No discussion of technology at this time of year would be complete without mention of scary technology. Nuclear weapons are the scariest of all; and Albert Einstein spoke about them as follows:

“My part in producing the atomic bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt, pressing the need for experiments on a larger scale in order to explore the possibilities for the production of an atomic bomb.”

“I was fully aware of the terrible danger to mankind in case these attempts succeeded. But the likelihood that the Germans were working on the same problem with a chance of succeeding forced me to this step. I could do nothing else although I have always been a convinced pacifist. To my mind, to kill in war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder.”

Communication technology can be used to help people – or to incite people to harm others. Disease can be spread intentionally – and perhaps even invented for the purpose of spreading and engaging in genocide. Evidence is growing – and I believe present – that the technology of smokestacks and internal combustion engines (and beef consumption, for there is more damage to the environment from cattle waste than from cars) is warming our planet to the point of no return from destruction.

How do we use technology only for good – or even primarily for good? What technologies scare you the most? What aspects of technology gives you pause?

Peace, of course, is a state of non-violence and tranquility – yet it’s potentially something more. Writer Dorothy Thompson said:

“Peace is not the absence of conflict, but the presence of creative alternatives for responding to conflict – alternatives to passive or aggressive responses, alternatives to violence.”

A fascinating take, isn’t it, that peace is about creative approaches? There was someone who, prior to the war in Iraq, suggested that the religious leaders of the world meet in Baghdad and stay there until a peaceful solution could be found to the issues.

Without regard to either the political issues or the practicalities, that person was thinking outside the box. No bombing could start with that kind of high profile presence in Baghdad. And, potentially, the presence of those notables would have put pressure on the situation to manifest a peaceful solution. Who knows? The point is that it was a creative approach to peace besides the more-often-assumed pacifism.

What kinds of creative approaches can you think of to currently violent situations? What are alternatives to “might is right”?

This past weekend, I saw the new film, “Sin Nombre,” a very sobering look at the intersection of gang life in Mexico and the flight of immigrants into the U.S. to seek a better life.

I was struck by the tense battle between hope and hopelessness. Living in Southern California and knowing many who have immigrated here, I was nevertheless unprepared for the jarring images of hardship, deprivation and violence.

Hope, however (even, in a perverse way, for the criminals), was the driving force . . . . and the old truism of “Where there’s hope, there’s life” is demonstrated against all odds.

I came to more appreciate the poignancy of that hope in people who have come here to improve their situations and have a chance at a life that works. One cannot help but respect and admire people who are willing to take such huge chances and literally put their lives at risk in the hope of making things better.

I encourage you to see the film to remind us of the fragility – and necessity – of hope in order to accomplish any meaningful result. It doesn’t always work out – and sometimes, life is tragic – but hope can be beautiful.

Do you believe in hope, and do you encourage hope in others – your friends, partners, spouse, family, colleagues? Yet, how often, if at all, have you engaged in hopelessness or something closely resembling it?

What are the best ways you know of to maintain hope?

Copyright 2009. E. B. Hutt Bush and Coaching for Results, Inc.