Since I came across the expression ”the cult of the self”, it somehow refused to leave my memory. Maybe the reason for this is that it aptly captures my view of the religion that many of us seem to follow nowadays.

As people, I think that maybe every single thought we have has something to do with us. This does not however mean that we live alone, as the messages that we receive daily seem to suggest. From billboards to television and movie screens, we are constantly asked to dress in a certain kind of way, live in certain kinds of houses, have certain kinds of family structures, etc. One could be forgiven to think that the invitation is that we only become complete human beings when we get these things that are advertised, leading us to the path of self-gratification.

A key bit of information appears to be missing, though, in these invitations. This is how were those things made. What conditions did those who had to make them endure? What impact did the making of them have on our common planet? We are not told this, only asked to use it. Can our earth, however, and all the living things it holds sustain such usage? If the world perishes, would we not perish with it? Would avoiding such a fate not require us to find a sustainable balance? Would such a balance not be one that includes being responsible for what we use?

It felt wonderful to come here from England to find out that shop assistants could inform me where the products on the shelves of their shops were made. At that time, there was also the possibility to buy items, such as skating boots, and sportswear, to name a few, that were made in different parts of the world. This offered the possibility to purchase items that were made without the possible abuse of other human beings. The situation, today, is however different, as such goods tend to be made from just certain particular regions. For the examples given, this tends to be the Far East, with its reported record of abusing workers. Does this situation not restrict the choices we have? Does it not also encourage us to assist abuse, when those items are made through abuse? Does it not encourage us to separate ourselves from them and their suffering?

There is a possibility that this separation from others is something we get from advertisements. The majority of those we see appear to advertise Britain and America. I have noticed how we, here, are slowly wanting to be like the images that come from those places. This, of course, includes their values, with arguably the paramount one being placing the individual above everything else. In trying to achieve this, the individual is granted the license to steal, lie, cheat, and use things without asking about the consequences of using them. Amazingly our own Finnish productions have begun to copy these British and American programs. I wonder why we seem to have forgotten such values as hard work and honesty, which I believe used to be common among Finnish people. Would these not be values worth teaching, particularly to the young?

What kind of future, do we think, lies in wait for the young of our society, who are targets and who consume these advertisements? Will they, in the pursuit of satisfying themselves, be taught to forget about the existence of others? Are they going to be living under the conditions that exist in present-day England or America, whom we are trying to copy? Would a good quality of life be accorded to only a few of them, as we have in those places? Would they be living with a high crime rate, as in those places and every other place that is divided? But really what can we expect to get when we copy policies that come from a divided society? Would they not tend to create a divided society?

Laws were changed not too long ago, in such a way that the taxes that were compulsory for rich landowners became non-compulsory. How many of us, I wonder, will pay taxes that are voluntary? Can it not be imagined, therefore, that such a situation will lead to a reduction in the amounts of taxes collected? Is it not, however, those same taxes that ensure that the financially poor have a decent quality of life? What other result can be expected from such a policy than making the rich richer, and at the same time removing the possibility that the poor had to receive the services that enabled them to have a good quality of life?

As if this was not enough, there has also been a campaign by policymakers for privatizing the provision of services. Borrowed again, it must be said from those same places. Who, but the rich own businesses? Would such a policy therefore not be one that would tend to give the rich opportunities to enrich themselves? If we assume that the aim of businesses is to make profits for their owners, can it not be seen that the poor, with their lesser likelihood to provide profits, are going to be eliminated from the use of those services that are provided by businesses? Would such policies not, therefore, lead to the case of the rich becoming richer and at the same time leaving the poor without a good quality of life?

A good example of the division that is happening in our society can be found in health care services. There appears to be a growing number of private healthcare service providers. Their services, as can be expected, are directed only toward those that can pay for what they demand. In addition, there are health services provided by some employers for their employees. What happens then, to those who are not employed by such employers, or do not have enough money to go to the private sector, when they fall ill? Are these the people who make up the reported long queues in the public health services sector? I often wonder what would happen to these queues if all the healthcare professionals devoted their time to the public sector. Would the queues be as long as they are now? What makes this question even more pertinent is the fact that the training that all the health care professionals received was provided for them for free by the public. Contrary to what our policymakers try to make out, we now have a part of our society that does not enjoy a good quality of life. Wishing away poverty by asking the poor to play the lottery will not provide them with a good quality of life. The division of our society, aided by the message to pursue individual wealth and self-gratification, has to be stopped if we want to live in peace. Living in peace demands that not only do we have to change these borrowed policies but also that we wake up. Wake up from the trance of self-absorption to realize that there are others as well as a world that surrounds us. For how can we expect to live in peace, when those around us do not have it?