Suppose you are a member of a particular group on, let’s say, Earth. To your surprise and dismay, a member of your opposing group moves in next door. Maybe you are a member of the KKK, and an African-American family settles in. Maybe you are a Palestinian, and a Jew buys the house across the way. Maybe you are a Kansas Jayhawk fan, and Missouri Tigers supporters show up. The specifics don’t matter.

Image Creidt: alai.jmw’s photostream

Seeing that a member of your hated demographic has arrived in your previously pristine neighborhood, you have three options: A) You can set aside your years of hatred and welcome your perceived enemy with compassion and respect; B) You can act on your hatred, endeavoring to make your new neighbors miserable and possibly dead; or C) You can shrug and say, “whatever.”

Many people would agree, in theory, that A (compassion) is the best choice. Most people also would agree, in theory, that C (apathy) is a much better choice than B (hatred and violence). However, a distressingly large number of people choose hatred and violence. There are Jews and Muslims who kill each other over religion. There are Hutus and Tutsis who machete each other over a tribal distinction created by the Belgians. There were — and still are — Klansmen who kill over race.

There are, sadly, many more examples. All of these people choose hatred and violence over either compassion or apathy. Various philosophers and religious leaders have periodically tried to convince everyone that compassion and universal love provide the path to a better world. Their words are twisted and used to stir up the very hatred they so opposed. What if we aimed a bit lower? What if we tried for apathy instead?

Allow me to define my terms. Apathy does not mean catatonia. It means a general lack of caring or interest, particularly in abstract or non-immediate things. The Random House Dictionary defines apathy as “an absence or suppression of passion, emotion, or excitement.” An apathetic person still participates in all of life’s activities. He still goes to work, although maybe not on Friday afternoon. She still may go to church, but there’s no self-flagellation if she misses a service or two. The apathetic still enjoy spending time with their families. They have hobbies and interests, but they lack passion or obsession. If you ask an apathetic person for a strong opinion or belief, the most common reply is, “whatever.”

On the other side, we have people who are passionate (or obsessive). Passionate people care deeply about at least one thing and often several. This doesn’t refer to the romantic idea of passion because that’s not really the focus of this discussion.

Take the example of race. One might ask: “Is it better for me to be passionate or apathetic about issues of race?” But that is not our question. Anyone who answers will, of course, say it’s better to be passionate as long as you are passionate in favor of the right cause. Our question is: “Would the world be better off if everyone were apathetic about race?”

Let’s take the previous example. A black family moves in next door to a KKK family (remind me not to use their realtor). Over and over, we have seen scenes of violence and suffering splashed across televisions and newspapers from these encounters. But what if neither side cared? What if apathy, instead of passion, won the day? Instead of lynchings, cross burnings and silly white hoods, the KKK shrugged and said, “whatever.”

Would the world be better off if everyone were apathetic about religion? Surely, there are millions of people who have drawn strength and fulfillment from a passionate faith. Yet, there are millions more who have suffered from the violence of religious conflict. From the early days of Christian oppression at the hands of the Romans (and the claws of the Romans’ lions) to the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conflict in Northern Ireland, Israel and Palestine and today’s Muslim terrorists, tremendous suffering has been caused by those who are passionate about their religion.

Suppose Israel and Palestine looked across the border one day, shrugged, and said, “whatever.”

Would the world be better off if everyone were apathetic about sex? Now, most people agree that sex is a good thing, but a simple enjoyment of two (or more) people coming together is not as simple as it sounds. Think of the oppression of women, who for centuries across European culture were treated as a sub-class. Even today, there are women who are forced to hide behind veils in parts of the Muslim world. Even the progressive West sometimes views sexually active women as “sluts.” Homosexuals the world over are often shunned or assaulted. Members of the transgender community can face even more discrimination. All of this stems from the human obsession with sex and sexuality. What if, whenever people chose to get together, or however they chose to express their gender identity, others looked over, shrugged, and said, “whatever.”

Hatred is not an act of apathy. No one can hate idly. It is an act of deep conviction. It takes effort.

Much, and maybe most, of the world’s suffering is caused by people caring far too much about the wrong things: race, tribe, religion, sex and a host of others. If everyone were apathetic, we would have no racism, no religious persecution, no hatred, no terrorism, no genocide, no war and no violence (except on TV).

What about the other side? What would we lose if everyone suddenly became apathetic?

Clearly, we would lose quite a bit. There would be less compassion and therefore less charity. People would be inclined to look at those suffering with the same disinterest that they have toward everything else. On the other hand, there would be much less suffering to begin with because of the lack of war, hatred, etc.

There would be fewer entrepreneurs. Where would the drive to start a new business come from? Innovations and advancements in technology and medicine also would slow markedly. That is not to say that there would be no advancements; they would be limited to what could be discovered working, say, 25 hours a week.

It is difficult to weigh the loss of the good against the massive benefits that universal apathy would have. Certainly, the world would be a radically different place. But it would be one with a good deal less suffering caused by other human beings who care much too strongly about the wrong things.
Of course, you will argue that instead of being apathetic, you are being passionate about good causes, the right causes, and so you are helping the world become a better place.

And your opponent will say the same thing.

After all, no one, with the exception of Bond villains and Enron executives, believes he is doing evil in the world. Everyone believes his cause is the just and righteous one.

That is exactly the point. If everyone got rid of his cause, if everyone stopped caring, the world would be better off.

So stay home, abandon your causes and watch some TV. You can sleep soundly with the knowledge that while you might not be making the world a better place, at least you’re not making it any worse.