The claims in the video clip are only half true (although I agree strongly with the parts of it that ARE true). Generosity (while vital) for a good society (just like some residual market freedom) does not abolish ecological scarcity. Not only do we need to consume less and share more, we also need to limit our rate of reproduction as a species, and leave room on this planet for non-human species. The planet is finite and levels of entropy rise from human metabolism and consumption. We all depend to a significant extent on solar radiation (and the related hydrological cycle) and on photosynthesis. Neither generosity (nor for that matter engineering ingenuity) can more than partially substitute for these natural processes, the scale of which cannot be ramped up indefinitely..
Furthermore, democratic collective decision-making is no more a complete substitute for the market mechanism than the market mechanism is a substitute for democratic collective decision-making. Both institutions have serious imperfections. For the imperfections of democracy as an all-purpose method of making all decisions, google “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem”, or read von Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” (a much better book than Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” or any of the drivel written by Ayn Rand or the Heritage Foundation, even though von Hayek is not universally right and is somewhat dogmatic). The imperfections of the free market recently became very apparent, but for those still needing convincing, you could hardly do better than read “For the Common Good” by Herman Daly and John Cobb.
On your first comment about generosity not abolishing ecological scarcity, I think there is more to be said. First, in a more generous society people’s security comes from knowing that they are taking care of people who can’t support themselves and when it’s their turn and they can’t support themselves they will be taken care of: in that kind of society it appears to me that the security doesn’t come from material wealth nearly as much. Yes, we will still need food, homes, hospitals etc. but not on anything like the scale created by our current obsession with material things, which is to a large extent driven by our legitimate fears and insecurities over poverty, in addition to our loneliness and alienation from each other in a competitive, less than caring culture. So in a caring society everyone could have enough on a much smaller overall footprint, and be happier to boot.
Second, what happens when the generosity is extended to the nonhuman world? The Left has long been wary of “generosity” , because it smacks of Lady Bountiful, charity from on high, which can legitimate disparities of wealth. But in regard to the nonhuman world, as a species we have to learn generosity. We can’t only try to save those species and ecosystems that we think it is in our narrowly human interest to preserve. Nature doesn’t work like that. We have to have much more respect for the whole intertwined web of life and it has to come at least as much from generosity, other-awareness, caring for the other, as it does from enlightened self-interest. Don’t you think?
Dave, I have to disagree. Let’s do a “gedanken experiment“. Imagine that we are all getting our current incomes, doing our current jobs, but because of an incurable attack by the generosity bug, the income is evenly distributed so that everyone in the world gets the $7000 average world income.
We are now generous, but the consumption problem (and its dark sister, the climate change problem) are still there. They are related, but they aren’t the same problem.
I think the distinction between “enlightened self interest” and altruism is a tar-baby. Because all of nature is so inter-related, if I only want to protect the parts that are useful for me personally, I still have to protect the whole ecosystem. We humans certainly have a disastrous record of failure when we try to improve eco-systems (cane toads, rabbits, etc). A recognition of our interdependence means that enlightened self-interest is other-awareness, I believe.
You say, “in a caring society everyone could have enough on a much smaller overall footprint, and be happier to boot.” Are we happier with our boots because our smaller feet would fit in them better? Just wondering….;-)
Philosophically I expect you are right, that there is no real difference between enlightened self-interest and awareness and appreciation of the whole ecosystem. But I think they feel very different. In the first we are still at the center of our minds, and we are operating with rational calculations about what we can and cannot afford to mess up in nature: this attitude is deeply ingrained in us to and I assume will continue in part however biophilic we become. “Biophilia” is a nice word for eco-awareness because it brings love into it. In this attitude we are no longer the center, but just a part and we have to forgo any number of our wild human-centric desires in order to keep the balance. I think they are very different responses to the world. Originally all human cultures were biophilic, but naturally so, because people were so interdependent with nature in an immediate sense, with immediate consequences for not paying attention, like not having enough to eat. Then the big transition happened that was psychological as well as material, involving the growth of the ego and of competitive hoarding, plunder, domination, slavery etc. Now we can’t easily recapture the sense of utter interdependence with other species, the psychological feel of it, of being one among many. It requires a huge conversionist process, like conversion to a religion, or extended therapy, I don’t know what it will take or if we can manage it.
Thanks for that Dave Belden. We too often think of generosity as an act between people.
True generosity is a way of living.
A way of living that not only cares about the sacredness all life but of existence itself.
There’s an interesting review of Patel’s book (do I just find it interesting because it agrees with my view of his thesis? Maybe….) in a recent Guardian
For all his forensic dissection of free market thinking, this is a predicament that Patel cannot escape. The first half of The Value of Nothing, showing the unreality of efficient markets and Homo economicus, continues the demolition of market fundamentalism that events have set in train. The second section, where Patel discusses options to the hegemony of the market, is markedly less convincing. … Patel fails to confront the most fundamental contemporary fact, which is that the majority of people in every country clearly want a type of economy – the sort that rich countries have enjoyed in the recent past – that the planet cannot sustain. A passionate activist, he believes problems of resource scarcity are man-made and can always be solved by fairer distribution. However, the growth-oriented lifestyle of rich countries is not unsustainable because it is unjust; it is unsustainable because the Earth’s resources are unalterably finite.
twitter.com/tikkunonline
I made a suggestion to Thom Hartmann that he invite the author to speak on his show.
Looks like a good book. Thanks for the heads up.
The claims in the video clip are only half true (although I agree strongly with the parts of it that ARE true). Generosity (while vital) for a good society (just like some residual market freedom) does not abolish ecological scarcity. Not only do we need to consume less and share more, we also need to limit our rate of reproduction as a species, and leave room on this planet for non-human species. The planet is finite and levels of entropy rise from human metabolism and consumption. We all depend to a significant extent on solar radiation (and the related hydrological cycle) and on photosynthesis. Neither generosity (nor for that matter engineering ingenuity) can more than partially substitute for these natural processes, the scale of which cannot be ramped up indefinitely..
Furthermore, democratic collective decision-making is no more a complete substitute for the market mechanism than the market mechanism is a substitute for democratic collective decision-making. Both institutions have serious imperfections. For the imperfections of democracy as an all-purpose method of making all decisions, google “Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem”, or read von Hayek’s “The Constitution of Liberty” (a much better book than Friedman’s “Capitalism and Freedom” or any of the drivel written by Ayn Rand or the Heritage Foundation, even though von Hayek is not universally right and is somewhat dogmatic). The imperfections of the free market recently became very apparent, but for those still needing convincing, you could hardly do better than read “For the Common Good” by Herman Daly and John Cobb.
Michael Barkusky
Vancouver BC
Canada
On your first comment about generosity not abolishing ecological scarcity, I think there is more to be said. First, in a more generous society people’s security comes from knowing that they are taking care of people who can’t support themselves and when it’s their turn and they can’t support themselves they will be taken care of: in that kind of society it appears to me that the security doesn’t come from material wealth nearly as much. Yes, we will still need food, homes, hospitals etc. but not on anything like the scale created by our current obsession with material things, which is to a large extent driven by our legitimate fears and insecurities over poverty, in addition to our loneliness and alienation from each other in a competitive, less than caring culture. So in a caring society everyone could have enough on a much smaller overall footprint, and be happier to boot.
Second, what happens when the generosity is extended to the nonhuman world? The Left has long been wary of “generosity” , because it smacks of Lady Bountiful, charity from on high, which can legitimate disparities of wealth. But in regard to the nonhuman world, as a species we have to learn generosity. We can’t only try to save those species and ecosystems that we think it is in our narrowly human interest to preserve. Nature doesn’t work like that. We have to have much more respect for the whole intertwined web of life and it has to come at least as much from generosity, other-awareness, caring for the other, as it does from enlightened self-interest. Don’t you think?
Dave, I have to disagree. Let’s do a “gedanken experiment“. Imagine that we are all getting our current incomes, doing our current jobs, but because of an incurable attack by the generosity bug, the income is evenly distributed so that everyone in the world gets the $7000 average world income.
We are now generous, but the consumption problem (and its dark sister, the climate change problem) are still there. They are related, but they aren’t the same problem.
I think the distinction between “enlightened self interest” and altruism is a tar-baby. Because all of nature is so inter-related, if I only want to protect the parts that are useful for me personally, I still have to protect the whole ecosystem. We humans certainly have a disastrous record of failure when we try to improve eco-systems (cane toads, rabbits, etc). A recognition of our interdependence means that enlightened self-interest is other-awareness, I believe.
You say, “in a caring society everyone could have enough on a much smaller overall footprint, and be happier to boot.” Are we happier with our boots because our smaller feet would fit in them better? Just wondering….;-)
Philosophically I expect you are right, that there is no real difference between enlightened self-interest and awareness and appreciation of the whole ecosystem. But I think they feel very different. In the first we are still at the center of our minds, and we are operating with rational calculations about what we can and cannot afford to mess up in nature: this attitude is deeply ingrained in us to and I assume will continue in part however biophilic we become. “Biophilia” is a nice word for eco-awareness because it brings love into it. In this attitude we are no longer the center, but just a part and we have to forgo any number of our wild human-centric desires in order to keep the balance. I think they are very different responses to the world. Originally all human cultures were biophilic, but naturally so, because people were so interdependent with nature in an immediate sense, with immediate consequences for not paying attention, like not having enough to eat. Then the big transition happened that was psychological as well as material, involving the growth of the ego and of competitive hoarding, plunder, domination, slavery etc. Now we can’t easily recapture the sense of utter interdependence with other species, the psychological feel of it, of being one among many. It requires a huge conversionist process, like conversion to a religion, or extended therapy, I don’t know what it will take or if we can manage it.
Thanks!
Thanks for that Dave Belden. We too often think of generosity as an act between people.
True generosity is a way of living.
A way of living that not only cares about the sacredness all life but of existence itself.
There’s an interesting review of Patel’s book (do I just find it interesting because it agrees with my view of his thesis? Maybe….) in a recent Guardian
Dude, I Totally Agree with this Video Capitalism is the Biggest Treat to Democracy and Republic, I Think I will get this book.