Up the garden path
By grandpa_lash
@grandpa_lash (5225)
Australia
November 20, 2008 8:40pm CST
“If human vices such as greed and envy are systematically cultivated, the inevitable result is nothing less than a collapse of intelligence. A man driven by greed or envy loses the power of seeing things as they really are, of seeing things in their roundness and wholeness, and his very successes become failures. If whole societies become infected by these vices, they may indeed achieve astonishing things, but they become increasingly incapable of solving the most elementary problems of everyday existence.”
(E. F. Schumacher “Small is Beautiful: Economics as if people Mattered” p18
Vancouver: Hartley & Marks, 1993)
If people like Schumacher are right, our society has been led up the garden path by modern economic theories. We have the most amazing technology, and a small proportion of the population are immensely wealthy as a result of inventing, producing, and selling this technology, but at the same time we have homeless beggars in even the richest nations, and literally billions of people world-wide who are malnourished or even starving.
We can manipulate our personal environments to a tremendous extent - cooling in even the hottest places, heating in the coldest, life-extending medical treatments, and even humans in space - but these are only available to the wealthy, on the whole. We have whole industries devoted to dealing with obesity, but we can't even feed most of the world. And our species' environment is collapsing under the weight of our industrial effluvient.
Sanity says we must reduce our personal expectations and demands of the environment, yet there is a whole class of predominantly wealthy or would-be wealthy people who simply will not consider this for themselves, while demanding it of others. Schumacher's quote, I think, explains why: we have been conditioned into an attitude of greed and personal comfort to the exclusion of ethics, morality, and compassion.
How many of us Mylotters would consider a dramatic lowering of their standard of living? I don;t mean to the point of going homeless or humgry, obviously, but to a point of comfort without excess, fulfilling only needs rather than selfish desires?
Lash
1 person likes this
3 responses
@p1kef1sh (45681)
•
22 Nov 08
Now you are talking. I had the great good fortune to meet Schumacher as he and my father collaborated on a number of project. Unfortunately, I had no idea who the man was in those days and it wasn't until Small is beautiful came out that i really understood.
Here's a take for you. The developed world especially are great consumers having to import much and borrow heavily in order to enjoy a lifestyle that we truthfully cannot afford or sustain. We are seeing that right now as we slide inexorably into recession. The somewhat dull witted response seems to be "let's borrow more", reduce taxation and increase public spending. It doesn't take the brains of an Archbishop to work out that that is like sticking an elastoplast over an open artery. It'll hold briefly, then boy are you going to gush. So let's think radically differently. Let's return to living with in our means. i.e. a subsistance economy. This doesn't mean that we will all starve, or that we can't have cars or go on holidays. But it does mean that we will only have what we can afford and that there will be no lines of credit. We seem to be of the opinion that we need inflation. Why? Inflation is a relatively modern concept. prior to WW2 it barely existed. We would buy less, buy seasonally. Built in obsolescence would be reduced, the wider aspects of banking would virtually cease to exist. Trading would become much more home grown, although there is no reason not to trade with neighbours. But we could only buy what we could afford. Of course people would hate it at first. But slowly perceptions might change. I know that this is a terribly naive and ideological perspective. I know it is because bankers and money lenders keep telling me so. And they really know what's going on don't they?
1 person likes this
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
22 Nov 08
Schumacher's ideas are recognised by both Daly (Steady State Economics) and the bioregional movement, both of which are parts of many Green policy statements. The moral economy I talk about in other threads, with a reciprocal semi-subsistence merket economy is part of this whole complex of ways to return to living within our, and the earth's, means.
Lash
1 person likes this
@p1kef1sh (45681)
•
22 Nov 08
I sometimes have to remind myself that in a little over one hundred years, man (or in fact developed world man) has exploited the Earth to such an extent that we are now at a sustainability crisis point. We over produce and under distribute, and we actually regard feeding the starving not so much a humanitarian act, but a political one. We have yet to teach a man to fish. We go there, we try, but the bullies always steal the equipment so that they can keep on bullying their own people. We will be forced back to a semi-subsistence level. Especially once China and India replace us as the major economic wealth centres.
1 person likes this
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
22 Nov 08
One of these nights I'm going to have the energy to start a deep and meaningful thread on one of the greatest con jobs in history - the Green Revolution. The truth behind this program brings to the fore a lot of what you just pointed out, particulalry all the various vested interests that are involved, both internal and external to the countries involved. But not tonight, I'm exhausted after a day slaving over a hot computer keyboard.
Lash
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6987)
• United States
25 Nov 08
Years of being poor's pretty much indoctrined the message of frugality and craving to live with nature into me. It's etched into my being.
So, even though we're better off financially now...I'm already to the point where I have -enough- and seek to only have -enough- for the rest of my life.
I don't want EVERYTHING, I don't want the world.
I just want to live on a small patch of land, farming and selling my produce in flea markets so I can get my longing for the road out of my system.
I don't need a house, in fact I'm thinking about a yurt...maybe a vardo.
I'd rather make my own business, than take a job in the stead of somebody else.
And I've always appreciated what I have, even when it wasn't alot.
That's what I'm doing now. I'm trying to become a micro-farmer and make my own business out of it, so I can set up a future for myself and hopefully help others in the process. There's no reason why what I need can't coincide with what I want, and there's no reason for this...personal quest, to be completely selfish and cold either.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
25 Nov 08
Your way is a fraction further than I am willing to go, but then I'm old and arthritic and not really able to be as self-sufficient as I'd like. But I love the way you approach it.
Lash
@sharra1 (6340)
• Australia
22 Nov 08
Well it would not concern me as I have never been greedy. I never wanted to be rich just comfortable with all my needs met and maybe a little money for fun. I cannot understand salaries of 13 million a year, to me that is wrong, greedy unnecessary.
Even worse is someone who gets that much and then denies the low paid workers a pay rise because the company is keeping its costs down. Ha well why not cut a few million off his greedy salary and pay the workers a decent cost of living rise out of that. I hate such greed.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
23 Nov 08
The problem seems to be that the non-greedy don't end up with enough political or economic clout to make a difference. It's like moderates in any field, religion, economics, politics: the non-moderates are obsessed with power and wealth and end up with totally disporoportionate impact for their numbers.
Lash
1 person likes this
