Thinking Seven Generations Back and Forward

Some Native American nations hold dear the idea that the potential benefits or harm that would be felt by the next seven generations should be amply considered when making major decisions.* That seems to be a very significant idea—and one almost impossible to implement sufficiently.  

I asked AI to create an image that refers to taking care of
the earth for the next seven generations. This was the result.

I began thinking about seven generations while working on this blog post that originally was to be primarily about the Louisiana Purchase.

The Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed 220 years ago this week, on April 30, 1803. That was of tremendous importance for the United States, which had become a nation only 27 years earlier.

That purchase was a major accomplishment of President Jefferson and one of the most significant events in the history of the young nation—and even in the history of the nation up until the present. It is widely considered to be the greatest real estate deal in history.

The U.S. purchased the Louisiana Territory from France at a price of $15 million, or approximately four cents an acre. It added to the United States an area larger than eight Great Britains, doubling the size of the United States and opening up the continent to its westward expansion.

Jefferson explained his action to Congress by saying that this fertile and extensive country would afford “an ample provision for our posterity, and a wide spread for the blessings of freedom and equal laws.”**

President Jefferson was perhaps thinking about the next seven generations in his efforts that led to the acquisition of that huge territory for the U.S.

Without question, that purchase had tremendous benefits for most White U.S. citizens—and considerable harm for Native Americans— for the next seven generations, and more.

Thinking Seven Generations Back

For individual persons, seven generations go back to their grandparents’ grandparents’ grandparents. In my case, Hartwell Seat (1749~1827) was my seventh-generation grandfather whose family name I bear. George Seat (1878~1952) was my grandfather, and Hartwell's grandson Franklin (1818~1905 was George’s grandfather. 

So, seven generations before I was born in 1938, Hartwell Seat was born in Virginia just six years after Thomas Jefferson’s birth. In 1797, Hartwell and his family migrated to Tennessee, just a year after it had become the 16^th state of the USA.

The Mississippi River was the western border of the new state and at that time it was the westernmost edge of the United States. Just seven years later, though, the vast expanse of land on the other side of the Mississippi became U.S. territory.

When working on this article, it was a bit of a shock when I realized that the Louisiana Purchase, which had always seemed like ancient history to me, was made when my seventh-generation ancestor was 54 years old and living less than 200 miles from the eastern border of that vast new territory.

Just fifteen years later, Littleton Seat, my sixth-generation grandfather, migrated with his wife Elizabeth and two young daughters (as well as two of his brothers and their families) to Missouri Territory. That was three years before Missouri became the 24^th state in 1821.

Littleton’s great-grandson George, my beloved Grandpa Seat, was born just 75 years after the Louisiana Purchase, and his death was just one year shy of being as long after his birth as the Louisiana Purchase was before his birth.

Thinking Seven Generations Forward

Now, turning from the generations of the past (and the Louisiana Purchase), what about the generations to come? With me as the first generation, my first two great-grandchildren, who were born in 2022, are the fourth generation. Their great-grandchildren will be the seventh generation.

It is hard to imagine what all will happen and how the world will change during Nina’s and Vander’s lifetime. How can we even begin to imagine what the world will be like when their great-grandchildren are born? That will be well into the 22^nd century.

But maybe the Native Americans were right: we need to consider how the decisions we make now will affect the seventh generation in the future. Of greatest need along this line is concerted thought and action regarding the current global ecological crisis.

_____

* In the 2022 book What We Owe the Future, author William MacAskill writes about "longtermism: the idea that positively influencing the longterm future is a key moral priority of our time" (p. 4). Early in "The Case for Longtermism," the first chapter, he cites a Native American who wrote, "We . . . make every decision that we make relate to the welfare and well-being of the seventh generation to come. . . . We consider: will this be to the benefit of the seventh generation?" (p. 11).

** Jefferson’s words are cited on page 49 of William Catton’s book Overshoot, which was the main topic of my March 23 blog post, and it was related to the author’s explanation of the significance of the Louisiana Purchase in expanding the “carrying capacity” of the United States at that time. 

Obesity, Overeating, and Overspending

For the third time in recent weeks, I am beginning this post by referring to an Oscar winner. Early this month, June and I watched The Whale. Brendan Fraser won the Academy Award for the best male actor of the year for his portrayal of Charlie, the obese central character in that engaging film. 

The Whale deals with several issues, but morbidly obese Charlie was the focus of the film, which was made in consultation with the Obesity Action Coalition (OAC). The mission of the OAC is “to elevate and empower those affected by obesity through education, advocacy and support.”

The OAC website states that their organization, formed in 2005, wants to help create a society where all individuals “are treated with respect and without discrimination or bias regardless of their size or weight.”

That is a good and important mission statement, and I wholeheartedly affirm it. That doesn’t mean, however, that obesity is not a serious problem for most obese people themselves and for society as a whole. According to a 2019 report, the annual medical cost of obesity in the U.S. was $147 billion.

Another organization, the Obesity Society, was formed in 1982, and its webpage states,

Obesity is a highly prevalent chronic disease characterized by excessive fat accumulation or distribution that presents a risk to health and requires lifelong care.

People such as Charlie, and those who are far less obese or just markedly overweight, need understanding and support. No one deserves “fat shaming” or belittling because of their weight.

Not all obesity is caused by overeating, and not all overeating results in obesity. Still, most obese people do eat too much and too much of the wrong foods, and most people who eat too much and too much of the wrong foods are overweight, if not obese.

Regardless of the cause, all people with health problems need medical (including, sometimes, psychological) help with those problems. That is true for all those who have health issues because of “addiction” to food or whatever might cause them to be overweight.

Such problems need to be addressed, for they impact both the quality and length of life for such individuals. Certainly, not all people who maintain a healthy eating and drinking lifestyle live to the age of 90 or more, but very few people who do not practice such a lifestyle live to an advanced age.

How do/should we eat when so many don’t have enough to eat? Now I am addressing all of us, not just those who are overweight or may be obese.

This is a matter I have been concerned about for decades. As I mentioned in my 9/20/22 blog post about Ron Sider (1939~2022), his most widely-read book was Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger.  

That book was hailed by Christianity Today as one of the one hundred most influential books in religion in the 20^th century. Originally published in 1977, a revised, expanded, and updated edition was issued in 2015.

The first of the four parts of that powerful book is titled “Poor Lazarus and Rich Christians.” The reference, of course, is to the story Jesus told about a poor man named Lazarus, and an unnamed “rich man who clothed himself in purple and fine linen, and who feasted luxuriously every day” (Luke 16:19).

There is no indication that the rich man was obese or even overweight, but Jesus told this story in criticism of the Pharisees, “who were money-lovers” (v. 14)—and also likely lovers of expensive fine food.

Sider’s first chapter is “A Billion Hungry Neighbors.” Maybe there are not as many now as in 2017, still, I can’t help but wonder how many of us, regardless of how much we weigh, spend too much for fine food to eat at home and in pricey restaurants and give too little to help our “neighbors.”

Those who are obese or overweight because of metabolism issues or food addiction may not be able to choose to do/be different from what they are at present.

Most of us can, though, choose to eat less expensive food and spend less on restaurant meals. But will we do that in order to share more generously with our hungry neighbors? 

Guidelines for Activists

According to the helpful Wikipedia article, activism “consists of efforts to promote, impede, direct or intervene in social, political, economic or environmental reform with the desire to make changes in society toward a perceived greater good.” That sounds good to me. How about you? 

I asked ChatGPT, Google’s Bard, and Bing Chat for their suggestions regarding guidelines for activists. Of the three, I thought the former was clearly the best. It (they?) suggested such things as “educate yourself,” “set clear goals,” “build a strong network,” “stay optimistic,” and five more.

This article, though, is more about why one should be(come) an activist, and here is ChatGPT’s response to my question about that: people should be activists to “create change,” to “give a voice to the marginalized,” and to “influence policy.” Those sound like good reasons to me.  

I also agree with their statements about avoiding the errors of “all-or-nothing thinking,” “intolerance of opposing views,” and “demonizing individuals.”

I have long been an advocate of activism, although my actual social activity through the years was greatly limited by work and family responsibilities that kept me from having the time and energy to do more.

Recently, I have been thinking about some of the guidelines for my own activism, and lack thereof, which I am now sharing with you—and I am saying “we” instead of just “I.”

** It is better to do something, however inadequate that might be, rather than nothing. That sort of sentiment was expressed in the following well-known words by Edward E. Hale (1822~1909), an author and Unitarian clergyman. 

**Beware of thinking that because we are doing something we are doing all we can or should do. Perhaps we all are tempted to think that if we are actively engaged in some good activity, or activities, we are doing enough. That is most likely not true.

**Do not be(come) judgmental and critical of those who are doing less. Because we are doing something, it is a temptation to look down on those who are not doing as much. Such “self-righteousness,” though, is unbecoming and harmful to our relationship with others.

** Spend activist time/energy/money wisely, giving priority to those activities that will have the greatest benefit for the most people. It is easy to get caught up in emotional appeals for good but relatively insignificant causes. Always seek to focus on what is most important.

** Let’s remember to wear our bifocals! We must endeavor to make changes for a perceived greater good both for present-day society and for the world of the coming generations.

And speaking of bifocals (as I did in my previous blog post) for those who are activists, such “lenses” can be helpfully used in situations such as E.B. White wrote about: “I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve (or save) the world and a desire to enjoy (or savor) the world.”

Let’s try to do both every day.

Christian thinkers have often spoken about sins of omission, that is, not doing things we should have done.

Most of us, perhaps, are more guilty of that kind of sin than doing wrong or bad things, which is how sin is usually thought of. Remember what the New Testament says about this: “So whoever knows what is good to do and does not do it is guilty of sin” (James 4:17, NET).

My away-from-home activities are greatly limited now by lack of energy and stamina. But, no doubt, there is much (more) I can and should do by working at my computer at home. That can, I think, be meaningful activism also.

So, more than in recent months/years, beginning today I am going to try, consciously, to do one “activist” thing a day, even though it might be rather small. But, again, doing something is better than nothing.

What about you?

Remembering Rachmaninoff

On March 15, I posted a blog article about this year’s Oscar winners. Today’s post is related to Geoffrey Rush, who won the best actor Oscar for his role as pianist David Helfgott in the 1996 movie Shine.

Seeing that movie was my first real awareness of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 3, which was composed in the summer of 1909. Popularly known as Rach 3, it has been called one of the most difficult piano pieces ever composed. 

A small part of the score for Rach 3

Many of you know the importance of bifocals. I wore bifocal eyeglasses for many years and was happy for the ability they gave me to see things both close at hand and in the distance clearly.

It is perhaps even more important to have bifocal vision/understanding of life/reality. Over the last fifteen months, I have read and written much about what some call TEOTWAWKI (the end of the world as we know it). That is an extremely sad and depressing topic.

It is not necessary or healthy, though, to think only about the inevitable future. Daily we need to use the near vision “lenses” to see and enjoy the present. There are many ways to do that, and classical music has long been meaningful to me, regularly bringing joy to my life.

This week I have been enjoying the splendid musical compositions of Rachmaninoff, particularly his piano concertos and his captivating choral music.

Sergei Rachmaninoff was born 150 years ago today (on April 1, 1873) in Russia, and he died on March 28, 1943, (80 years ago) in California. It is fitting to remember him and his productive life, which lasted four days short of seventy years.

For decades I have considered Tchaikovsky (1840~93) to be in the top three of my favorite classical composers. More recently I have increasingly come to appreciate the music of Rachmaninoff, who was a great admirer of Tchaikovsky.*¹

Tchaikovsky, in fact, was a father figure and a mentor for Rachmaninoff when he was a student, and the older composer cheered for his young mentee from his box seat at the younger man’s concerts.

There are 45 numbered “works” of Rachmaninoff (according to this website), and 39 of those were composed in Russia before he permanently left his birth country in 1917 because of the Bolshevik revolution and the confiscation of his relative’s summer estate in Ivanovka that he loved so much.*²

Early in 1915, not long before the end of the world as he knew it in Russia, Rachmaninoff composed All-Night Vigil (or Vespers), Op. 37, a beautiful choral a cappella work. According to Chat GPT, that composition, part of which Rachmaninoff requested to be sung at his funeral, is

one of the greatest achievements of Russian sacred music. In fact, Rachmaninoff once said, "I have never written anything more religious, more Russian, or more honest than the Vespers."

(I learned about this choral work in my research for this blog article, and I have greatly enjoyed hearing/seeing it sung on YouTube.)

This year there have been several memorial concerts in appreciative remembrance of Rachmaninoff. One of the most amazing concerts was performed by Yuja Wang at Carnegie Hall on January 28. (Here is the link to a news article about that concert that lasted 3½ hours.)

Several weeks ago, June and I happened upon a YouTube video of Wang (born in Beijing in 1987) and were impressed with her skill at the piano. It was truly amazing that she could play everything Rachmaninoff wrote for piano and orchestra, including Rach 3, in that Jan. 28 concert.

Last year, Yunchan Lim, an 18-year-old South Korean man, won the 2022 Van Cliburn International Piano Competition, and next month he makes his New York Philharmonic debut, playing Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto No. 3, which the promotional flyer says is “considered the Everest for pianists.”*³

Enjoying great music is just one of many ways to savor the present and to experience joy/peace now in spite of the dire predictions of what will likely happen this century because of the current ecological crisis.

Let’s keep making good use of our bifocal lenses!

_____

*¹ I found it interesting that on a list of “the best Russian composers of all time” (see here), Tchaikovsky was number one, followed by Rachmaninoff as number two.

*² In 2016, BBC produced “The Joy of Rachmaninoff,” and it includes a rather lengthy segment about Rachmaninoff at Ivanovka. If you have the time and interest, you may want to watch that engaging documentary here on YouTube.

*³ Here and here are links to Wang’s and Lim’s performing Rach 3, the latter at the Van Cliburn competition last year.