2012: A Morbid Prediction

“2012” directed by Roland Emmerich is set for global release in a couple of weeks. For this movie, the ever savvy businessmen at Hollywood have superimposed a Christian apocalyptic interpretation on an ancient Mayan calendar which expires around December 2012. The plot begins with the cataclysmic collapse of the earth’s crust causing the planet to cave in on itself, and ends (probably) with a few survivors to repopulate the human race. The Beverly Hills’ sense of sensationalism promises to make this a rather spectacular film, and with the genre interest, probably a box-office hit. In this post I want to draw attention to a potential consequence, and the cause, of these sensationalist end-of-the-world prophecies.

For those not in the know of the 2012 phenomenon, it revolves around an ancient Mayan calendar called the Long count calendar. The calendar simply runs out in December 2012. When a Mayan calendar completes its course it is considered as the end of an age. No one actually knows what the end of the Mayan age represents, and because of that, various prophesies have been developed, ranging from the mild “consciousness shift” to the exaggerated alignment of the sun and a black hole, from the geological switching of the earth’s poles to the astrological collision with a planet (modern Maya scholars and Mayan leaders have however discredited this particular calendar and all the conclusions that go with it).

This end-of-the-world hype is not unique. At the turn of the millennium there was the case of the Y2K bug and again end of the world prophecies. Then, because science and technology were all the rage, films like Deep Impact and Armageddon (both 1998) made a tremendous profit at the ticketing offices.

Somehow I suspect that as with previous prophecies, this one would also fall flat on its face. If God were to let normal humans know the exact date he would bring an end to the world, he would not say “but of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.” (The Rapture and The Apocalypse are unique to Christians.) Humans should still be going to work on Jan 3, 2013, and the only rapture would be the in the movie-goers wallets.

The doomsday prophecies may be hogwash but the effect of these sensationalist prophecies on the masses is real and possibly tragic.

The human incapacity for moderation is rather well established. Newspapers have the tendency to sensationalise scandals, and the readers usually read on despite being turned off by the gory details. Our species’ morbid fascination with our annihilation is similarly rather well manipulated by marketers looking to increase viewership or sales.

One of the results of sensationalism is Mass Suicides. The belief in the Year 2000 prophecy prompted an American UFO cult group, Heaven’s Gate to commit mass suicide in 1997. An extremist breakaway sect of the Catholic Church called the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God committed mass suicide after their millennial apocalypse failed to come about. Sociologist term these “doomsday cults”.

When analyzing why people commit suicide some psychologist came up with a list of factors, from mental instability to emotional depression to environmental causes. For example, teen suicides can be a combination of factors including, abusive family history, broken parental unit, victimization from bullying (for an example of this please see The Bleeding Heart), Social Rejection, Loss of Limb or bodily function, Terminal Illness etc…

I do not presume to be an expert on sociology or human psychology but would venture here to make a guess that the initial cause and the final shove of any form of suicide is the deficiency of hope. (please also refer to The Bleeding Heart)

There will probably have been some situation in your life where the situation was difficult, disheartening and overwhelming. Thinking about it today probably still brings sorrow. At that point in time, there would probably have been a great empty vacuum in the lonely recesses of your heart, “if only I could get out of all this”. This is the beginning of demoralization. The result of utter demoralization, when one is inundated by failure after subsequent failure, where his world implodes on itself, is depression. The resilience of the human mind crumbles in the face of a wave of setbacks that he cannot cope with. That is the initial seed of the suicidal thought.

As the situation worsens, the person displays more abusive conduct which is characterized by self destructive behaviour (for example, the consumption of drugs, self wounding etc). If no ray of light, no sign of help is forthcoming, the difficult situation is aggravated. Usually the difficult situation also causes an emotional guilt, and if the person receives no compassion or sign of forgiveness, the situation becomes hopeless. This helpless hopelessness, the inability to modify and improve one’s situation and the stunning absence of forgiveness eventually results in the abject rejection of hope and leads to the fateful conclusion.

The role of Jim Jones in the establishment of the Peoples’ Temple and the Jonestown suicide again is the work of melancholic hopelessness. Accounts of the man and his family seem to indicate that he was a social outcast from a young age. His establishment of Jonestown could be seen as a rejection of society and any form of other hope and help. The unexpected turn of events after the investigation by Congressman Leo Ryan, and the unplanned murder of Ryan was the final straw for the disaffected Jones. The removals of any hope whatsoever for succour, forgiveness and acceptance resulted in the notorious mass suicide.

The whole foundation of meritocracy, capitalism – the bedrocks of modern society – is essentially hope; I toil and labour in the hope that one day I may break free of the shackles of poverty and marginalisation, that I may live in freedom, liberated from fear, discrimination and inequity. There is always betterment to my present situation and I will strive to obtain it. How is it that in this hopeful labour, we deprive others and ourselves of hope?

It may seem ironic, but the coldness and callousness that we react with to any situation stems from this foundation of hope. The human search from ultimate, lasting happiness as well as the notion that joy should be quantifiable has driven this search to the material. And it is in this materialistic chase that we infringe and deflate the hopes of others. There is no maliciousness involved, but simple expediency, because if one does not do so, than he will not be able to obtain that material satisfaction. In fact, he might be used instead because everyone is competing for the same end. The idea is rather direct, for us to attain material fulfilment; we will need to better our station in life. To better our situation, we will need to ascend the social chain. The chain being a limited stable triangle, someone has to come down or be there for us to climb on. This indicates a utilitarian means of interpersonal relation.

Some of the indications of this are often acrimonious office politics, the back-biting involved in power grabs, the callous treatment of people as commodities, poor treatment of the disenfranchised. Another indicator would be the raising divorce rates where the top reason for divorce is incompatibility and the partner not being what was expected. Obviously the union was thought of as a means to make one happy, but it did not turn out to be that way because, the person was not what he/she was made out to be.

This dog-eat-dog mentality is painful, so to lessen our burden, we harden ourselves to others.

(This is not meant as a moral indictment or admonishment against the system, I am in no position to do that. I am merely trying to explain how it seems that we allow the world to be sucked dry of hope.)

This coldness of society is the kind of environment that would allow escapist to thrive; the rejection of suffering is a mentality that is promoted by our drive for material comforts. The end of the world, the end of our existence and the extinction of those we do not like sometimes seem so much more palatable than the current situation.

And this is where the 2012 prophecy would come in.

Some people, especially those most disappointed with the unfeeling of this world, would probably have invested a whatever remaining hope they have in the doomsday prophecies. So imagine the devastation when the anointed day comes and goes without anything happening; which is why the end of 2012 and start of 2013 could be a sorrowful period…

The Domino Effect

In 2005, after a protracted parliamentary session to debate the topic of casinos in Singapore, the Lee Hsien Loong government announced the decision to construct Integrated Resorts (IR)[1] – one on the main island of Singapore and the other in Sentosa. It was a compromise of the initial casino concept, taking in the economic requirements of the nation and the concerns of the public.

The national debate began when the government floated the idea of bringing casinos into Singapore and decided to seek feedback from the public. It was suggested as a means to stimulate the economy and to help the tourism industry compete against Singapore’s South East Asian neighbours. The resulting brouhaha was reported and discussed globally.

Three years on, with the global financial meltdown affecting the economic situation of the whole world, it is a good time to review the IR decision. The IR was an idea conceived and initiated in a bright economic bubble that now seems doomed to be implemented in a darker, more trying reality. The monetary income that it was slated to bring now seems doomed to decrease tremendously while the assault of societal problems show no signs of abating.

It cannot be denied that the central attraction of the IR is the casino. The first thought that comes to mind when one thinks of the Venetian, Genting Highlands or Las Vegas Sands is the gambling in these places. Mammon again rears its ugly head when we think of the IRs. The casino industry is however very volatile business, dependent on the spending ability of the prospective clientele, which is in turn tied to the global financial situation. Three years ago, this concern (of a lack of spending) did not exist. Today, however, the stock market collapse of 2008/09 has affected the main body of the casino’s clients; even Macau is struggling with its gambling industry.

Business-wise, Singapore can only depend on the IR to post good figures initially (because of its novelty, but considering that it is not a dedicated casino only, how many high-rollers would continue to spend money here), and cut down on unemployment anywhere from 7,000 to 60,000 based on different sources. Regardless of the number of jobs on offer, a major portion of them belong to the casino operation (croupiers, machine maintenance, management etc) and, the casino industry requires specially trained persons in its workforce, of which Singapore has few. The government has obtained an in-principle agreement from the two Resort operators, Genting International and Las Vegas Sands that as many Singaporeans as possible would be employed. Yet how much of the skilled casino workforce can be local? For the sake of argument, let us assume that all the jobs are given to Singaporeans. With the good work that the vocational institutions and polytechnics are doing, many new graduates as well as other young ‘re-vocationalist’ will be able to find jobs in this industry. At the same time, there are many new programs that the government has initiated to make employees more attractive to current and prospective employers. However, what about the more mature workforce, those in their 40s and 50s? What about the unemployed who are unable to pay to upgrade their skills?

It has been reported that once Singapore opens its IRs the Japanese will follow suit with at least 7 all across Japan. Hong Kong and Thailand are also watching the Singapore situation. With so much more competition, the client pool will merely be spread even thinner, equating to lesser income than expected per IR.

But what happens socially is far more problematic.

Singapore’s sterilised image is an aberration in her history. During the colonial period she was commonly known as “Sin-galore”, where corruption, secret societies, gambling, opium, prostitution and other vices were visible parts of daily life. It was only recently that these vices and underhand business methods have been combated against with relatively more success and now enjoy a less viable existence. A casino actually promotes the traits that we have only recently begun to repress. The casino vices and methods are not as malleable to the will of the authorities as the weekly Toto and 4-D[2], and the aforementioned problems will be brought back and on a more professional level – white collar and organized crime. Desperately poor peoples will try their luck with all their money, few if any will earn back and increase that money. Even gamblers without proper temperance can end up spending more than they expected to. Families will be torn apart, individual lives and Singaporean society forever changed. Our social compact of meritocratic reward for hard-work will face even stronger direct competition from greed for instant success. Even with the National Council Problem Gambling (NCPG) trying to blacklist people, what is to prevent them from making the short trip up north to gamble now that the attraction is even more present and the temptation is more “in your face”?

To make a bad situation worse, a recent study by the Institute of Mental Health has shown that as many as 15 percent of gambling addicts have made an actual suicide attempt at some point in their lives[3].  This is a higher percentage than those with alcohol or substance abuse. What sort of disturbing impact would this have on Singapore?

It can be said that we are going full circle back to our vice-filled days. With the understanding that much of the attraction to Singapore is in our honesty and the integrity of our system, this is very disturbing news indeed.

For all that has been written, and in spite of the contention made, is it possible that the effects of the casino on Singaporean society have been subject to aggrandizement and exaggeration?

Hopefully, these fears are but moonshine. Nevertheless, we should not be ignorant of the social decay associated with the propagation of any sort of vice. Brothels may be situated at fixed locations and sexually-explicit images may be restricted to the legally aged, but it is apparent that the idea of sex as a transaction has pervaded Singaporean and global culture (under-aged sex, teen pregnancies and promiscuous sexual behavior). The same argument goes for Gambling. When we officially allow gambling to sink its roots, society becomes progressively less opposed, and the culture it promotes is more likely to make their way into the social fabric of the nation. Temptation to excess is not something that is easily guarded against (please see previous article, The Problem of Pride and Excess), and when vices become elevated to the level of industry the guard against its effects drops even further.

It must be accepted that the decision will not and cannot be reversed. The Prime Minister had put his own credibility on the line with the IRs and any retreat from this stance would severely damage his standing with all parties (global political leaders, business leaders, electorate, within his own party etc). Also, too much money has been sunk into this endeavour (approximately $10 billion) for it to be abandoned without tremendous outrage from the public, and damage to Singapore’s business reputation.

Still, the reality of the situation is not something can be merely wished away. Considering the impending increase in societal problems as well as the prospective failure of the IRs to live up to their economic potential, what strategies would have to be adopted to cope with the predicted deluge of problems?

While the decision remains, the socially debilitating outcome can be averted (or at least minimized), as long there is a firm political will. The strategies involved must ensure that the social repercussions are minimized while economic contribution is not adversely affected.

Firstly – battling the excesses of gambling. The current methods of the NCPG have to be transformed from passive to proactive. Much of what is currently in place is a flaccid wait for people to respond. However just like all criminal activity, the immoderate gambling of one person affects families and by extension all of society. Holding to the principle of common good, gambling hence needs direct juridical intervention. The sort of legal limitations that should be put in place could include a maximum cap (for locals) on spending in the casino based on monthly income and the banning of peoples who spend beyond their financial limits. The protestations common in the West over an infringement of personal sovereignty would not be a major issue in Singapore because she, unlike the West, is not faced with the conflation of freedom with unbridled liberty. Certainly, in Asia, the rights of the community trump the rights of the individual.

Secondly – tackling the expected increase in crime. Singapore’s current police force is about 12,500. It represents about 1 law enforcer for every 376 citizens. Short of turning Singapore into a police state, the size of the force could be increased slightly (perhaps through diversion of National Servicemen from the Singapore Armed Forces or Singapore Civil Defence Force) to achieve a ratio of 1:350 with an increase in the Commercial Affairs Department such that more eyes are monitoring the crimes where the casino culture could cause an increase.

Thirdly – combating the culture of windfall luck. An intelligent public education campaign must be introduced and supported by religious institutions especially those that initially campaigned against the impact of the casinos at first.

Fourthly – enforcing the culture of meritocracy and giving hope to the poor. Those most possibly tempted to risk all with gambling are the financially unstable. Hope must be given to remind them that the route out of their financial problems is not through ‘all-in’ at the croupier’s table but by working hard. To that end, educational sponsorships for financially-needy students could be considered (different in that there is no promise of a job, but merely help in paying for school fees, books, uniforms etc).

Finally – maintaining the revenue stream. The main source of income for the casinos should not be from the average Singaporean but from foreign tourist and rich locals (as was originally intended). A great number of other attractions must be added to the IR such that the gambling theme is diluted and the client pool is expanded to include non-gamblers[4].

We cannot turn back the clock, and reverse a decisions already made, we can only act to protect its effects against us. The five strategies mentioned should hopefully prevent Singapore from lapsing into a past with no future.

---

[1] Intergated Resorts or IRs are Casino-Theme Parks, somewhat similar to a mixture between Ocean Park in Hong Kong and The Venetian in Macua.

[2] Toto and 4-D are officially sanctioned lotteries run by the government that were introduced in the 1960s as a means to try and control illegal betting.

[3] The New Paper, Friday, 25 September 2009 page 8, “More New Gamblers Addicted, Gambling linked to suicidal tendencies”

[4] It is heartening to note that this is what the Sentosa IR is trying to do, see The Straits Times, Friday, September 25 2009, page A12, “Sentosa IR banks on Mega Hits”

The Problem of Pride and Excess

In the Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri[1] describes his trip to the underworld led by the great Roman poet, Virgil. He paints the gory details of the punishments facing sinners in the infernal pit. The proud – the greatest of all sinners – were made to march with stone slabs bearing down on their backs in order to induce feelings of humility. In perhaps the greatest story of pride, Lucifer, the most brilliant of all angels desired to compete with God and eventually led a rebellion against God; he is more commonly known as Satan. The Greek myth of Narcissus is another admonishment against Pride.

Pride is root of these falsehoods. It is the love of self manifested excessively, as St Augustine of Hippo[2] says, ” [pride is the] love of one’s own excellence.” It is no idle comment or worthless idiom that Pride is the root of all evil. Even without the religious basis to this argument, pride is a problematic excess that devastates our society and by extension human progress.

Consider the idea of the scholar. A scholar is expected to be a leader in his field of knowledge and is groomed to apply this ability for the betterment of society. He becomes an elite, which in this sense, refers to the more gifted members of the community in a particular area.

While it is possible for a scholar to by extension of his superior treatment be an elitist, it is flawed thinking to actually be one. Not for political correctness but because an elitist attitude is incompatible with a Scholar. The elitism of an elitist signifies excessive pride in one’s ability. Arrogance and snobbery, go also with an indisposition to accept mistakes (which manifest in elitism). These are malignant, cancerous growths to the improvement of the gifts given to the scholar. An elitist mindset will thus cause complacency to make its home in him and hence result in the stagnation of knowledge. How then can a person who gifts are not polished continually, remove the dust and rust that sets in?

In contrast, the modest scholar acknowledges that he has been given particular gifts in a specific area, but is normal in every other sense. He works continually in the pursuit of Truth and in the process of his search benefits society at large.

Pride goes against the two great commandments of God, on which rest all the other commandments. When one loves himself exclusively he will be unable to love God with all his heart, mind and soul, because he is blind to the honours due to his Creator for whatever is good in him. Ad rem, he worships himself. And when his world centres on himself, he will inadvertently bring this to an extreme where his “love of self [is] perverted to hatred and contempt for one’s neighbour”[3] and he thus sees no other as equal to him. If one does not see another being as equally deserving of love as he himself is, is he not blind to the dwelling of Truth in his neighbour? How then can he love his neighbour as himself and break free from the suffocating inequity of this materialistic world?

It proceeds hence that once he is unable to see others as equal to him, he will not treat them as properly ordered. Human history is riddled with the poison of pride – slavery, racism, nepotism, elitism, sexism… Even the honourable concept of love and relationship is under attack by utilitarianism (prostitution, pornography, free multi-partnered sex) and cynicism (ideas that intercourse is merely the selfish intent of the human to reproduce a ‘mini-me’ for posterity, and that marriage is a way of ensuring protected exchange of sexual favours).

In fact, all the problems of today fall within this black-hole. Selfishness and greed are the main reasons for all our societal problems – poverty, corruption, financial collapse, political and social instability et cetera. Selfishness and Greed in turn are the products of the exclusivity of the love for one’s self brought to excess.

Pride as a feeling is also a creation of nature, and if all creation of nature is good because God is the creator of it, then it follows logically that pride is intrinsically good. The word, “pride” to our contemporary understanding encompasses great extremes. It can imply both positive and negative. From self-respect to vanity, from arrogance to conceit, all these manifestations fall under a single description.

Look again at the commandment, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment… And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments” [NIV, Mt 22:37-40].

Jesus tells the people to “love your neighbour as yourself”. This means that it is in God’s intention that man love himself. The French have a term for this – amour-propre.

The proper deferential regard for oneself is exaltation to God. When we esteem and care for ourselves, we love what we are complete with our flaws. We care for our being in spite of our imperfections since deep down we know that we are God’s creation (although this is rarely articulated). When we love ourselves, we put in a hundred percent in all that we do. It is God’s intention that man was made for His glorification as we are taught by the Holy Word in His deeds and commands, as well as His commands to the prophets.

In self-respect, we give thanks to God for what we are, and what we have. We acknowledge our weakness and care for ourselves even more, praying and striving to increase what is lacking in us so that it would be a pleasing sacrifice to Him. Once we are able to admit our deficiencies, we cannot find it in ourselves to be arrogant, because we have nothing to be vain about.

Thus Pride is replaced by Humility. To be humble is also another form of self-respect and self love. Humility is the recognition that there are things and peoples better than us, but it also speaks to a desire to improve so as to fulfill our potential. It might be the wrong word to use, “replace”, since Pride is merely the absence of Humility and where the overindulgence of ourselves blinds us to the source of the gifts we are proud in ourselves.

Humility and Self-Respect are manifestations of an even greater truth. It is this truth that allows us (as mentioned above) to see the Truth dwelling in our neighbour, a reality that the Saint Josemaria Escriva de Balanguer[4] terms, “Divine Filiation”.

“The idea [of Divine Filiation] is that by creating us, God made us his creatures; but by redeeming us, in the person of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice on the Cross, God made us his adopted sons and daughters, so in a very direct sense we are ‘children of God’ with all the love and tenderness that relationship implies.”[5] We are in a sense ipsu Christe (alter Christs) by our relationship as God’s children, and this applies to all peoples.

This is an innate Truth, carved in the hearts of man. We often do not seem to act with this in mind but once we understand this everything else falls into place. We will act with the goodness of God guiding us. We will behave according to what is proper in the Moral Law of Man (as C.S Lewis spoke of in “Mere Christianity”). We will carry ourselves with proper love and respect because we are “children of God”; we love others as ourselves because each of them is, like us, another Christ.

One must however, beware against the excesses that can cause imbalances to this Truth.

At this juncture, it is perhaps timely that we ask which is the greater sin, excess or pride. For a great case made be made of the problems made by excess since pride is itself the excess of a virtue, as is the potential for Divine Filiation to be.

Yet, excess is merely the vehicle for the evil one to alter creation. Ambition carried to excess is Vanity; Libido carried to excess is Lust; Hunger carried to excess is Gluttony; Anger carried to excess is Wrath; Relaxation excess to excess is Sloth; Diligence carried to excess Intemperance; Humility carried to excess is Self-hatred and Love carried to excess is Pride.

Excess on its own was never created, instead, the free will to act was. It is a by-product of free will. The result of having a choice to do what one wants. When one plumps for excess he invariably falls into sin, but he is also able to and can choose against it by moderation and self-discipline. However, when one falls into excess of self-love, he cannot choose to be free from its ramifications.

Excess can be restrained; pride cannot. Hence while virtue turns to vice because of excess, it is not the vehicle but the destination that is worse.

---

[1] Dante Alighieri (1265 – 1321), Florentine poet famous for his work, Divinia Commedia.

[2] St Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430), Doctor of the Church.

[3] Dante

[4] Founder of Opus Dei

[5] John Allen Jr, p115, Opus Dei (2005)

Note: This essay is based on the Catholic Christian foundation of God. However, the logical social considerations are still valid without this religious base.