On a particularly grim day, when its humid and rainy outside, you may lay back on you recliner sofa with a cup of coffee and wonder: "How does life compensate? For the family in Africa that thrives on under a dollar a day and the average suburban American who lives for the day he can retire and live off the fatta his lan' (pensions)". Or you might not wonder this. You might mull over the chances of a zombie apocalypse occurring. Or why Nutella and bananas taste so good together. I happened to have contemplated the very former idea.
Civilizations over the eons have been in a continuous pursuit to find an answer for this rather paradoxical notion. Because not only does it remain a dawning unanswered question; the very concept questions the basis and morality of a capitalist world - a world tailored by and for the primitive homosapien. A world with classes and divisions. A world with a clear distinction between the shepherd and his sheep. So when we are struck with ideas about equitableness and legitimacy of life itself, we have but not an option. We need to solve it, and if there is no solution: formulate one on evidence that is present. Because there is no way that life since its genesis is entirely unfair in such a matter, because if it is then I, a man with a computer and WiFi, will always be at fault. At fault for being born on the upper end of the spectrum whereas a lowly man in a third world country will also be at fault for being born at the other extreme of the spectrum.
If something isn't perfect, it is imperfect. The subjects of the matter avoid it from reaching perfection and so therefore everyone involved is imperfect and to blame. In the spectrum of life, we are the subjects and we are to blame. That whole idea, however tacit it may be, doesn't sit well in our heads.
There must be an explanation, and explanations are what we have composed:
The conceptualization of a life after death. Surely if one doesn't receive their fair share of livelihood in this world, then there must be an entire life that compensates for them. This idea ties in closely with the ideals of Religion - Do right and live a life of eternal bliss. And this, for civilizations and the common man was enough. Religion answers every ambiguous doubt that exists in an even more ambiguous manner - the irrational logic. But because of all the trust and faith we invest into it, everything else is overridden: 86% of the worlds population follows a religion. 86% of the population finds peace and justification in this for the way life runs.
This, however, generates a paradox within a paradox. There are over hundreds of religions all over the world. Which ones idea of "good" will grant the promised post-earthian-life utopia? And if one happens to be on the lower quartile of quality of life and follow the "wrong religion", then how is the universe fair to him/her? There is a flaw in the logic and flaws must be rectified.
Here is what I've come up with, a theory formulated after reading books on philosophy and morality of life. The theory of proportionality:
The premise of this concept is: 3/3 can be simplified to 1/1 despite having more content and substance.
Now, picture yourself in a sub-saharan village, waking up to the roaring heat of the sun. Hardly is it "roaring" because it's the same sun you've been waking up to for the past 26 years. You leave your house to hunt and provide for your family along with some of your mates. You make vulgar jokes; have witty conversations; talk about current events, all while holding a rifle. A mundane job. You've been doing this for years.
A friend comes over and brings a fresh fruit basket from the city. A surge of adrenaline rushes through your veins and dopamine is released in your brain. You are exhilarated that you and your family can feed on this luxury, if only for a while.
However, you are still burdened by looming and ever-present problems like providing the next meal for your family, spending more time with your children, and hoping to achieve self-actualization.
Rate this life as 2/2.
Now, substitute these scenarios with those an average American might experience. Instead of hunting for food, you go to your office and type away at the computer everyday, make jokes with your colleagues, and try to get through the day. A mundane job.
For your birthday, your parents or friends get you an iPhone and, yes, you are thrilled.
The problems of everyday life, however, are a constant burden: your student loans, debts, and desire to one day start a family.
Rate this life as 3/3.
The point that I'm trying to get through is that the man in Africa feels and experiences the same happiness when when something that, in proportion, has equal value to him as an iPhone does to a middle-class American, happens to him. And the same concept can be applied to all other aspects of his life.
Both of their lifestyles can be simplified to 1/1 = 1. We live the same lives. But there isn't a universal spectrum of livelihood, even considering there to be one is a bizarre idea. Instead, we are categorized into the our own little compasses - mutually exclusive to the rest.. Thinking about it this way proves to us that life is fair. Good and bad happens to everybody, both in equal and relative proportions. Feeling sorry for middle-class people in the Asian sub-continent because they don't have iPhones is irrational because they, themselves, might find the notion of an expensive phone impractical. Their joy might lie in something else.
Different spectrums.
The only underlying factor amongst all of this is our sentiments. All else is different but equal.
