Insecurity - The Root of All Evil - Part II

To recap for anyone who skipped right to Part II, the first article laid out the definitions that my claim addresses.

Insecurity - The state of being unprotected from danger or threat, or the state of feeling unsafe, unstable, and vulnerable to fear and anxiety.

Evil - Any act that causes unnecessary harm or undue suffering

So, to reiterate, my claim is that insecurity is the root of all evil. And with that, let’s begin.

Unaddressed Implications

The first layer of complexity in making such an assertion is the fact that the average individual does not spend much time pondering on what drives the motivations of other human beings. For that matter, many people do not even spend time analyzing the meaning behind their own motivations. Introspection appears to be a skill, learned through targeted acquisition, and without introspection, it can be hard to know whether one might be lacking in such a skill. In this way, this assertion may feel very arbitrary, almost made up, and even personal, since it addresses a dynamic that we all face, and labels it with a pretty harsh definition.

Evil is a strong word, given that its connotation is typically used in religious binary thinking. Even in secular terms it is reserved for defining the most egregious, heinous acts of mankind. Acts of such scale and severity that it makes us intensely uncomfortable that someone knowingly carried them out. In the last article, I talked about the classic philosophical argument of the lion killing for food, and how we define its actions as instinct and not evil, since it has no real awareness of the pain it inflicts.

So, the defining equation for evil is something like:

A (Act) + Aw (Awareness) + UHI (Unnecessary Harm Inflicted) = E (Evil)

This seems to be a fair assessment, but it begins to run into some issues, especially when we use the more open definition of evil. The better way to understand this characterization is to understand that like many things, evil exists on a spectrum. Resentment, envy, dismissiveness, these less overt states and behaviors exist on the lower end of the spectrum, whereas externalized hatred, rageful violence, and oppression sit firmly on the more extreme end.

In the Dhammapada, a collection of verses from Buddha, minor evils are the ones we engage in within our daily lives. If left unbalanced by good deeds, they can amass, and bring about unhappiness, both upon ourselves and others. Within Christianity, these minor evils are defined as “lesser sins”, and include harsh words spoken about others, acts of selfishness, and general deviations from what we know to be “right”. The Quran defines evil even more broadly, as any action that brings harm to oneself or others. In Islam, intent is not even a defining factor for whether an action is defined as evil, however, internal intentions that never even become actions can by themselves can be defined as evil.

Whether you identify with the teachings of religion or not, the secular way of looking at it is by observing cause and effect. If an action disturbs another person enough that they then offload that hurt onto someone else, it becomes a chain reaction. The seemingly minor unpleasantries we inflict upon each other do compound. Therefore, every bit of antagonism, of selfishness, of derision, these minor evils contribute to making the human world worse off.

The Source of Evil

If multiple religions agree that evil exists in many scales and forms, and secular thought observes a direct cause and effect in how minor evils compound, then understanding the source of these evils will provide us a significant viewpoint into understanding the inner workings of mankind, ourselves included.

In uncovering the origins of an issue, using reverse causal inference can lead us to the answer. For example, let’s start with a monumental evil, a war involving multiple nations.

We start at the evil act: an organized violent act by one nation against another, Nation A attacking Nation B, leading to the deaths of a hundred civilians and three hundred armed militants. Hundreds of families torn apart, thousands traumatized, and tens of thousands that will carry the mental wounds of that trauma for generations to come.

This evil did not emerge out of thin air. If we look backwards on a timeline, we can see pattern emerge. Most recently, we find trade restrictions inflicted by Nation B upon Nation A that damaged their already weakened economy. An evil act. Further back, we see verbal statements of aggression from Nation A against Nation B, another evil act, and even before that, we trace it all the way back to its origin point, a need for a significant natural resource by Nation A that Nation B possesses.

Evil rarely emerges from a sudden impulse.

The Role of Imbalances

Resource insecurity is arguably the most widespread cause of evil in mankind. On an international scale, it invokes economic instability within societies, challenges nation’s standings within international hierarchies, and fuels desperation domestically.

As I will constantly return to, one of the most vital concepts in understanding existence is the fundamental law of equilibrium, or, put more simply, balance. Insecurity typically follows this same pattern: observing a perceived imbalance, insecurity manifests, then a behavior takes place in an attempt to rebalance the equation, either by something additive, like an overt external action, a heightening of internal resentment, or something subtractive, like silent treatment, theft, or character assassination.

So, a new portion to our equation:

A (Act) = IMB (imbalance) x INS (insecurity) ± REB (need to rebalance)

Within resource insecurity, there are two sides to the scale: having and not having, or lacking. (Surely you have heard of the concept of “haves'“ and “have-nots”?). To lack access to a necessary resource puts one’s survival in jeopardy. They find themselves unprotected from the basest existential threats: thirst, starvation, exposure to the elements, sometimes all of these simultaneously. The insecurity of not having stokes desperation, even anger, and can lead to evil act like violence in order to obtain the resource. But why, pray tell, is violence in this sense “evil”? If the lion can kill for its food and evade the label, why are human beings committing violence defined as such? I will address this later, but for now, it comes down to that distinction of necessity.

Though resource insecurity applies most heavily to the resources necessary for survival, it also extends to other less material resources in a society such as status, influence, or perceived safety. Not having these resources invokes insecurity in a more internal way. Instead of the overt sort of physical desperation that a lack of survival resources incites, this form of not having can spawn evil thoughts and behaviors in a different sort of desperation. A perceived (or real) imbalance of social status can cause an individual to engage in slander, gossip, or sabotage in an attempt to balance out that perceived disparity. A perceived (or real) imbalance of influence can lead an individual to behave egotistically and try to subdue apparent rivals in an attempt to force a hierarchical shift to a higher position. An imbalance of perceived safety can cause an individual to engage with the world in a more antagonistic or reckless manner. Why should they play by rules that don’t apply to those in power? Drugs, crime, or reputation-based violence can bring about a perceived rebalancing of safety. If no one is there to protect them, why should they care about anyone’s well-being, let alone their own? High-risk, high-reward actions become the most logical in that context. If drugs can numb the anguish of evil deeds, if crime could bring them additional security, or if killing a potential rival would make them more safe, wouldn’t it be illogical not to do so? Morals rapidly fall apart in the face of insecurity.

On the other side of the coin, there is also a deep insecurity in having. When we possess something that others lack, we can become susceptible to the idea that people want to take from us. The imbalance imbued by this kind of paranoia has, more times than we could ever calculate, led to evil actions like suppression, oppression, and control-based violence. Beyond the copious examples in world history, just take a look at the world as it currently stands. An incredibly small number of individuals compared to the rest of the population possess vast empires of wealth at impossible scales. 12 individuals possess more combined wealth than the bottom nearly 4 billion people on the planet. Beyond that, only 18% of individuals on the planet (including those top billionaires) control 87.3% of the wealth. That’s correct. 82% of adults on earth only control 12.7% of the wealth.

It should come as no surprise that copious amounts of that wealth are being invested into evil acts of suppression through various methods: propaganda, voter manipulation, censorship, invasions of privacy, and innovations that seem like they could one day serve as a means of control-based violence against any have-nots that step out of line. Incredible, isn’t it, that one can possess more material means than hundreds of thousands to millions of other individuals, yet instead of investing heavily in policies or endeavors that would bolster social cohesion, prosperity, and enhance overall safety (as well as reinforce their reputation as benevolent), they instead choose to prop up the advancement of autonomous weaponry like algorithmically self-targeted drones, and mass surveillance technologies that erode the privacy rights of civilians?

It is, in fact, not incredible. It is insecurity… the root of all evil.

If left unchecked, evil can spread and take over any environment.

Lowercase ‘E’ evils

The most obvious examples of evil exist at the grander scales. They are unavoidable, and a general consensus exists on their categorization. Societal subjugation, mass murder, engineering starvation, the list goes on and on. Grand acts of evil are easily identified, given their optics and spheres of influence.

Impasse Life Recovery is a self-development program. Our focus is on the welfare of the individual, not rewriting the system (yet). The evils that we need to become aware of on an individual level are the smaller ones, the minor transgressions that we suffer and inflict upon others within our daily lives. The “evil with a lowercase ‘E’” types.

Within the current societal context, this is a difficult place to start. In the United States, the deeply ingrained sentiment of hyper-individualism has been growing over the past decade into an almost militant expression of its former ideology. Hierarchical power struggles, baseline antagonism, and hyper-competitive dispositions are not only expanding in their reach, but are growing into philosophies of their own. But I’ll address that in a bit.

The assertion I want to make is this: it is our responsibility as individuals to make this world a less evil place, and we make a choice to do so in every interaction we have with others.

When we commit minor transgressions, we actively make the world a worse place to live in for everyone involved. Anyone who knows about the ego defense mechanism of displacement knows that when even a small hurt is inflicted, that is far from the end of it. Antagonism causes insecurity in the receiver, leading them to offload that tension onto another target, who can either internalizes it into a new form of internalized insecurity (leading to more harm down the road) or also offload it to someone else. Thus, the cycle continues.

The phrase, “be the change you want to see in the world” aptly addresses the solution.

Our smaller evils share similar origins to the larger ones. Having, or not having some form of security in: status, emotional stability, finances, social inclusion, relationship or sexual satisfaction, career prospects, healthy body image, and so on, leads to an imbalance that the mind is compelled to even out. The importance of highlighting these dynamics is in enhancing understanding, and by extension, to expand our ability to respond to situations with this knowledge.

Insecurity surrounding status can lead us into antagonistic states, undercutting or insulting those with higher perceived ‘social value’. Emotional insecurity leads to saying things we don’t mean to those close to us, or inflicting emotional harm through unhealthy behaviors. Social insecurity leads to feelings of bitterness and resentment, and if left to fester, even acts of wanton destruction or homicidal ideation. It’s no mystery as to why the number of mass shooters has skyrocketed within the era of the internet as social cohesion has diminished. Financial insecurity puts us under stress, which results in emotional damage to ourselves and places strain on close relationships.

Expanding upon the notion of insecurity in relationships and sexual satisfaction could be turned into its own article, but I said I would address it, so I will make it brief. The rebirth of corrosive ideologies in young men over the past ten years has been directly linked to sexual insecurity. As interpersonal connections have become strained in the US, so too has the world of dating, and by extension, the world of sexuality. Young people are having less sex than ever before due to an overwhelming number of factors, and this reality is magnified amongst young men.

The pervasive nature of smartphones has enhanced the perceived threat of public scrutiny (social insecurity). This has twisted the perception of the courting process into a potentially risky endeavor. Instead of being excited by the idea of speaking to a woman, young men fear that their attempt at courtship might end up being recorded and put on the internet. This alone has pushed the issue past platitudinal solutions like “practice makes perfect” or “just learn how to speak to women”.

Insecurity is not just a driver of internal evil, it is also a resource utilized and manipulated by those with ill intentions. Insecurity is an open wound, and some people have an instinct to dig a knife in and twist it open further. The last fifteen years in the United States have been tumultuous, to say the least. This is due in no small part to the rise in a cultural movement which has operated more like an abscess than anything else. Young men, already the most vulnerable population for loneliness, substance abuse, suicide, and other deaths of despair, are subsequently vulnerable to extremism. In another article, I will dive into deeper detail on how this movement is a reactionary force to other cultural dynamics of the 2010s, but for now, I will stick to the core of this article.

In the presence of young men’s growing insecurity, a new movement has torn through

the that being “red-pilled” and “understanding the nature of femininity” is the only way to not be taken advantage of. Regrettably, this ideology of insecurity follows the same pathway as many others, and operates through insecurity as a guiding force by choosing to highlight the behaviors of the most unscrupulous, unfaithful women it can identify, and ignoring the other admirable sides of femininity.

I will start to draw this to a close, because I could go on and on breaking down the various ways that insecurity manifests into evil, but the most important takeaway from this article is thus: obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, though supposedly the original sin of Adam and Eve, is actually the best way that we can go about changing our own lives as well as the world around us. When you come across a corrosive encounter in your life, take a step back before reacting. First apply the logic set forth in these articles to gain an understanding of what might really be going on. If you’re a mathematically minded individual, apply the equation:

A (Act) [IMB (Imbalance) x INS (Insecurity) ± REB (need to Rebalance)] + AW (Awareness) + UHI (Unnecessary Harm Inflicted) = E (Evil)

—So, you’ve encountered a minor evil: someone cutting you off on the highway. That was (A), the act. The act is the product of the perceived imbalance, (IMB) the person’s position in the line of cars, multiplied by their insecurity, (INS) their insecurity at potentially being passed, and in this case the need to rebalance (REB) took an additive form, +the need to maintain their position. They were aware (AW) of their decision to cut you off aggressively, and unnecessary harm was inflicted (UHI) in that you had to slam on your brakes, sending a shockwave of panicked braking through the line of cars behind you. Thus, a minor evil was inflicted.—

Utilizing the equation, you don’t need to react, you don’t even need to engage with them. Understand that they have some form of insecurity at play, and let it be. In fact, engaging will start the cycle anew, and might even create a cyclical loop of minor evils culminating in a crash (for that matter, their one action has likely already started up the equation in at least one of the cars behind you, who might misplace their aggression onto a different target).

The key to all of this is the most important variable at play: AW (awareness). Instead of it simply being a necessary factor for a behavior to be defined as evil, it is actually the moment in the equation that we can stop the process in its tracks. If we go forward with the act despite knowing it will cause unnecessary harm, then it becomes evil. The most critical opposing force to evil is not ‘good’. It is temperance, the product of awareness and self-control. Evil actions are easier, in that they require less self-control to carry out.

Let’s return to the lion’s situation. The lion is driven by a predatory instinct that makes them dangerous even to handlers that have worked with them for years. The equation cannot apply because the necessary variables are not present. In fact, even if awareness was present, the variable of UHI (unnecessary harm inflicted) would be hard to argue. A lion performs many actions that are easily classified as brutal: killing for sport to hone their hunting skills, eating prey alive, and even killing their own cubs to bring a lioness to heat more quickly. However, these actions appear to serve some purpose. Otherwise it would not reinforce the instinct. As such, it would be hard to argue that their predatory nature could be overruled by some sort of moral code. Therefore, the lion cannot be defined as evil.

Why then, am I adamant on making this distinction with human beings? Are we too not simply the products of our instincts? The answer is complex. We have constructed complex moral structures upon which our societies must function. These rules of human decency, prosocial norms, and a need to uphold societal functioning dictate many of the interactions we carry out. The distinction between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom is that we do have access to a higher level of consciousness. Even the least educated human being possesses a level of understanding about existence that exceeds almost every animal we know. The awareness of mortality, and our ability to know that we only have so much time on this earth means that every choice we make towards others must also be regarded through the same framework.

The reason I am taking the time to expand so thoroughly on this concept is because of the stakes involved. In my eyes (and I could make a compelling case that this is an objective fact), evil acts are significantly more powerful than neutral, or good acts. Good, prosocial, or cooperative acts are cohesive. They bind things together and create order from disorder. Building trust, fostering mutual bonds, constructing shelter against the elements, saving people from starvation, and so on. Good, in itself, is a defiant act. Evil on the other hand, is more natural, in that it functions in line with the fundamental law of entropy, the tendency for all things to seek a state of dissolution, or disorganization. On the grander scale, destroying a hospital during war with a single bomb involves less effort and resources than the countless moving parts and resources that were required to come together to build that hospital in the first place, let alone to rebuild it after clearing the rubble. On the individual scale, one corrosive comment made to an individual (particularly a child) has the potential to damage their self-esteem for decades to come.

Evil is, in my eyes, nearly always unnecessary. But its source is the same. Every bullet we fire, every act of malice, every act of derision… are all due to insecurity in some form, either internally, or societally constructed. But these insecurities do not need to manifest into an external evil, they only do so if we lack the knowledge and the ability to mediate or fix what caused them. When I say that evil is unnecessary, it is said from the firm position that we possess the abundance of resources to be able to take care of everyone, there is the potential for every single human being on this earth to be safe and content. Despite this, we consistently create structures where people inherently struggle, conflicts flare, and desperation thrives.

In the face of this reality, without the influence to fix the entire world’s ills, it is then up to us to reshape the portion of the world that is within our reach. This is the only way forward, and it is a reality that will become even more evident as supply chain issues, food shortages, and crises begin to become commonplace. We already know that those who have fight back against those who do not have at every turn. Thus, we must endeavor to treat our fellow human beings even better to make up for the greater evils that are being inflicted, and not give in to the temptation to follow that route ourselves.

Without the mitigating force of temperance, evil will beget evil at every level of society.

Thank you for reading. I will expand upon this line of thinking in part III - Insecurity - The Root Of Adaptation.