I recently read a face book article with the now trending #sensitive material tag. And I guess it was rightly given this time as I found the whole experience of reading this “sensitive” post rather distressing. Not because of what was present in it but because of what wasn’t.

The article started off with a blunt statement on how the author believes that “cheating” as a phenomenon doesn’t exist. Intrigued by such a controversial idea I read on hoping to find an interesting reasoning that would show me the validity of the claim. But I was only to be disappointed as not even a trace of a substantial argument was to be found. This I realised was becoming increasingly common these days with social media providing the perfect platform for such imposters with a Nietzsche quote as a profile picture to express their pseudo intellectualism.

As exhibited by the prime example of this particular author, as they went on to draw an utterly ridiculous comparison between sharing a joke with a third person and sharing a bed with another. It pains me to see how far our logical thinking has fallen, outed by the hunger to stand out. The author went on to say how we break promises made to ourselves everyday and how infidelity should be treated just like one of them. Meaning... “Shit I didn’t go for my morning run today like I promised myself” and “Oh Susan I slept with your best friend in the mean time”; the one and the same. Yup, potato-potahto.

Then the article went on to amaze me even further and went and called guilt “a mental problem” that needed “treatment”. The whole ordeal ended with my staring dejectedly at the significant number of likes at the bottom. Incidents like these make me feel like we might be taking forward the ‘freedom of opinion’ concept a bit too far. Like maybe it would be better for humanity as a whole if some people kept certain opinions to themselves. But of course that is slightly Big Brotherish of me and entirely impossible when every Tom, Dick and Harry out there claims to be the forbearer of the next radical thinking revolution.

But something about this article left a particularly sour after taste. And I mean besides it being the paragon of nonsensical shallowness. There was the glaring absence of something that is supposed to be indigenous, an utter lack of regard for another’s feelings. Not a single word in the article was spared for the ones who are at the receiving end. A blatant lack of empathy.

This starts us off on a tangent. Empathy is now an endangered emotion. The same emotion that we claim as the aspect that makes humans “humans”. To be apathetic has become cool, with the “I don’t give a fuck” phrase so popular now, adorning t-shirts of 12 year olds. Now what is wrong with giving a fuck every now and then? To be nice is to be weak. That seems to be the predominant attitude. No surprises there as we are plunged into this rat race at young ages for reasons that never really become clear to us. I remember a summer camp that I went to where the inspirational speaker had a session on how to make yourself the best. His lesson was clear enough...propel yourself over everything and EVERYONE. He even made up a rhyme to go with it.

So basically I believe that empathy has a pretty short run ahead of it. Now why did this happen? How did we get here?
Feeling bad about a broken promise is not a mental illness and it is not a weakness. Considering it so shows how scared we are to the core about everything and anything. Too scared to feel, too scared to act, we hide behind our seemingly nonchalant mien, maybe even with two middle fingers up to further cement the notion. So what happens now? Do we wave bye-bye to empathy? (Or give a shrug and mumble a whatever) Did empathy expire on us or did we as a species effectively manage to stifle it? I think both.

Is apathy the next stage of emotional evolution for humans? It does make sense that way as lack of empathy goes far in terms of development and progress. Examples being dictatorships. Holocaust thankfully remains the best example for this. Empathy was eradicated from a group of people due to which the whole process was carried out with machine precision. But human history tells us that such a flourish would be short-lived. Because no matter how hard you try, the emotion will exist in someone out there and they will speak up at some point. Even the mightiest armies fall to this force.

Hence we have the “the good always wins at the end” theory. But what if this good ending is not so inevitable after all? What if that person out there with the pricking conscience fails to exist anymore? Who speaks up then?
The point trying to be made is this. Only a person with empathy will have the need for empathy. The only and best advocate for empathy is empathy. Empathy has a stance because empathy exists. It feeds itself. But by pushing it more and more into the background we are not just making it dormant, we are making it extinct. Fewer people with active empathy, fewer people who understand the basic need for it in the first place. Fewer kids saying I believe, fainter the magic will get.