![]() |
| Polish national flag |
![]() |
| Bartłomiej Bonk, a bronze medalist of London Olympics 2012 |
From the very beginning in many a case infant’s well-being has to be paid for by issuing surgeon’s extra gratification for their good will to conduct caesarean section. More commonly this phenomenon is called bribery. Obviously, voices against caesarean section bring the importance of giving birth naturally to the fore, slamming caesarean practice as detrimental to child’s strength and development in the future. The tragic events of Nov 2012 in the Bonk family are exemplary, however, of what happens when you shun greasing the palm. To remind the unaware, in Poland health care is free of charge, because it is financed from taxpayers’ money, so additional payments for rudimentary treatment is redundant graft. Demanding and/or receiving gratification for the sake of a newly born human life is the first encounter of the phenomenon of society’s disintegration driven by greed and selfishness, and sometimes spiteful malice. A public health care representative driven by self-interest and disrespecting a new life being born to society, potential future workforce and a taxpayer constituting for pensions of the medical representative’s generation, blots the picture of united society.
Ultimately, parents of a newly born child learn that they can count merely on themselves and that public institutions are there for formal reasons but they do not exhibit any pro-family policy. As a result, it seems that there is no preoccupation about the future of Poland and its society. Over two decades of democracy and capitalism has created a situation comparable to Homo homini lupus est. And its repercussions cannot be altered from day to day, moreover, the current state of affairs is what older generations strived for ardently ousting communism. If health care system is not reliable and its representatives demand additional money from citizens, perhaps it would be better to leave the tax money in taxpayers’ pockets instead of squandering it inefficiently and let people decide on their own which service they choose. That is a different issue which would leave throngs without access to health care. Sadly, however, when the budged is being wasted, private money is being taken care of. In consequence, parents nurture their child instilling values adequate to the existing reality. One insidious example of the above is when children are being scolded for tarnishing iPhone’s screen but they miss parallel reprimand when they have impaired their peers, their good name, or their belongings. A rather petty matter, prima facie, but how emphatically it champions selfishness and egoism over other people and their feelings.
Under the influence of this sort of values, it is not difficult to imagine the inevitable adulthood repercussions. When asking a favor, people feel obliged to return it otherwise they feel guilty of having something without proper remuneration. It is like a trade or barter, so even a favor cannot be a non-profit phenomenon, hence it has to be duly dealt with for the sake of good conscience. Disappointed with the above altruists could voice their disagreement claiming that well-bred people have some sense of decorum which is devoid of that kind of behavior. The statement, however, often seems to be easily uttered from the armchair but in practice society gets more and more disintegrated. For instance, when a neighboring gate’s lock unleashes rattling sounds evoking bolt wrenching, out of the sudden it turns out it is too dark and too late an hour to pop out and do the rudimentary check-up even under the pretences of fresh air respiration. Besides, it could well be the neighbor coming home late at night, slightly pickled and unwilling to be talked to, and the encounter could only compromise his good name. This neighbor could have well installed CCTV cameras and all the above is pointless. Thus favors have become challenging or even awkward. It is easier then to recourse to technological progress and refrain from personal involvement. Analogically, it is easier to post a comment on facebook rather than pop in for a cup of coffee.
In this sense people believe they stay in touch with each other and they resent it when others tell them they do not. Obviously people who use social networks are not solely responsible for social disintegration. Many factors add up including, as mentioned above, upbringing, the influence of corrupt people, and prevailing indifference towards other human beings. The outcome is imminent reclusiveness and a promise of technological progress, covering a better parallel life on online discussion threads. Technology takes over personal relations which is a great opportunity for technocrats and plutocrats to retain their reins over the unaffiliated masses that can be easily traced under online surveillance. The remedy to this breakage in social interactions is rejuvenation of social bonds – meeting each other for the purpose of enjoying the time sent together, trusting each other, exercising good will, non-profit attitude, and exhibit less money-oriented calculations. Also spending time on sports and outdoor events is recommended to unite all and sundry. 

Of course ,I might be wrong in what I am going to say, but it appears to me that the most important factor which may possibly have the biggest impact on the process of social disintegration is the growing role of the Internet in terms of human communication. It is worth mentioning that more and more often can we observe that everyday people spend a meaningful part of their time communicating each other by social networking sites like Facebook etc. or instant messengers like Skype or Windows Live Messengers or by tweeting ( sending short messages by using Tweeter) and they sometimes simply lack the face-to-face conversation with other human. I think this factor is the main source of the problem described above by the author. But I take into consideration that this is my subjective point of view on the issue and I do not regard my opinion as unquestionable. Regards
ReplyDelete