We face a tumultuous world laced with uncertainty. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has resulted in a significant loss of life. There is also erosion of cultural stability. The invasion has caused extensive damage to non-human life and the environment. In the Israeli-Hamas war, which has now bled into Lebanon, the countries face extensive loss of human life. There is destruction of non-human life and property. There is also an increase in cross-cultural hatred. Finally, turning a blind-eye to climate change is causing more suffering worldwide due to persistent climate disasters.

These and other paths we are called to navigate along life’s journey dictate we make choices.  One choice, often guided by fear and uncertainty, can lead to turmoil, chaos, and conflict.  This path is characterized by darkness and hopelessness.  Another choice, guided by awareness and understanding, can lead to empathy, healing, and resolution.  This path is characterized by lightness and hope.  Another way to view the choice we have to make in the road’s fork would be between “life” or “death.” Hopefulness is life-sustaining while the darkness that comes with turmoil and chaos is death-giving. How do you confront these forks in your life’s journey?

I would suggest that we choose the path towards life. We should recognize that we have the capacity to strengthen our awareness. This includes understanding others, both human and nonhuman. As we build and exercise that muscle we start to walk more comfortably in another person’s shoes. We develop more empathy and gradually resolve the tension between their ideas and customs and our own. As a result we see the light of day more clearly and expand our hope for living mutualistically.

Here is a short list of ways in which we start to make changes:

• choose peace over war
• choose sustainable fishing over overfishing
• choose collaboration over competition
• choose cleaning up our environment over ignoring the mess we’ve created
• choose sharing over hoarding
• choose friendship over hostility
• choose species resurrection over species extinction
• choose climate stabilization over climate warming

What would you add to this list that challenges your need to make life-sustaining choices?

In the dualities listed above, we are dealing with a polarity.  On the one hand, the first choice is life-sustaining, while the second choice is life-diminishing.  Some argue that certain benefits can be derived from war.  For example, members of a society rally behind their government and support a war’s rationale, thereby creating social cohesion.  Nonetheless, there is no doubt that all wars result in rampant death and destruction. According to some estimates, about 230 million people died in wars or conflicts throughout the 20th Century. This makes it the deadliest century in recorded history (reference).  But when we choose peace over war we are making a commitment to life over death.  The word peace originates from the Anglo-French pes, and the Old French pais, meaning peace, reconciliation, silence, agreement (reference).  The word “war” comes from the Proto-Germanic word *werzō, which means mixture, conflict, or confusion (reference). In other words, we recognize that conflict is resolved through dialogue. This is the act of searching for meaning. How do we promote generative dialogue that leads to peace (Georgetown University Partners on New Dialogue Program)

When we witness living species around the globe dying off, we face an existential decision. Should we choose life or death? Scientists predict that more than 1 million species are on track for extinction in the coming decades (reference).  Our choice, watch it happen at our peril or intervene to halt the extinction, has significant consequences. The loss of 1 million species will change the biosphere forever.  Choosing life over death means we have a responsibility to do our part to stem the tide of species extinction.  Reinvest in becoming stewards of our planet’s resources versus blind consumers. How do we build more personal awareness and understanding of this critical problem?

The choice seems obvious to me if our Earthly home is to survive beyond the 21st Century. If we continue to struggle with the decision between life and death, we put our planet in peril. Jane Goodall is 90 years old and going strong. She launched a program that calls for youth around the globe to “Vote for Nature (reference).” Should we follow Jane Goodall’s leadership or those who deny we are harming human and non-human life on Earth. I have decided to choose “life over death,” advocating for choices that leave a livable, sustainable world for future generations. What will you choose?