There is a ‘seismic shift’ and/or ‘rift’ that emanated a few years ago across this present generation, which also traverses the outgoing generation. It is an age-long encounter spearheaded metaphysically. Though it is happening in this present moment, transversing into the ambience of the outgoing generation suddenly baptized it into a universal concept, or preferably what I may call the ‘universal retrieval.’ Therefore, it is arguably correct to say that this encounter was birthed and nourished by the wisdom of the ´past´ since it is not standing on its own and perhaps meets us halfway.
But then the open-ended question remains: if this happens to be an imbrication of the past with wisdom-like posture, why do we affiliate terms like rift and seismic shift with it? This question kindles one’s curiosity and could quite properly be ignored (as I would rather suggest) so that we can focus on who we are and what we have ‘become’ yesterday, today, and even tomorrow. Suffice it to say that we don’t really know how it will turn out if the exploration is intensified.
Quite parenthetically, I announced myself as a passive watcher to state that universal retrieval, in this sense, means the total annihilation of freedom as a commodity rather than as an inheritance, the negation of choice, hope, and justice. As ‘Operators’ of (common) life, we will approach this both from philosophical and social psychological perspectives, considering the fact that we have the ‘freedom’ to harness this inquiry. That I stopped at these two perspectives does not mean that there exist no other multiplicities. Of course, there are categories and purposes that can be facilitated into this epistemic.
Universalism, in this sense, implies that the whole gamut of personhood is caught up in this trajectory, despite who you are and where you come from, or what has made you keep a vigil at night in sober reflection. Differentially, the ethos that besieges our choice and freedom might have contributed to this ‘seismic shift’ because we are ‘operators’ emerging from our own ‘silos,’ diffracting nonchalantly towards fear and incompleteness.
One puerile instance used in justifying (this psychological and philosophical) expansion (I mean, development) is the global fertility rate, which has been fragmented into two horizons: (a) reduction of the fertility rate in the global North and (b) enormous increase of the fertility rate in the global South. Sincerely, I do not want to delve into these temporalities to make my point; however, we have no place to run for safety. Whether population increases lead to wealth creation or population decline leads to economic decline – this is a theory that has not been fully utilized; therefore, we cannot substantiate the facts.
To analyze the above subject, I will briefly explore the philosophical insights of ‘population ethics’ in this analysis. Robert Malthus (1798) is popularly known for his theory called the ‘Malthusian Trap,’ which argues that food increase and the ‘satisfaction’ of the citizen will ultimately lead to famine and catastrophe if not properly checked. He called for ”moral restraint” and ”birth control” as solutions to curtail this occurrence (overpopulation).
Malthusian theory cannot be tested in many places since ‘satisfaction’ means different things to different people. Still, the theory is something to hold onto, especially if we want to make comparisons with the Other. This theory was established a long time ago to destabilize ‘utopianism’ or ‘perfectionism’. Fast forward to this new age, in askance of how the people of today will approach this theory in light of so many misgivings that have altered livelihoods: fertility, mortality, and migration.
There is a ‘strong’ conversation about what childbearing means among couples in this era of uncertainties and downturn. These are clearly stressing the world right now — to make it easier for the reader, it is not in my interest to present a unitary view. What I intend to present, on the other hand, is in part to demonstrate the idea from as many horizons as possible. Therefore, I fashioned this inquiry (as a means) to create an astounding gaze (consciously and unconsciously) to ‘un-wound’ and ‘unbound’ whoever is keeping a vigil against this ‘new’ fear — which is why this inquiry started with the illusion of a ‘seismic shift´ and a `rift´ as a reminder in case our curiosity becomes shapeless.
Photo credit: Stephen Ellcock
