Revenge might be a good cold dish, but not a lifeplan.

A new study indicates that people who engage in revenge are less likely to find work, or keep it. There is "positive reciprocity" and "negative reciprocity". The positive is when you do something nice for someone who does something nice for you; the negative is the opposite. Some people are more positively reciprocal, others more negatively reciprocal. Those who are positive have more friends and make more money, because, the study found, they work harder for more pay. Negatively reciprocal people are not encouraged by higher pay, but will work less for lower pay, or try to harm the company they're working for. They also are less happy.

I personally would prefer a study that doesn't relate to pay. I look at money as a necessity to get by, but not as something I inherently want. Nor am I interested in the mammon that one can gain with the money. Certainly, I like the occasional book, but money is an inherently negative concept to me, because of my cultural upbringing. This study looks at something that is a root of all kinds of evil- money- as the primary incentive. It could be argued that those who are inspired by money do better by the standards of their society, when working in a capitalist system. The study therefore has some flaws that need to be addressed.

But let us take it at face value. Let us accept the basic premise as it stands. I still find it a rather primitive motivating force- Utilitarian, rather than Kantian ethics. Certainly, Kant leaves a lot to be desired, but what was positive in his ethics was the Categorical Imperative- the good is that which, if done by everyone at all times, would still be good. It bears a resemblance to the Utilitarian ethic (also known as the George Bush ethic) - "Do what is best for the greatest number of people." And yet the Categorical Imperative is worlds apart from the ethic of the Utilitarians. Ultimately, the Utilitarian ethic degenerates into mob rule, where the majority dictates upon the minority. Kant asked us to consider what was best for everyone, and not just what served the greatest number. He argued that ultimately, if it was not something that everyone could do, then it was not worth doing.

The Categorical Imperative bears a more than passing resemblance to the ethics of Jesus- "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Jesus' ethic was rather often that the good of the one, or the few, outweighs the good of the many- for in Jesus' ethics, there was no differentiation between the good of the many and the good of the one. (Witness the story of the Garasene Demoniac, where Jesus condemns the livelihood of ten cities so that one man might be saved from demonic possession.) The ethic of Jesus takes it a step further, best exemplified in the Gospel by Luke- the best action is not that which serves the majority, or even all people, but that which serves the minority- those outcast- for our needs and desires are (and should be) inseparable from those so outcast. It becomes the ethic of the minority, but not those who rule. It is rather the ethic of the minority who do not rule.

This is rooted in the the difference between the ethic of Jesus, and how that ethic is commonly interpreted. It is not "Do unto others so that they will do unto you." There is never any expectation of return. It is how you would want them to treat you. But it is love of your enemies, which Jesus also calls for. It is love for those who mistreat you, who hate you, who despise you- to pick up your instrument of torture and gruesome death and follow in the path of Jesus.

We come back to the root of the study. The difficulty with the premise is that those who get ahead are those who are considering their own best interests. They are happier than those who desire harm for another, attacking those who attack them, for they are motivated by doing good for those who do good to them. But this motivation is ultimately selfish in origin. It is more limited than the Utilitarian Ethic, considering what is good for the greatest number. It is more limited than the Categorical Imperative, considering what is good for all. It is more limited than the ethic of Jesus, considering what is good for the lost sheep. It has no place for doing good to those who mistreat you.

Yes, it undoubtedly works. You do better in this society if you are positive and encouraging. It would make sense that you would have more friends. But that does not make it right. One would want to see further studies, looking at less materialistic societies, to see if the "getting ahead" was dictated by the materialistic basis of society. And one would want to compare those who are encouraged by an Positive Reciprocal Ethic, with those motivated by Utilitarianism, Kant, and Kingdom Desires.

All of this is not to say I'm at that exalted Kingdom level. Or the level of Kant. Or the level of even John Stuart Mill and the Utilitarians. For I have to merely think back to my last time driving on the freeway, and see how much more I was focused on Negative Reciprocity. But how, pray tell, could one possibly apply the ethics of Jesus to the American freeway system, and expect to ever get anywhere?

The water of life, and death.

A plethera of interesting topics. That old medical practice of sexism, the diagnosis of hysteria, might actually be real. Galaxies might evolve through a combination of nature and nurture. Laughter heals disease, and they've finally figured out why it's contagious- it has to do with our tendency to mirror a person in a conversation. But I'm going to contemplate in a different way today, combinging two articles.

We may have found evidence of flowing water on the Martian surface. Going on right now. If it's true, it could provide a valuable base for that mythical day when we land on the planet. Maybe even grow some right find Bradbury crops there.

It also appears that Global Warming will no longer melt the polar ice cap by the year 2100, as previously predicted. It looks like it will be 2040. This is probably due to a runaway positive feeback loop where ice reflects heat and less ice reflects less heat. And less ice allows warmer currents further North. Seeing as polar bears and others are dying off at alarming rates, this will have equally magnifying effects on the Artic ecology. To the side is the North pole 6 years ago, and 33 years from now.

But every bit of ice that melts also means more water rising in other places Places like Bangladesh with 147 million people, or the Maldives, the lowest country in the world, with a maximum natural height of 2.3 meters, the lowest in the world. Most or all of both countries will disappear by century's end, meaning 100s of millions now refugees, without even the hope of a homeland to go back to. And that's just the two countries most effected- it doesn't include the vast numbers of mostly poor living on the coasts around the world who don't have America's money to build dikes around their major cities.

That's the best case scenario. More probably they're not homeless. It's that they're dead.

Two different studies. One finds water of life. The other water of death.

Jesus said, "I am the water of life. She that drinks of me, shall never thirst again." This is the same Guy who earlier had demolished "the whole world" in a flood. Same substance, same guy, different results. Water is powerful wet stuff, with an emphasis on it's power. It is neither good nor evil, but bringing results depending on the situation. God is only good, and yet his actions result in life, and countless deaths. According to Rabbinic tradition, one of the three things satan can not do is kill- this remains God's perogative. How can a good God do both? How can He use the same substance for both harm and help?

I think in all things it depends not on God, but on us. God remains the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow (with that minor tweaking of the incarnation). The water still has the same properites- 104.7 degrees between the two Hydrogens allowing for some rather too convenient Hydrogen bonding, making life possible. But we change. God is everywhere- nanini, naninina, and in all things. Then how is it possible for us to say, "God is with us right now." or "Come, Jesus, Come"?

Theodore of Mopsuestia said that the Logos dwelt in Jesus "by His good pleasure". As a Christology it fell far short, basically being more Nestorian than Nestorius. But a professor of mine, Dr. Thompson, pointed out that it was a rather nice description of God's presence with us. He is everywhere, but at times He exists by His good pleasure, when we are aligned with Him.

In the same way His actions are everywhere the same. But whether or not they bring harm or help to us is determined to what extent we are aligned with Him. Sometimes it is punishment, and therefore our moral actions that align us with our just desserts. But certainly many times tragedy hits us without punishment. And then God is still the same, seeking our good. But perhaps at times we have difficulty in seeing His good, and what He will bring us in the fullness of time.

Such is not the case of course here. In the fullness of the meaning of original sin, we have wrought this upon ourselves. Water is a gift of God, giving us original life and sustaining us, allowing us possibly to reach further into the Heavens. We have squandered that gift in our search for another liquid, fossil fuels. We spurned the gift of God and chose a poor substitute, destroying that which we were called to care for. And we now reap what we sowed. For in 33 years we will no longer have a polar ice cap, and a great deal more misery. God did not change, and neither did His gift. We chose to reject the gift, our calling, and our God. Let the chaos of the waters reign.