I began this blog in 2018, and have developed theses on the fundamental importance of informed individual consent.  I have been led by what I have learned in cited works.  Now, seven years on, I realize that few readers are likely to look back to my earlier works to get the whole of my thesis (there are some side-trips).  So it is time to extract from the earlier posts the portions of my thesis which have developed atop each other over the seven years, and perhaps to update them (reconsidering, eh?).  As I do this, I will footnote the post from which I have extracted material, so that today’s reader will be able to see the entirety of a particular essay, along with all the resources.  I will update this on the basis of new material.

This is from another 2018 post, updated.¹

So, how to face the future?

First, recognize that there is no benefit in pessimism, despair, or cynicism.

Second, prayer works, if primarily by changing the perceptions of the pray-er about what the situation really is.  Of course, the prayer its very self may be answered affirmatively, but it’s often difficult to know whether that is the result, or something that would have happened anyway.  And it often takes a long time to recognize the answer. The Divinity is not a short-order cook, after all. Too, small things can change large matters, so perhaps whatever results from prayer need not be a “major” miracle.  This I glean from 40 years of listening to peoples’ accounts of their prayer lives, typically during and after times of extreme trial.

Third, information and politics are central to many concerns from the climate crisis to economics to civil rights to education to health care to senior care. It is critically important to know things and to very actively try to get the political actors to pay better attention to evidence. We let so much slide by for so long, that we doubtless shall have very difficult times, and will have to work hard to do customary as well as new things with wisdom, compassion, and decisiveness. I have no doubt that such can be done; just a great deal of doubt whether there are enough actors with similar beliefs and efforts to make it happen in the varied arenas — personal, within a family, and in society in general.

Fourth, the Three Questions of Hillel (Jewish religious leader spanning the first centuries before and during this “Common Era”) continue to inspire:

“If I am not for myself, who will be?

“If I am only for myself, who am I?

If not now, when?”

These are, I think, the great ontological questions, and seeking constantly to answer them  provides some motivation to keep on, no matter what.

Finally: “even were I certain that the world would end tomorrow, I would plant a tree today.” So said (perhaps) Martin Luther, although I have seen it ascribed to a centurion of the Roman Pilate (governor of Judea first century CE; sorry, can’t cite a source). There is something important and inspiring about acting to benefit tomorrow, even though there may not be a tomorrow.

I do anticipate, however, that there will be a tomorrow for some, or for many, but a not very pleasant one.²

I still want to be able to consent and dissent. Doing so requires careful oversight of life, and a great deal of effort. I had not earlier thought that life could require so much oversight, monitoring, and thought (certainly not human oversight) – but there is so much that just happens, isn’t there?  But it does. The drive for informed consent or dissent helps me keep at it.

What’s required, as suggested by Cass Sunstein in #Republic, is that people make extraordinary efforts to be with people who are very different from themselves. There is much research which shows that personal acquaintance can diminish fear or suspicion.  But while making such efforts, some people overlook, or abandon with prejudice, the older standards and ways of being with some people but distant from others. Patrick J. Deneen in Why Liberalism Failed, (p.xiv,) puts it this way:

              The breakdown of family, community, and religious norms and institutions, especially among those benefitting least from liberalism’s advance, has not led liberalism’s discontents to seek a restoration of those norms. That would take effort and sacrifice in a culture that now diminishes the value of both. Rather, many now look to deploy the statist powers of liberalism against its own ruling class. Meanwhile, huge energies are spent in mass protest rather than in self-legislation and deliberation, reflecting less a renewal of democratic governance than political fury and despair. Liberalism created the conditions, and the tools, for the ascent of its own worst nightmare, yet it lacks the self-knowledge to understand its own culpability.

I acknowledge that some old ways have preserved racial prejudice and animosity toward gays, aboriginals, “visible minorities”, lesbians, trans-gendered, and women, along with religious prejudices which have separated communities. The difficulty seems to lie in acknowledging these distinct ways of living while preserving one’s own community, religion, and rites of passage. We must without fear reach out to others without seeming to threaten their own inner qualities, for which they, as we, want recognition and respect.

I know of two ways to do this.

The first comes from my forty-five years of facilitating group discussions on controversial topics. They prove to me that in-person conversations are important and should continue forever, the more personal the better. People talk about the course of their lives so far which has to their current opinions on the social issues of the moment. The point is not to argue or persuade, but simply to tell your story while others listen, and to listen while others tell their stories. This gives everyone permission to step outside themselves and become immersed in story. Everyone loves hearing a story (although not everyone tells one well). Story puts you in another place for a time. It is difficult to argue with someone else’s story. You simply have to acknowledge it, and somewhere in your subconscious it will change you: you will start to take it into account when you think about issues reflected in that story. You will, believe me.

At this point I want to emphasize this activity must be in-person.  While it is doubtless true that distance communication has facilitated many activities, Nicholas Carr (Superbloom:  How Technologies of Connection Tear Us Apart) warns that the history of remote communication, even as early as the telegraph, shows that major expectations that millions of people’s ability to communicate has not fulfilled the dreams of their promoters, nor have the early dreams of Zuckerberg.  There is much more to agreeing, and joining efforts for a good cause, than merely communicating.  And, as Dr. Alice Evans writes https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/opinion/dating-marriage-children-fertility.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare, it can split us apart irreparably and impede our future by inhibiting procreation.)

This is what a good conversation looks like: it makes it possible for to design solutions which take account of almost everyone’s concern, and keep track of what remains unresolved – a follow-on meeting, maybe a couple weeks later, often enables people to second-guess themselves, to return to ask questions of others to clarify something, or to say during the second meeting something they wish they had said the first time. It is satisfying to know that you have been heard (twice!) and had the opportunity to express yourself more clearly because  your subconscious has clarified your thinking – you understand yourself better. Many people have ended such discussions by asking me, “Why am I not feeling angry and frustrated after this?” Having such discussions on a regular basis with people unlike yourself can make an enormous difference in yourself, and in how you and others solve problems.

People who move from such conversations to working together on problems, can accomplish much.

The second, but perhaps less desirable way to deal with these problems is to conclude that action is critically necessary NOW, and there isn’t time to come to theoretical agreements first. You must ACT (I think climate change is the obvious such situation).

 

Example: With the onset of the First Gulf War, eleven local clergy who were preparing a public service of concern, were each given a short period to read a relevant holy writing, and a short period to offer public prayer. We circulated in advance what we were going to read to avoid overlap. We held the service, everyone stayed brief, and the crowds responded well. Over coffee afterward, one said to all of us: “It’s a good thing we didn’t discuss theology first. We just moved.” Exactly.

Can such methods influence the real decision makers in the world? They can if you can get them in these conversations. If we allow them to stay apart and make decisions, my guess is that the business decision-makers and the politicians will fail us.

You know by now that this blog site is primarily about the virtue of informed consent. I have described ways of getting to informed consent which I know work. In this case, the “informed” part relates to what we know in our subconscious or gut: the information comes not from data and empirical evidence but from genuine encounter with the world as it is for individuals. Consent can be informed this way, and it is good.

¹ I grieve for the present and for the future. – Upon reconsidering…

 

² An ethic for AMOC – Upon reconsidering…, An ethic for AMOC – Upon reconsidering…, An ethic for AMOC – Upon reconsidering…, An ethic for AMOC, part 4:  appendix – Upon reconsidering…