty bland. Still, at least it made people think about the issue, even if for a fleeting moment. In all, a good start to environmental movements for Singapore.

It was then utterly disgusting when the newspapers reported that most Singaporeans merely walked over to the fruits section and plucked the meal bags, using them as ready substitutes for the now-expensive plastic bags. Some who were interviewed commented on their right to plastic bags and their need for it. They made it seem like 10 cents was a lot of money. They made it seem like they were being oppressed into no plastic bags. They made it seem like they were totally caught off-guard and did not know of such a campaign.

Seriously, grow up! What is the point of having a campaign like this if people are going to skirt the whole issue and pat themselves on the back for it?

This always happens. Everytime you try to convince yourself that Thomas Hobbes was wrong, that humans are not innately evil and selfish, it happens. Everytime you come up with enough scenarios to prove evolutionary's argument that morals are anti-progress at their very essence, it happens. People turn their backs and exhibit complete selfishness when you are regaining hope for us. Give them Hello Kitty McDonald's toys and the people force their way to the extent that the doorframe broke. A shop gives away obsolete items and guess what? People get injured in a mad rush for these free, unused goods.

Are we really, as a whole, that shallow?

Honestly, I do not dare venture a guess anymore.