Benefits of the Emotionless
Do you push others away or do you surround yourself with loved ones when times are heavy? I know that I push others away even though of yearn to be held and nurtured by them instead. My natural instinct has become the opposite of my emotional and physical want. Why has a natural instinct of mine overcome the wants that I want? Is it because hiding my feelings away is more beneficial to me in this new world rather than expressing them? Are men not allowed to show a weakness because they fear that others will look down upon them?
As a male, I fear that my other male companions will look down upon me if I were to show any form of weakness whether emotional or physical. I fear that those who have raised me with think of me differently if I were not to put on muscle mass and not understand how simple tools work. Living in such a world is hopeless because, without the expression of emotions, we might as well become mindless robots performing only to become the most efficient and longest living species on the planet even though some rash decisions will have to be made.
I've been told from a young age, that I need to become logically smart. I wouldn't need to understand how the economics of the world would work because once I had attained a wife, she would do all that. I was to do nothing more than become a handyman, marry, have two kids, raise the kids then hope to die happily. Not until the end of my life was I to express any sort of emotion. All the other steps can be done without emotion. I can join a trade school to learn to be a handyman while attaining muscle mass; then I could be paired with another to marry, and ultimately by pairing a man and a woman together they would plant the seeds of children to sprout later. Raising them would be the same as going to trade school. As it was explained, each step, except the last, could be done with no emotional factor whatsoever, and that was how I was raised to think.
I see no point in hiding the emotions of a man unless there is a beneficial outcome of doing so, but through the political and ethical aspects of the world currently, we cannot gain a beneficial outcome of an emotionless person without dire consequences. In order to gain this beneficial gain, there would have to be an understanding that not everyone on the planet needs to be living and some would be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to preserve mankind. As an emotionless person, there would be no reason why I should not sacrifice myself in order to preserve mankind. If the data gathered shows that with a lesser human population on the earth, then the ecosystems that have been wrecked could come back after a certain amount of time, then I, as an emotionless person, would take the logical route by sacrificing myself in order to help the wrecked ecosystems and in return helping further humankind.
There is a fear of an emotionless person, much like there is a fear of artificial intelligence. Will the emotionless person only think of the most logical outcome of a situation? Take for instance the situation of the train coming at a fork in the railway, one way the train will deny life from one person; however, the one person could cure a disease like cancer, and the other way would deny life from a certain number of people. Would the logical conclusion of the situation be to deny life from the person that will cure cancer, and in return save millions of people and future generations, or deny life from the certain number of people? Without prior knowledge of the side with a certain amount of people, the emotionless person or artificial intelligence would be swift to deny life from them in order to make sure that cancer would be cured.
Now take the same standpoint with an emotional man. One path of the train would be to deny life from the person that can cure cancer, and on the other path is the man's family who he loves and adores. Logically speaking, to help preserve mankind the man should end his family's life, but would an emotional man do as such? Would someone be willing to kill everyone they knew and loved in order to make sure that humankind could benefit? I don't recall anything along the lines of someone sacrificing their family in order to preserve mankind in past history. I could be wrong.
Mankind is weak with emotions. There is a majority of people that will make the swift decision to make sure that their emotions are kept intact even though they might have to deny mankind a solution to a problem. Emotions tend to weigh us down from doing the right thing, but on the other hand, emotions could lead mankind to a more logical solution with more of a willingness to complete. Emotions could be beneficial to mankind, but they could also be devastating to mankind. Which is the best time for emotions to sway an answer?