The Arithmetic of Compassion
David Ulansey
Ever since I was a child, I have been searching for a certain number: namely, the figure for the annual Gross World Product (GWP). The GWP is the value of all goods and services produced each year by the entire human species, and the reason I was searching for this number as a child is that I wanted to take it and divide it by the number of people in the world, so that I would know what each human being was actually entitled to if the world's resources were divided fairly and equitably.
I finally ran into this number recently, and I have now performed the simple arithmetic of compassion. It turns out that the Gross World Product is now $65 trillion. It is important to note that this figure of $65 trillion -- arrived at independently by the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the CIA -- has been adjusted in advance to take into account what is called "purchasing power parity" (PPP): which means that the figure is 65 trillion units, each unit of which represents what one U.S. dollar will currently buy IN THE UNITED STATES. (The PPP adjustment eliminates from the very start any strategies of denial such as, "Oh, that doesn't mean anything -- you can live like a king in India for $5,000 a year." No. Wrong.)
You can find the documentation of the current GWP here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)
(The first line in each of the lists gives the world totals. Links to the original sources -- World Bank, etc. -- can be found in the article.)
Now to the arithmetic of compassion:
Since the GWP is 65 trillion U.S. dollars, if we divide that figure by the number of people in the world -- 6.8 billion ( http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop ) -- we get a rough estimate of the maximum annual income that anyone in the world is morally entitled to (assuming that it is moral to strive for an equitable distribution of the world's resources to all of humanity).
So, dividing $65 trillion by 6.8 billion we get about $9,000 per year (again, that's already adjusted for purchasing power parity: it's 9,000 units, each unit of which is what one U.S. dollar will currently buy in the United States). That's what each of us is actually entitled to -- $9,000 a year -- and any more than that represents institutionalized and socially sanctioned armed robbery: indeed, every additional increment of $9,000 (beyond the maximum moral income of $9,000 a year) represents one slave somewhere in the world whose entire life, birth to death, is completely devoted to getting us our "stuff."
And unfortunately we can't "grow" our way beyond this $9,000 a year figure, since at the current level of $65 trillion GWP we have already OVERSHOT BY 30% what the Earth actually produces-- see:
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint
The fact that the human species is already in 30% overshoot means that not only can we not "grow" our way beyond the $9,000 maximum moral income level, we actually need to *shrink* that down to $6,000 just to come back to a level where humanity is merely using 100% of everything the Earth produces (rather than using 130% of what the Earth produces, as we are very temporarily doing!). This is especially the case since the world population is due to increase by almost 50% -- to more than 9 billion people -- by 2050:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=21847
Of course a $6,000 a year income may sound rather frightening to those of us who have become accustomed to the "American standard of living."
However, to place this figure in its proper perspective, it is helpful to keep in mind that according to the World Bank, at this very moment almost half of the people in the world (3 billion people) live on less than $2.50 (PPP) a day -- $900 a year -- and a quarter of the world's population (1.4 billion people) live below the official world poverty level of $1.25 a day -- $456 a year. (See http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-the... . The complete World Bank report can be found here: http://go.worldbank.org/5V41Z1WRL0 .)
In fact, three years ago World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern estimated that a European *cow* receives $2.50 a day in subsidies, while 75% of Africans live on less than $2 a day. ( http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1132867,00.html ).
So although $6,000 a year may sound disturbing to us, for the majority of the people in the world it would literally constitute wealth beyond their wildest dreams.
Finally, it is crucial to realize that $6,000 a year per person is actually still far too high to be sustainable, even if there were no population growth ahead at all. This is because at the level of $6,000 a year per person for 6.8 billion people, we would still be consuming 100% of what the Earth can produce, and would thus be doing absolutely nothing to prevent the two greatest threats facing us in our own lifetimes: (1) a mass extinction of the Earth's biodiversity resulting from habitat destruction, pollution, invasive species, and over-harvesting (see http://www.massextinction.net ), and (2) catastrophic climate change that could render the earth uninhabitable for much of higher life including our own species.
The solution is clear: we must immediately and drastically reduce our levels of consumption. Something like $4,000 a year per person is probably in the right ballpark for what is ecologically possible and morally justifiable. Again, that may be difficult for many of us to hear, but remember that $4,000 a year is more than *4 times* the amount that half of the people in the world live on at this very moment. In fact, according to the World Bank, 95% of all people in developing countries (which means almost 80% of all human beings) live on less than $10 a day -- less than $4,000 a year. (See http://go.worldbank.org/3KL75ZFJ60, page 3, note 5).
Of course then the question is: how can we in the "developed" world accomplish such a reduction? One common answer to this question is simply unworthy of discussion: namely, "It's impossible." Whenever I find that answer spontaneously rearing its ugly head in my own imagination, I like to remind myself that Eskimos live in houses made of ice, but their lives are filled with just as much love and beauty, and their children laugh and play with just as much joy -- perhaps more! -- as our own.
Beyond all its other characteristics, Homo Sapiens is a species capable of extreme adaptability. The time has at last arrived for us to become actual Human Beings, and to allow compassion -- and celebration! -- to guide us into a radically new world: a world where we experience "QUALITY of life" for ourselves as being indistinguishable from "EQUALITY of life" for all.
Image by TwOsE, courtesy of Creative Commons license.
- David Ulansey's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Tags:
- Economics
- Extinction
- Sustainability
- Printer-friendly version
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Propeller
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Icerocket
It will happen very soon
The Whole System Has to Change
forward
agreed. we needn't go backwards to come full circle on this issue. there is a definite disparity, but solutions shouldn't involve reversion.
that said, i dont think the point of this post was to suggest a way OUT as much as to point to the situation we are IN.
great article!!
Thanks Nemesys and Positively
Thanks for your reply Nemesys. The implied premise of my article (expressed in the very title) is that human beings are not like most other organisms in that we possess-- at least potentially-- the faculty of compassion (which, although I didn't mention it, is most likely related to another of our faculties that makes us fundamentally different from other organisms: that is, our capacity for self-reflective consciousness). I didn't expect my article to make very much sense to anyone who disagreed with that premise. Also, please note that I did not say it would be "impossible" to reach the necessary level without prices being drastically reduced-- in fact I said exactly the opposite! What I said was that the answer that it's impossible "is simply unworthy of discussion" (unworthy of discussion because it is lacking in compassion). I also pointed out that it's obviously not impossible, since 80% of human beings are already living at or below the level we all need to reach. Finally, I was not advocating "primitivism" or any other -ism: my Eskimo analogy was meant merely as an example of the remarkable ability of our species to adapt to the almost infinite variety of circumstances we have found ourselves in over the course of time.
Positively: you said, "i dont think the point of this post was to suggest a way OUT as much as to point to the situation we are IN." Yes, exactly! (Although I may be offering some suggestions of ways out in future posts.)
I quite favor the idea of equitable
Be.
Love.
Be Love.
distribution of wealth (as humans, are we not capable of spending our time and energy loving and caring for one another, rather than having our egos competing for "more than the next guy"?) It seems to me that we could "grow" this $6000 number if we were to simply reduce the cost of energy.Thanks Samwoman
"Be Love": I couldn't agree more!
About reducing the cost of energy: I actually think this would be disastrous. Reducing the cost of energy would simply give us the ability to destroy the biosphere even faster than we already are. There are no loopholes in the simple arithmetic of compassion: we must drastically reduce our consumption levels immediately.
Oh dear--I should have been clearer:
Be.
Love.
Be Love.
When I say "reduce the cost of energy", I mean to say that we need to find sources of energy that are clean, renewable, and...inexpensive, as opposed to fossil fuels that are costly, by every measure. If (when?) we create clean, renewable energy that is relatively inexpensive, I think we can get to the business of living in joy and harmony with one another, rather than living in a perpetual state of aggression largely fueled (so to speak), by the demand for expensive, and costly, fossil fuels.
I apologize. I realize my previous post left much open to misinterpretation.
Lakota is seeking investment for wind,solar,and geothermal power
making stuff...work!
Thanks Vivfidal
Exactly-- although in order to "get by on what [we] have" we are obviously going to have to stop making so many "little humans."
i was trying to wrap my mind around this
and the only thing that comes to me, is to wonder at the meaning of money.And the "root of all evil" although i think the word root is ill used in the metaphorical context.So if you say, "roots are the money of all evil" It all goes in a weird circle, because it seems that evolution and thinking of people thousands of years ago still were dealing with ideas of money and the source of human suffering.Since we seem to be dealing with a "Jealous God" we seem to at some contradiction with the "root of all evil".As humankind seems to have been dealing with the problem of who controls wealth, and seems to have explained it in recent terms as "survival of the fittest" a somewhat less then compassionate excuse to just be the root of all evil at all costs in order to end it all in one final cataclysm.Something is very wrong with this picture.
And then i thought of ufo's and crop circles, and wonder if a race of beings that might be watching this planet, and i think how much does it cost for them to do that, or how much the cost of each crop circle would be in human arithmetic.
Also in the context of this 65 trillion, it seemes to me Nietzsche was seeing this in his mind in the future, and like dollar signs at the end of time, he uttered...God...is...dead! Because what would a god be Jealous of? if spiritual poverty is not people that "have the outter and the inner" to quote the new age term, but that only when the outer is like the inner, and the inner is like the outer will we understand the true meaning of compassion.
My first thought was that
My first thought was that making such a radical change would be really, really really hard to do.
Everyone living on around $4,000 a year seems like such a massive change that I'm not sure it would be possible without economic turmoil. There are so many industries that employ thousands of people in this country and around the world that are built around selling items that are luxuries. The majority of the stuff in a typical western home aren't items necessary for survival. The latest in HDTVs, cellphones and jewelry won't be too high on people's list of necessities if they only make 4,000 year. This makes me wonder how the industries that sell these products survive and what happens to all the people that work for these companies? So much of society is based upon consumption. Making the change to a society where people will have much less is going to be tough.
I guess the thing is that we don't really have a choice in matter. If we continue down the path we are going, a drastic change is going to have to happen whether we like it or not. The facts you presented speak for themselves. The Earth does not have enough resources to support us (even if we completely neglect all the creatures we share this planet with). The current way of life that we live can't continue. The question is whether or not we have the foresight to make the change to a more sustainable future. If we don't then nature (reality) will force us to, and that path will not be nearly as pretty.
I hope we wake up in time.
What an eye-opener!
What a great article, it really made me think and realize the extreme level of over-consumption, mostly from our society! It is in this society where we believe we must compete to survive. Bigger, better, and more, more, more on every level. We coined the term "keeping up with the Joneses," after all!
The change is not going to come by convincing people that they need to switch from making $100K per year to $4K, however. The change will have to come from a very deep level. When our collective consciousness evolves to understand the basic importance of working WITH the earth and each other instead of every man for themselves conquering nature, the change will then come about. This will take some time, but it is coming. And it starts with articles like this!
Good job!
-Amy
“The smallest act of kindness is worth more than the grandest intention” ~Oscar Wilde
I wonder what my landlord would think
I really appreciated this article and how it brings forth the idea of GWP and equal distribution, and I recognize this piece is about bringing up the issue and not searching out possible solutions, but I'd love to see a second article by David articulating just that.
I don't buy many things: I watch flicks on a used TV, talk on a cell phone that was given to me, don't own a car, and work on an old computer that was also a gift. But this article doesn't seem to be just about the products we buy. It's talking about "income." And living in NYC, I can't help but think how $6,000 per year won't cover most people's rent in this expensive city. Of course, I could move somewhere else, but that takes a lot of fossil fuels to do, and as it is, NYC is one of the city's that produces less carbon emissions per person in America.
The only way for us to reduce our income in such a way, I believe, is for mass systemic change. It'd be great to hear David's thoughts on bold steps that could make his vision a reality.
design science approach
Hi David,
Thanks for the provocative piece. My own thinking is that whether we are talking "dollars" or "units," it is still somewhat of a capitalist modern mindset way of looking at the situation. It is similar to the thinking about trying to preserve forests for their "eco-system services". In my book 2012, I talked about Heideger's essay, "The Question Concerning Technology", where he explored the philosophical "enframing" in which we are trapped. Part of the solution requires a different philosophical framing, leading to a different underlying paradigm.
Among those people who use much less per year, we have nomadic and tribal people (and Eskimos, as you note) who are simply disinterested in the modern calculus of material accumulation. I think that capitalism is now collapsing, and the alternative paradigm will be a global "society without a state" that bears resemblance to tribal organization, where power is distributed horizontally, but on a global level. This shift (probably the result of some severe crises in the next few years) will be both in consciousness and in habitual behavior.
The design science approach of B Fuller - "doing more with less" - might become the basic new paradigm. At the same time, as society becomes revulsed by material accumulation, the ideal will become soul and spiritual development as the underlying purpose of human life and human culture.
Ultimately, I think the William McDonogue "cradle to cradle" model points toward the potential to repurpose technology to create 'sustainable abundance' or 'sustainable affluence' - or as Bucky foresaw, a world that works for everyone. We may or may not not live to see this happen but the proposition is out there, available, and therefore plausible. As Greco noted in his recent money piece, getting humans flying around in tin cans was thought to be impossible until the Wright Bros employed intelligence and skillful means to the issue, and got it done.
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
the sleeping giant wakes...
hey Daniel, I very much agree that innovation and compassion are the key, only I just said it w/ less words, so unlike me ;-)
We are all evolving!
dog eared and stained...
Gross World Product
Thanks for the article. This seems like a great tool for illustrating how unsustainable the western lifestyle has become, both economically AND ecologically. Simple maths that really help underline important points about systemic economic exploitation, on a global scale. Very enlightening.
As for going "back to nature"...I think our own terminology/ ideology has perhaps trapped us in this type of mindset, that primitivism is "backwards" and implies some sort of "reversion", and civilization is "forwards" and oriented towards the future, when the future is the one area that our civilization seems to have the most problems dealing with.
I get the feeling this is an ingrained bias in our thinking, a cultural belief that we are the apex of some sort of evolutionary peak.
As if we don't have enough evidence to the contrary...and yet it's a hard idea to shake. It's helpful to have a method of measuring our waste in the one way EVERYBODY understands, dollars and cents. Thanks again.
past and future
Recently, someone told me a beautiful quote from Carlos Fuentes: "We must imagine the past and remember the future"
"Will the transformation."-Rilke
Be the change you want to see in the world.
- Mahatma Gandhi
What an amazing idea...
the system
Thanks David for the clarification. Coming from a "third world" country, I know how those people bellow the poverty line live, it was an every day sight. Upon moving North it was quite shocking to see the over-the-top consumerism and overall waste of resources. It is certainly true that the current path is unsustainable.
A broader change, a shift of paradigm as Daniel Pinchbeck explains, must be the catalyst for a dramatic reduction on simple "units/dollars" that we utilize.
God does not play dice with the universe
Nice link
Hey, I really enjoyed that Sommers link. Very in line, although not right along with, my own beliefs. What he calls free-will skepticism, I call non-dual morality...but they are definitely very similar.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Hashlife
The Arithmetic of Compassion is very enlightening, if your calculations are correct then your conclusion is also correct. I've been on this holy trip lately and I believe that it all comes down to faith.
Does humanity have the necessary faith to save itself and the world? Intuitively I say no.
Could the complexity of our current state and it's final outcome be predicted by our personal faith? Intuitively I say yes.
Hashlife is an algorithm for computing the long-term fate of a given starting configuration using rules of cellular automation and it's a good name for a post...
Here's where I am trying to go with this...every mind on the planet is a "cell" with a faith configuration. Assign a one to a mind that has no faith in free will, assign a zero to mind that has faith in free will and then hash it out. I don't know the outcome pattern or the starting faith configurations but I do know that your personal illusions determine the results. I am using the free will debate for obvious reasons. To get a better understanding of my reasoning read the links in my God does not play dice with the universe post.
Nothing wrong with a holy trip
Your last paragraph is very thought provoking. When I think back to every spiritual (mainly religious) conversation I've had with people in my life the thought of your faith configuration comes into mind. That number pattern also reminds me of 1984. When the man offers his family over to torture, to spare himself of having to enter room I0I. What could possibly cause someone to do something like that, and what the heck is in that room?
Whether someone has faith in free will or they have faith in no free will, it seems to be a balance of paradoxes. Many spiritual/religious people think everything is pre-destined, but that can create an argument where free will couldn't be. Just robots walking to the tune of cosmic frequencies around a rock that won the lottery and wound up at just the right distance to the sun. I had an atheist get near violent with me when overhearing the mention of a God in conversation. People can get very angry when their beliefs, that they feel passionate about, appear to be threatened. But it appears everybody is still choosing to believe what they consider to be real, so having faith in a belief that their is nothing is also paradoxical. None of it makes sense, but it does. It's definitely another relative balance of positives and negatives, energy and entropy.
In 1984 when people were busted by the 'thought police' the worst punishment was room I0I. Back to basic elementary, or a symbol for looking in the mirror? Split the zero down the middle and you have 2 equal halves. And having to look in the mirror and face what's behind the veil is interesting... :)
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms—it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."- Einstein
&
Just for the record, I do believe in prophecy, and I do believe Jesus was the son of God. I think Christianity and every other positive religion throughout the world have been exploited by Man and turned into businesses, but that doesn't lead me to believe the messages inside aren't valuable. Maybe the increasingly obvious signs I see are just manifestations of my beliefs, or maybe that's the most scientifically courteous definition someone who disagrees can come up with.
What I do know is that I really know nothing. So grasping onto the Love that has always been there for me, even though confusing at times, gives me strength in coping with things I can't explain.
Like; the vacuum inside of a single hydrogen atom floating in front of me has the latent energy a trillion times more powerful than the mass of every planet and star within 20 billion light years. And if our minds can tap into just a fraction of that, it's far more than enough to change the world- one person at a time... :)
Free Willy!.... ^_^
Okay, sorry. That was bad. All I can say is that I felt like I had no choice.... ^_^
Free will is definitely one of the tricky ones. =P
Personally, I believe we make choices, but That-Which-Is limits what we can choose between, and so guides us(and that, ultimately, we are nothing but It...which is why we can choose in the first place).
I also believe it is a fallacy (again, personally) to think that, simply because the choice I will choose is already known, that it was inescapably predestined. It has nothing to do with the Divine forcing anything. I strongly believe that a true choice is always given. We are allowed to say 'No', however unhappy doing so may ultimately make us.
Because the fact is (in my view) that the Divine is us (as it is all things) -- and therefore knows us (as it knows all things)...better even than we know (and maybe could ever know) ourselves. In Its infinite love and compassion for all things -- which are only It -- the choices It gives are those which will help guide this finite piece of Its Own Infinite Self to its own glory and happiness.
Say you have a friend of several years, and you know they hate chocolate...but you still decide it would be polite to give them a choice between the chocolate ice-cream bar, or a vanilla one. Because you already know their preference, you also already know what they are most likely to choose.
Does that mean you have taken their choice from them?
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks for putting a smile on my face :)
"In Its infinite love and compassion for all things -- which are only It -- the choices It gives are those which will help guide this finite piece of Its Own Infinite Self to its own glory and happiness."
That's the most beautiful definition I've heard for 'It' in quite some time. Blessings- FreeWiLLy ;P
LOL
I like your sense of humor ChibiOne. Google search this title and check it out...Bible.org: What is the Meaning of History? It's a short article comparing Panthesim, Naturalism, Postmodernism and the bible's story of creation, fall and redemption. "The choice is not between Faith and Reason. The choice is which is the most reasonable faith." True naturalism embraces free will skepticism. Naturalism says it nothing personal it is just nature's way, and nature is competitive and savage. So don't blame the lion for being a lion and devouring the lamb. IMO, naturalism claims to be the dominated philosophy behind the economics of the world today. The rich and powerful exploit the poor and powerless because it is nature's way, but it is also nature's way to maintain a sustainable balance. Where is the balance? The balance is not there, so IMO, naturalism is not the philosophy driving economics today, IMO it is the philosophy of Satanism. Everybody wants proof first, absolute proof that doesn't exist! All of the philophies and statements I mentioned in this post require a leap of faith. I don't have any proof, I'm just McNuggetz. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments iLLWiLL and ChibiOne.
P.S. 1 Corinthians 3:18 - Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
Satanism
Well, you'd have to define Satanism for me to wholly agree.
To me, Satanism is the reverence and concern for finite self above all others. I.e., everyone thinking they are the best, and most important thing in the world, and they deserve all of the world to themselves.
If that is in line with your definition, then I would agree.
When that ideology is dominant, however, it does breed a sort of social darwinism, so it is also in line with naturalism -- though it is based on a false idea of nature. If you look around, cooperation is at least as present and important and competition.
In fact, in nature, it appears more as if species compete with one another to cooperate the best with the ecosystem.
And we be losin' that contest...baaad. ^_^
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
P.S.: Nice Bible quote, btw. Here is one of my favorites: "God did this so that men would seek him, and perhaps reach out for him, and find him; though he is not far from each one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being.'" Acts 17:27
The Narrow and Wide Gates
Every time I open the book it knows what I need to hear.
Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Matthew 7; 13-14
i live on $9000 a year!
Awesome article
The Mathematics of Compassion (or, why don't more people care that so many people are suffering?)...wonderful! Great article!
We are living unsustainably. Period. By a whole hell of a lot. Can we find more technology that might make our current system viable again? Sure.
I'm not willing to bet the life of the entire species on it, however.
In fact, because our current system demands growth (or for some people to be able to make it, while others starve to death...those are the two choices), what happens is that, even if we solve this problem, another will present itself.
Even we do find that technology, we still continue to grow very nearly logarithmically, and new technology will be required…forever, forever, ad nauseum infinitum. I know some are saying, "well, that will happen no matter what". Still, as Mr. Eisenstein says, we can learn from past mistakes and try something different, instead of trying to do it the same way every time.
Problem? Technology! Problem? Technology! Problem? Technology!
Maybe there is a different way. One in which we maturely reevaluate our relationship to the earth, and begin to limit our own growth. Not in some eugenical, infantacidal way, but in the establishment of a new moral ethic as far as our view of the world and our place in it is concerned.
How often do people cut in line? How many laws are there saying you can't cut in line? The culturally transmitted morality of standing in line is a deep one; and one in which you get real -- and immediate -- social consequences from those in front of whom you cut.
I believe living in sustainable permaculture communities that are self-sufficient (at least as far as absolute basic necessities is concerned) -- and allow themselves to grow only to the extent that they are able to recycle their waste into the environment safely -- is the only real way to do it.
Which is why I love this site. =)
As Michel Bauwens pointed out, we need to be looking back at the primitive times with a critical (not fawning) eye to what they were doing right, as much as what they were doing wrong…and not just grin about how much better off we are than them.
The fact is, we aren't that much better off, especially as far as the average human is concerned. I guarantee you: my job and life are not that much different from a peasant. I make about $8400 a year ($700 a month) doing basically hard-labor. Once my bills are paid (including food, and a few non-necessities like the interwebs here and Netflix), I get maybe $50 free (unless they have had to cut hours that week... that happens a lot these days) to last me two weeks until the next paycheck. Which means that I can't afford to do much of anything, with anyone.
I can't even really speak my mind, around certain persons, or I might be fired…which is, as far as society is concerned, tantamount to a death sentence if I can't find another job. Not to mention that, according to all studies I've seen, I work literally twice as many hours.
As you point out, the middle-class and upper-class are still far in the minority as far as the total human population is concerned...and look how much of the Earth's resources have been used up just to bring them to this level of living. It isn't actually possible, without completely raping this planet (or maybe mining asteroids, or whatnot…Technology!), to bring everyone up to that standard of living.
Therefore, what I feel is necessary is for those who are living that kind of lifestyle to realize that if they are willing to 'go down' a bit, everyone else can be 'raised up' a bit, and there can be some kind of equality in the equation. It requires a mature reevaluation of what is actually required to live a happy, contented life.
Do we need all of this stuff?
Improvement has been made in some areas (it is perverse and irresponsible to compare only the good from the past with only the bad from the present)...but in others we have been wholly impoverished, as a culture and a species, by having those things which are 'most human', and bring the most actual happiness, contentment, and sense of purpose in a human life -- relationships, community, cooperation -- devalued; and those things that are 'least human', and cause the most overall stress, discontent, and need for more labor -- accumulation, competition, 'personal achievement' -- overvalued.
Human beings are moral, social creatures. We always try to do what be believe to be the right thing to do, and we have a real need for interaction and relationships with other persons. This is going to be the overall key to solving these problems (just as, currently, it is the key to enforcing the status quo): the realization of need, and the expectation of others to act responsibly as these needs become more evident and widely realized.
This is not to say we should be Nazis about our beliefs...so much as to say that we should definitely be standing up and speaking out about what we believe in, and the possible solutions we have learned of -- every day. This should be done gently, with compassion (we mustn't become that which we despise), by telling people more about what they stand to gain than what they need to give up...but still, it needs to be done.
There is nothing guaranteed about our transcendence of the coming/current crises. Evolution is earned, not given.
It is entirely possible that too much of the population will happily follow the piper over the cliffs, with a smile on their face. They might even think they really are flying, while in freefall, until the moment they hit the ground. The power of denial cannot be overestimated.
And this particular piper is leaving the world a wasteland in his wake. There might not be enough left for the rest of us to survive on.
So, if you haven't yet, start talking to people, as gently and politely as possible, about what you have learned. I realize most of you are doing this anyway...but it never hurts to be reminded and encouraged.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Awesome reply!
Wow ChibiOne, thank you so much for your amazing response!!!
The only thing I'd question is the word "Sure" at the end of your second paragraph. I think it would be more accurate to change that to "Well, maybe." I'm not quite as optimistic as you are about the role of technology in solving the crisis that we're facing, since technological fixes do not currently exist for central and urgent elements of that crisis, such as climate change and species extinction. It seems to me, given how high the stakes are, that to rely in any fundamental way on purely hypothetical scientific discoveries that might-- or might not-- take place someday is far too risky a strategy. I agree completely with the way you put it in the very next sentence: "I'm not willing to bet the life of the entire species on it...." This is especially true given the fact that commonsense non-technological solutions-- like the ones you go on to mention, such as voluntarily limiting our consumption levels, and sharing basic resources by moving into intentional communities (both rural and urban)-- can be implemented today if we simply summon up the intention to do them.
Once again, thanks for your beautiful reply!!!
I'll make a deal with you....
You keep you writing such awesome articles, and I will continue trying to keep up with you.
It is good to know that persons such as you are out there, brother. Keep on keepin' on.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
I concur
I know what it feels like to be stuck in a situation where you can't tell someone something that you know will help them, but oddly because you know it would hurt them and yourself more... Paradox is my new favorite word
"It is entirely possible that too much of the population will happily follow the piper over the cliffs, with a smile on their face. They might even think they really are flying, while in freefall, until the moment they hit the ground. The power of denial cannot be overestimated."
ahhh, hah, thanks. The only way to stop yourself from crying sometimes is to laugh. And when you laugh hard enough you cry? Hi again Paradox :)
owning land
i think the biggest problem most people would face when presented with this challenge is rent, mortgage, etc. and that's not going to go away unless we are able to come to terms with the fact that nobody owns the earth. not even a little piece of it. to me, libertaing the land is potentially one of the most powerful ways we can strike at the roots of all this inequality, injustice and unsustainability that everyone is so upset about.
if nobody owned land we would all be free to grow our own food, sleep where we want, build a shelter where we want, etc. it would be a lot harder to coerce people into letting a pollution-spewing / habitat-destroying factory/power plant/mine/whatever be built near them.
land ownership is the foundation of capitalism.
strike when ready, eh?
ps: i like what you said chibione about speaking your mind. the key is speaking your mind when outside the comfort of like-minded peers. what we say here is nice and all, but amounts to little in terms of change. we need to speak in exactly the kinds of places we're supposedly not allowed to speak, like the job you mentioned. i'm not trying to call you out or anything, i totally understand how difficult it is (i got fired from a job for writing propaganda on the boxes we shipped out lol), i'm just stating the obvious.
the more we express ourselves the more we offer others the opportunity to change. i got a lesson in this today. i'm taking a new job and today was my last day at my current job and when i left, my boss (someone you could categorize as stereotypically republican, affluent, consumerism-crazy, aggie, etc) said she'll miss me cos having me around makes her a better person and mentioned that she finally started recycling her shopping bags, lol. i know that may be as trivial as it gets, but it's just a simple example of the day to day changes that we can prompt by not being afraid to express ourselves in environments where our beliefs "don't fit in."
and on that note, and relating back to land ownership, i did a speech on that subject for my public speaking class last year and while i think most people found it hard to swallow, they weren't aggressively opposed to it, either. it was a really interesting class, actually, i got a lot of positive feedback on my speeches that i wasn't expecting and a lot of other people did speeches on topics that surprised me, too. reminds me of emerson:
"these being his functions, it becomes him to feel all confidence in himself, and to defer never to the popular cry. he and he only knows the world. the world of any moment is the merest appearance. some great decorum, some fetish of a government, some ephemeral trade, or war, or man, is cried up by half mankind and cried down by the other half, as if all depended on this particular up or down. the odds are that the whole question is not worth the poorest thought which the scholar has lost in listening to the controversy. let him not quit his belief that a popgun is a popgun, though the ancient and honorable of the earth affirm it to be the crack of doom. in silence, in steadiness, in severe abstraction, let him hold by himself; add observation to observation, patient of neglect, patient of reproach; and bide his own time,- happy enough, if he can satisfy himself alone, that this day he has seen something truly. success treads on every right step. for the instict is sure, that prompts him to tell his brother what he thinks. he then learns, that in going down into the secrets of his own mind, he has descended into the secrets of all minds. he learns that he who has mastered any law in his private thoughts, is master to that extent of all men whose language he speaks, and of all into whose language his own can be translated. the poet, in utter solitude remembering his spontaneous thoughts and recording them, is found to have recorded that, which men in crowded cities find true for them also. the orator distrusts at first the fitness of his frank confessions,- his want of knowledge of the persons he addresses,- until he finds that he is the complement of his hearers;- that they drink his words because he fulfills for them their own nature; the deeper he dives into his privatest, secretest presentiment, to his wonder he finds, this is the most acceptable, most public, and universally true. the people delight in it; the better part of every man feels, This is my music; this is myself."
I agree with your points
I agree with your points here, especially about having the courage to speak out when those around you may not agree. That is the only way things will get better: by exposing persons who haven't heard these ideas to them.
But that just means we need to be that much more polite as we do it. The more they can associate a personality to the information, the easier they can ignore it. Far better to have it be a piece of information that floats around randomly in their psyche. If it is true, its overall truth-reflection will cause it to outcompete less useful ideas, in the long run.
That means you don't necessarily get to take credit as the person that taught them. Just be happy that they learned.
Also: I don't mind being called out. If I am doing wrong, I want to know why/how. I will defend my position....until I find it to be indefensible. As far as the job is concerned, I simply have decided (from painful experience) to choose my battles.
I take a fight only when a) I feel I have a real chance to win, and b) when I feel my fight will secure a real, instead of symbolic, victory. Never fight on the terms of your opponent. Bring them to -- force them to fight you on -- a battlefield that you know better than them, and that gives you the most advantages.
Don't let 'them' dictate the terms of the conflict.
"You must *be* the change you wish to see in the world." Mahatma Gandhi
Good Article
~illuuminuus
I enjoyed your article David. Breaking down the GWP as you've done gives us all a clearer view of the grossness of the inequity on our planet. I think that this whole framework must necessarily be rendered obsolete for us to survive, however. Money, in my view, is an institution that must go by the wayside. I read another article earlier that explained how our government tallies the value of human life itself. Turns out we've recently been officially devalued. What I mean to say is that the statisticians whose job it is to render these cold calculations have determined exactly what our individual lives are worth, (in Dollars no less)and we were all just deflated. Fascinating isn't it? This, in my opinion, goes right to the heart of the problem overreaching and destroying our human potential. Everything has been given a net value, and we are taught to think in terms of 'the bottom line' I liked many of the responses I read thru, particularly the one about changing the way we 'own' land. It is not something that should be owned. Rather than thinking in terms of money, let us shift to a calculation of the most basic resources essential to life. Clean water and a modicum of untainted food isnt much to ask for, but its only a matter of time until no amount of money will be able to purchase them. We are very nearly there already. Speaking of memes and paradigms is all very well and good. But I'm starting to feel less and less comfortable with waxing intellectual when so many are dead or dying, intentionally sickened and enfeebled, beaten down by police or imprisoned without good cause. All manner of bad things are on the rise globally, while we talk interminably of sustainable ecosystems and righting inequities that we have only too happily ignored for most of our lives. Money has to go. If not, we'll never be free. We'll always be quantified. We'll always be less than. And, devils will always be in charge. That's simply the nature of the game. A seed, a sprout, an animal, a person, clean air, clean water, sunshine... these things have value. If we must have another currency, let it be Love. Stop laughing; it could happen. Genuine goodness must be resurrected within us. It existed there once. In fact, it's our primal estate. So in that sense, yes, our evolution could comprise a regression of sorts. Must we all become Amish??? Jeez, I hope not. But we could do a lot worse than to emulate them. The jackboot of our government is descending upon their communities now. They wont take our vaccines or eat our poisoned foods, you see. As a result they have almost no Autism, ADHD, Parkinsons, or the host of other neurological diseases we so willingly allow our doctors to dispense to us. They won't poison their kids with fast food, or feed their animals tainted feed imported from China. They don't use Roundup. Worst of all, they distrust the one thing that matters most to our corrupt way of thinking: Money.Not laughing
Thanks so much illuuminuus! You said, "If we must have another currency, let it be Love. Stop laughing; it could happen. Genuine goodness must be resurrected within us."
I for one am not laughing: I think you're exactly on target. (In fact I was planning to go into this in some detail in my next blog post.) I completely agree with you (and Daniel Pinchbeck in his earlier response) that it is obscene to assign dollar values to things like basic food (and land to grow it on), clean water, safe shelter, and other necessities of life, since these should (and can) be the birthright of every human being. However, as long as these necessities are being stolen from a large part of humanity, it's essential that we have an intelligible way to calculate the scale of the theft and the magnitude of the crime.
Those whose dark deeds can be brought to light by simple arithmetic are, of course, more than happy to hear people saying things like "numbers are evil-- let's not talk about them!"
at least if you improve the overall quality of food sources...
~illuuminuus I'm afraid
~illuuminuus
I'm afraid human cannibalism is becoming, if anything, far less palatable albeit more and more likely. With our highfalootin' status as top o' the food chain we are the proud ingesters of every form of toxin that enters the food supply. Just imagine how tasty we're gonna be when we finally hit the menu! What's that Mr. Heston? The Damned Dirty Apes are munchy wunching Soylent Green with their eggy-weggs and steaky-wakes? I wouldnt worry about it sir. Go back to sleep, now. No sir. No Judgement Hour just yet. Just a little gunnery practice out at sea is all. Yes, of course we buried you with your favorite rifle. Of course not, no one would even try to pry it away from your fingers. No sir, you needn't worry about Mr. Moore any longer. He can't hurt you now. What?? Well, I confess I can't see how a can of UBIK could help... You'd best go back to sleep now Mr. Heston, we'll wake you when its time. Yes of course. We're almost there now. Almost...from my cold dead hands...
Hmmm...
~illuuminuus~ myspace.com/illuuminus
Are you pondering what I'm pondering? Massive Dome shaped coffins?!! Yesss!! Perhaps they might even be enormous and pyramidal in shape! Wait a sec... has this already been done? Better google it and do a patent search. You know how sensitive those guys over at Conagra or Monsanto can be. Anyhoo, assuming we're a go, lets bill these things right. We'll sell 'em as shining eco-edifices that utilize solar energy to transport human remains to a better place. Ha! Don't worry, there's plenty of money to be made. You see, the parts of people that are too tainted with toxins to be composted or to be legally disposed of without incurring cost will be 'rendered' into a nutritious feed for the ever hungry, ever impoverished, and ever hapless lower classes. Ha! Exactly. You are what you eat, I always say. Why be afraid to eat what you are, right? You know it! It's the principle that revolutioni