Fate or Choice

In the early foundations of West­ern civilization, the Greeks be­lieved individual lives were com­pletely pre-destined by the three Fates; Clotho, who spins the thread of life (birth), Lachesis, who mea­sures the thread (length of life), and Atropos, who cuts the thread (death). They controlled the en­tire life course of every mortal, and their decisions were believed to be unchangeable. In modern times, individual choice is promoted as the dominant influence on one’s life. All consequences, good or bad, are the result of choice. I believe it is a combination of both fate and choice. Fate might be responsible for the circumstances of our birth. We don’t choose our parents, loca­tion, era, local and geopolitical cir­cumstances. Some aspects of be­ing alive are simply too enormous for an individual to choose, so I’m guessing something like the Fates are deciding that. Some believe in randomness, but I think that is a term for not knowing.

What I do know for myself is that I have some choice in how I respond to what the Fates have handed me. I must decide what to do within the context of my birth in conjunction with what crosses my path in life. I had to pick which fork in the road so many times in 75 years that I have lost count. Each trail divide asked the question that poet Mary Oliver asks at the end of her poem “The Summer Day”. She writes, “Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and pre­cious life?” She asks the question, but the answer is up to each one of us living a “wild and precious life”. “Wild” hints at adventure and mys­tery, while “precious” implies not wasting the life handed to us.

A big question for me is, what am I living for? “My life” implies it’s mine and mine alone. But I don’t live alone. I have family, marriage, community, and society. Some­times my life is for me, and at other times I live for others. This sounds like a clear division, but in truth, life is so dynamic that clear di­vides are exceedingly rare. We still have to pick, unless the burden is so heavy that we let others choose for us. Maybe we surrender to the Fates in their modern forms.

Years ago, at a private gun club, I helped a small group of older men unload their year’s shipment of clay pigeons. Cases were heavy, so they were glad to see me, an ob­viously younger guy. During the work, I listened to their lengthy conversation about the upcoming presidential election. I’ve learned to listen when elders speak so I can understand their viewpoint and not appear foolish if I offer my young opinion. One man said in frustra­tion, “Oh shut up! Just vote like the NRA and the pope tells you!” The conversation came to an abrupt halt. I didn’t respond external­ly, but internally I was shocked at what appeared to me as an abdica­tion of adult responsibility to make informed decisions. In hindsight, years later, I think modern Fates were in charge for that man.

Assuming we have some choice, I feel it is important to be aware of the effects my decisions have on others now and in the future. Fore­sight is more limited than hind­sight, making it difficult to know for certain. It appears to me that most people are pretty nearsighted in making their big decisions. “Hy­perbolic discounting” is partially responsible. It is simply defined as people preferring short-term re­sults rather than long-term benefits. Adults will often think in terms of their legacy as an endpoint to future planning. I understand “legacy” as a lasting impact post mortem. Usually, it takes the form of money and property left to immediate off­spring or organization. Sometimes it’s an enduring influence in history, sports, music, and art. Rarely does it affect future livability beyond a generation or two of descendants.

The Seventh Generation Prin­ciple is a focus of the Iroquois, Anishinaabe, Lakota, and other indigenous tribes. It promotes thought leading to action in sup­port of the future seven genera­tions. By respecting the environ­ment and maintaining language and culture, future generations are more assured of better health and well-being. The principle reflects an understanding that people are caretakers of the earth, borrowing it from future generations. Deci­sions are made considering future generations along with immediate personal and community needs.

David Brancaccio, who hosts the radio program “Marketplace Morn­ing Report”, was interviewed at the Minnesota State Fair this year. As part of that broadcast, he told of his interview with author Kurt Vonne­gut, who said, “No government has ever had a Secretary of the Future.” Brancaccio went on to say that For­tune 500 companies do have CEOs of Sustainability. These executives are charged with strategizing and deciding how to maintain company viability into the future.

Perhaps we need to think of our­selves as Secretaries of the Future or CEOs of Sustainability. Leaving accumulated wealth, family busi­ness, or real estate to be inherited by the next generation might be lost to subsequent generations. A generation is defined by approxi­mately 25 years. Some people ask what kind of world we adults are leaving for our children and grand­children. That is not far enough. By adopting the Seventh Genera­tion Principle now, we could make decisions while considering 175 years into the future. If we act as earth caretakers, we are stewarding livability and well-being for future generations. In 175 years, people will be living with what we left be­hind when we safeguarded or stole their futures. What we choose now will become the Fates of future generations.