As the world marches towards an era of technological proliferation, and as technology increasingly bestows man with god-like powers, it has seemed more possible to create a world without challenge and risk. The powers of technology have helped to simplify many menial tasks originally performed by man, thus making human living more comfortable and safe. However, it is important to question the implications of such actions – does a life without challenge necessarily equate to a better life?
It may seem intuitive that a life without danger and difficulty is a more enjoyable one. After all, danger is often the root cause of human suffering and tragedy. Wars and natural disasters, major risks for humans, lead to the deaths of thousands of people. To any humanitarian around the world, the world would be a much better place if these ‘risks’ are removed from our lives. Additionally, challenges and risks, such as poverty, often act as a preventive barrier for humans to achieve something greater, and pursue their passions. In war-torn African countries plagued with poverty and diseases, there are not many artists and athletes, when compared with developed countries, such as America or Britain. In places paralyzed with poverty and famine, the people are often entirely preoccupied with drawing an income, not drawing a majestic painting. As such, people in poor regions often do not have the time nor the physical resources to pursue their passions, be it football, painting, or playing music. For athletes in undeveloped regions, it is only after they are talent-spotted by developed countries can they fully realize their ambitions. This phenomenon can also be seen in the pre-historic ages – prior to the Neolithic revolution, when humans had to spend their entire days hunting animals for food, human society had little culture to speak of. However, after the Neolithic revolution, humans could rely on farming for food, and had more free time and energy. It is only then that culture and art blossomed among humans. Evidently, a life without challenge and risk frees up time and energy towards more ‘meaningful’ pursuits, be it helping other people, or moving up the Maslow’s hierarchy of needs towards ‘self-actualisation’.
However, such an argument is fallacious in that it fails to understand human nature. When humans live an overly comfortable life, there is a tendency to sink into complacency and inaction. As epitomized in the wise words of ‘if it is not broken, don’t fix it’, humans often do not see a need to self-improve if the status-quo is deemed ‘comfortable enough’. Why sweat under the sun farming for food when there is enough to eat? We see this happening in developed countries such as America, where the population has become complacent behind a perceived veil of superiority. Recently, President Obama has given a speech, declaring that the American public has ‘gone soft’, highlighting the seriousness of this trend. As American becomes an increasingly comfortable place to live – with developed infrastructure and an advanced and mature political framework – its education levels have dropped, as seen from its dropping worldwide education ranking. Contrast this to China, where poverty and social disorder are rife, especially in rural areas. Despite this – or maybe because of this – Shanghai boasts the highest quality of education in the world. We also often hear of how hard students in rural areas study. In rural cities, where there is insufficient money to send all the students to college, the city picks the best student to send to college. Only one student every year in the entire city gets to go to college. In such a competitive environment, it is undeniable that the students feel stressed and challenged. But perhaps this is the reason why China’s level of education is so high. Ultimately, a life without challenge and risk lures people to a drowsy state of action, removing the impetus for people to work hard and live a fulfilling life.
In fact, challenge and risk are often catalysts of action, and serves as a driving force for people to step out of mediocrity into exceptional brilliance. We see that many famous art pieces are created amidst dark and challenging times. Picasso created many famous and unparalleled paintings throughout his life of misery and suffering, during which he cut off one his ears. An entire genre of poetry – war poetry – has been created during wartime, where danger and death laid in every corner. Steve Jobs, hailed as the revolutionary of our century, struggled through his life before becoming a successful businessman. Mr. Kentucky, the founder of KFC, was rejected by eleven companies before someone finally recognized his talent. The experience of rejection forced him to reflect and refine his recipe, until it was finally perfect. Had challenge been removed from his life, and he was accepted by the first company he met, perhaps the scrumptious KFC as we know it may not exist. What do all these examples have in common? Behind every one of these success story is a prolonged period of challenge and difficulty. Evidently, challenge and risk actually push people to great heights, not hinder their progress.
This conclusion has a great implication for our world. If challenge and risk does help mankind achieve greater heights, then would it imply that we do not need to, and perhaps should not, try to alleviate human suffering? How do we reconcile the two? As we move towards global peace and a world without poverty, this should definitely be a prime concern for policymakers and governors.
No comments:
Post a Comment