We know our world must change, but we keep saying, ‘yes, but…’

By David McElroy · September 26, 2021

I know that I need to change things in my life. I need to radically change how I eat. Where I live. What I do with my time. Who I spend my time with. Who I love and hope for. I’m very clear about the changes I need to make.

But I’m the King of Excuses. I never deny that the changes need to happen. I always admit it to myself.

Yes, but…

Yes, I need to stop eating the diet that’s going to kill me, but I need to get some other things settled first. It’s just self-medication for now. I’ll change next week. Or next month.

Yes, I need to get out of the path of the looming economic and social collapse that I see coming, but I have to find someone to go with me. I have to work out a new financial plan. I’ll get around to it soon. Very soon. I promise.

We’re doing the same things collectively. Many people know that radical change is needed for our communities, cities and countries. Many are uneasy about what we fear is coming. We know something is wrong.

Yes, we absolutely have to make some major changes, but what we’re doing is so comfortable. So familiar. Maybe we shouldn’t rock the boat. Maybe the time of reckoning won’t happen in our lifetime.

You’re probably doing the same thing in your own life. You know you have to make painful decisions. You’ve dreaded them. You’ve known forever that you have to make tough choices.

Yes, but…

I was sitting in traffic on the way home the other night when I found myself angry with another driver. I don’t remember what I was so furious about. I probably called him an idiot. I felt anger and even some momentary hatred.

Then I thought of a question. What if the modern society we’ve built simply isn’t compatible with my values? What if it’s impossible to live like a normal 21st century American and to also live the way I believe I should live?

Whether you see humans as created to be what we are or you see us as having evolved to be what we are — or a combination of the two — we are not adapted for the world in which we live today.

We’re adapted for dealing with others face to face. If that driver and I had been walking or riding horses or sitting in slower-moving wagons, we would have seen each other. We probably would have been polite to one another. I probably wouldn’t have been so angry. Instead, I sat in a sealed metal container and he sat in another.

We didn’t have to deal with each other as individual humans.

We’re adapted to living in smaller groups and communities and cities. We’re more likely to treat each other respectfully — or at least decently — if we’re neighbors.

We’re not adapted to interacting electronically with strangers who we will never meet. When we’re online — social media, message boards, whatever — we don’t see the other person. We can be brave and arrogant warriors as we hide behind our keyboards.

When we’re online, we don’t have to see those others as real human beings who can be hurt. We can see them as idiots or fools or enemies — and they can see us the same way.

I want to live in productive harmony with a loving community. My values tell me that I have a responsibility to love others exactly as I’d like them to love me. My experience tells me that I need other in community and that I have much to offer in community with others.

But I don’t know how to live in those ways in the cities and countries and electronic spaces we’ve created for ourselves.

So I don’t end up treating people the way I believe I should. I don’t have the mutually loving connection with a community which I know we all need. And I constantly berate myself for not being the person I need to be — but I don’t know how to live my values in this modern world.

The structure and the ideas of modern culture simply won’t permit me to be what I know I ought to be. And I know I ought to change that.

Yes, but…

I know how to live as a 21st century man. This is normal to me. Everybody else around me lives that way. Hardly anybody else is talking about changing this.

So I sit in my car alone. I drive to an office 45 minutes from home. I have opinions about people online, even though I don’t know them well enough to have opinions about them. I become angry that I don’t have the things I need. I blame others for making the world what I don’t want it to be.

The truth is that I can’t change the world, but I can change my own life.

I can change who I spend time with and how I earn my living. I can pick up my worldly goods and move to somewhere that will be safer when this society collapses. I can find people who share my values and who want to live as I want to.

I can do all of these things. I know I can. But…

It’s easier to leave things the way they are. It’s easier not to explain people who wouldn’t understand if I made the changes I need to make. It’s easier than giving up on people who are never going to come along with me on a journey of self-discovery and change.

I need to make changes. Our society needs to make changes. You need to make changes. But we’re all masters of denial. Kings and Queens of Excuses.

I know we need to start making real changes and I know I ought to start making real changes. You know you need to make changes.

In our wiser moments, we do acknowledge this, but we still find a way — so far, at least — to keep saying, “yes, but…”

Note: I’ve kept my thoughts here broad, but if you’d like some more meaty discussion of what I’m talking about, please read “Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future,” by the late Neil Postman. He was one of the most clear-headed thinkers of the late 20th century about where modern culture went wrong (and why media played a central role in it). I don’t agree with every point he made in every one of his books, but if anything can quickly open your eyes to some of what’s wrong today — and why reconnecting with the ideas of the Enlightenment can change our future for the good — it’s Postman.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts