Take a look at this article from Matt Earley of Just Coffee Cooperative: Fair Trade is Dead. It’s simply one more piece of evidence that unfettered capitalism can destroy even the best of intentions.
The World Economic Forum is warning of a “dystopian future” should problems currently facing world economies continue unaddressed. The warning came in the body’s report Global Risks 2012: Seventh Edition. The report, released today, points to five “centers of gravity” that shape the multitude of risks currently facing the modern world:
- “Chronic fiscal imbalances” in national budgets threatens to undermine worldwide economic recovery and growth.
- “Greenhouse gas emissions” present a threat to climatic stability.
- “Global governance failure” could result if the social contracts governing the relationships between citizen and state unravel.
- “Unsustainable population growth” will likely put a major strain on world resources already struggling to meet the needs of its current population.
- “Critical systems failure” is a real possibility in an age when the world relies on increasingly interconnected virtual systems and networks.
I can’t recall the actor’s name or the historical figure he portrayed in his YouTube videos. It was one of the Founding Fathers, but which one exactly I’m not sure. The message, however, was quite simple: America has lost its course and needs to return to the days of its roots. In a stereotypical white-wig and gaudy attire harking back to the “glory days” of the Founding Fathers, he railed against corrupt politicians who were destroying American democracy and selling out the nation to foreign creditors. In short, the whole thing was insufferably condescending—he seemed to actually believe that a colonial-era American would respond to all the advances the United States has made in prosperity, technology, and global influence with the same level of indignant ire.
Surprisingly, this doesn’t appear to be a passing ideological fad or, for that matter, anything relatively new. Even when I was growing up, I remember hearing people—mostly old people—lament the loss of the America of the nation’s founders. Looking back, this doesn’t surprise me considering Colonial nostalgia is often wedded to an extremely right-wing political ideology; I was raised not only in one of the most conservative states in the Union but in the most conservative region of that state.
In my subsequent thoughtful self-reeducation and reformation of my political, social, and economic views, I’ve found this attitude to be every bit as farcical and ill-informed as those evil, conniving “liberals” people warned me about say it is. It’s actually quite humorous to consider what would have to happen in order for us to “return to the days of the Founders.” Here’s a few examples:
- About 310,000,000 million people would have to leave the United States to return to our 1790 population of 3,000,000. This would undoubtedly be a boon for the anti-immigration xenophobes.
- The nation would have to return to an agrarian society with farming and only light industry forming the basis of economic output .
- Every state except the original thirteen would have to leave the Union.
I thought so and this is by no means an exhaustive list. Only the most naïve person would think that America’s best days were in the 1790’s, a time when liberty was predicated upon being white, male, and a landowner. There’s an entire genre of writing that lambasts the founders as racist hypocritical pigs but that’s not my purpose in discussing this topic. This piece will actually initiate a series of writings in which I hope to enliven the discussion of some of the hotter topics of the day, particularly those which are playing a key role in the Republican presidential contest.
If nothing else, I’d like for at least one person to come to the realization that taxes are not evil, rather merely a necessary part of living in a civilized society; that trickle-down economics is the talk of liars; and, most importantly, that Americans are being sold ideas from the political right that, quite simply, are dangerous.
Furthermore, it would be nice if more people would embrace the fact that America is a different nation now than it was 230 years ago and an irrational desire to “return to our roots” does nothing to solve the problems we are facing in the present. Call me a pot-smoking liberal, but I actually don’t subscribe to what I believe is the ridiculous notion that the Founders expected America to always be the same country it was in the years after Independence. They doubtless couldn’t have known about the advances in technology and industry that were decades away, about the social and political upheaval that would shape most of the Nineteenth and Twentieth centuries, nor about the eventual role the new nation they were forging would play as the most powerful and wealthiest nation in human history. Nevertheless, they almost assuredly believed that in some way, the world was undergoing radical change: the mere nature and text of the Constitution that is in such hot contest today is evidence enough of that. A free republic was born in the midst of an age of empires and warring tyrants because a radical group of men saw that new wine needed new wineskins.
What would they have to say about any of these topics specifically? It doesn’t matter, and for two reasons. First, they’re dead and have been for a long time. The presumptuousness of any person of any political persuasion who claims we should believe a certain way because that’s how the Founders would have believed is astounding. Secondly, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson lived in a world vastly different from ours. Late-Eighteenth Century Colonial America no longer exists and likely never will again. Modern problems require modern solutions and the idea that a religious devotion to the policy beliefs and constitutional interpretations of early American statesmen will solve our problems is absurd.
I actually think the Founders would be insulted to learn that the document they worked so hard to perfect is being used by a group of people (tea party fanatics, right-wing ideologues, etc.) to justify holding the nation back. A new age requires new thinking and an openness to traverse philosophical territory previously considered too radical to breach. Social programs for the poor, subsidization of technological advancement, greater regulation of corporate interests, protection of workers’ rights, all of these will have to be looked at from the context of a modern Twenty-first century state. As I said, new wine needs new wineskins.
Which has greater value: 18 ponchos or more hours of time with the people we love? To a woman living in a poor South American village, it was the time. It isn’t clear which held greater value to the group of Peace Corps workers. It would be poetically beautiful if they walked away with a revolutionary new understanding of work and the reasons we do it. Of course, they just as easily could have left the woman’s house thinking, “How stupid was she?”
The world has lost perspective. We’ve devoted ourselves to the pursuit of greater efficiency and increased production apparently without giving thought to why such a pursuit serves our own interests. We’re quite literally asking the wrong questions, each based on a faulty assumption.
We ask everyday variations of the question, “Where can we find the resources to maintain our current rate of consumption?”
1. “Where can we find the food to allow us to continue eating the same amount?”
2. “Where can we find the gas so all our cars can stay on the road?”
3. “Where can we find the wood and stone so we can build bigger houses?”
We ask these things without first verifying that they’re even necessary. In effect, we seek more food without ever asking ourselves if we’re hungry. Corporations have been built, self-help books written, and an army of young workers raised to continue the wanton growth we’ve come to believe is necessary for civilization to flourish. We’ve done so in vain and the results will be far different than expected.
Manfred Max-Neef, the Chilean economist who recounted the story of the woman who made ponchos to support her family, spoke on this topic in his interview with Amy Goodman, drawing a distinction between growth and development:
“Growth is a quantitative accumulation. Development is the liberation of creative possibilities. Every living system in nature grows up to a certain point and stops growing. You are not growing anymore, nor he nor me. But we continue developing ourselves. Otherwise we wouldn’t be dialoguing here now. So development has no limits. Growth has limits. And that is a very big thing, you know, that economists and politicians don’t understand. They are obsessed with the fetish of economic growth.”
Humanity has given itself over to greed, a greed which neither satisfies its seminal cause nor accomplishes its declared end. What’s more, the First World stands poised to repeat the mistakes of empires past by allowing its greed to create an unsustainable reality which will lead to inevitable decline.
Max-Neef sees this possibility as well:
“I’m the author of a famous hypothesis, the threshold hypothesis, which says that in every society there is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline….
“I mean, your country is the most dramatic example that you can find. I have gone as far as saying — and this is a chapter of a book of mine that is published next month in England, the title of which is Economics Unmasked. There is a chapter called ‘The United States, an Underdeveloping Nation,’ which is a new category. We have developed, underdeveloped and developing. Now you have underdeveloping. And your country is an example, in which the one percent of the Americans, you know, are doing better and better and better, and the 99 percent is going down, in all sorts of manifestations.”
There will come a point when humanity will be forced to ask itself where it has been going. It’s a simple question, really: Where are you going? Yet, in a wide-spectrum view of all people, it’s impossible to answer. The mistake that so many have made is to believe that work is a journey to a particular destination. The reckless rat race for boundless efficiency and productivity will lead only to ruin, which is why we must, as a civilization, reexamine the reasons we work and pursue wealth.
Resources are not limitless and the day will come when all Men will be forced to acknowledge that our current model of civilization will not last forever. Unless we come to that realization now and make the necessary changes to ensure that we have sustainable prosperity, we will be taking a plunge into the unknown, one from which we may not return.
Human beings were not created to be cogs in some vast economic machine. The mere notion of regarding humans as “capital” is offensive to their divine nature and a flagrant disregard of the underlying reasons people live and work. We do not live to work; we work to live. Once we’ve planted that realization in our hearts, it might just begin to make sense to us why a little woman in a remote village saw greater value in more time spent with those she loved than in 18 extra ponchos.
Remember the theory I put forward about why the Roman model of civilization failed? While I have no intentions of playing the game “Pin the Tail on the Reason Rome Failed,” an undeniable reason was simply because the empire became unsustainable. The Romans couldn’t maintain the relentless conquest and expansion needed to feed the monstrous economic engine it had created. Sure, the lead pipes and barbarians also played a role, but, still, the simple truth is that Rome reached its technological limit during the reigns of the emperors Hadrian and Trajan and, resultantly, was unable to meet the challenges it faced in the latter part of its history.
In case it isn’t clear by now, I’m trying to draw an analogy between Rome and the Twenty-first century First World in this regard. There will come a point when civilization will reach some sort of limit that cannot be overcome. More likely than not, that limit will be environmental in nature. In other words, there simply won’t be enough resources to meet demand.
We see harbingers of that at present: the depletion of global fossil fuel supplies, the felling of the world’s oxygen-producing rain forests at a horrific rate, the acidification of the oceans due to the increased carbon in the atmosphere, and the list goes on. Human beings are being confronted daily by the fact that the Earth is not an infinite source of resources and raw materials; there are limits to how much we can exploit it to satiate our own greed. Whether of our own volition or if we eventually run up against the Earth’s own natural productive boundaries, that exploitation will end. For our sakes, we should probably do something about it now while we can still take measures to ensure the continuity of our prosperity.
I previously asked if continual growth was a good thing and left the answer ambiguous. It depends, I wrote, on the ultimate reason why men work and produce goods. I’d like to discuss that further now.
Manfred Max-Neef is a Chilean-born economist who teaches at UC-Berkeley. In an interview last fall with Amy Goodman on the independent news show Democracy Now!, he related a story that beautifully illustrates the issue I’m getting at.
He told of a group of Peace Corps workers in South America who come across a woman in a remote village. This woman has a machine that allows her to make two ponchos in week that she then sells to make a living and provide for her family. The Peace Corps workers tell her they could give her another machine that would allow her to make twenty ponchos a week and, therefore, more money. The woman gladly accepts the machine and the group leaves.
Several months later, the workers return to the village to seek out the woman and see how her life has changed with the new machine. What they find, however, isn’t quite what they expected. Upon asking the woman how many ponchos she now makes, she replies, “Two per week.”
The Peace Corps workers are incredulous and tell the woman she could be making much more. The woman replies to this by saying she doesn’t need to make more.
“But what good is the machine if you aren’t making more?” the flabbergasted Peace Corps workers ask.
“Well,” the woman answers, “I make two, but now I can make them much faster so I have more time to spend with my friends and children.”
Contained in this little parable is a picture of the great tragedy of our time. We’ve ironically come to value the tools more than the project, the road more than the destination, the labor more than its fruits.
“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also,” said Jesus in Matthew 6:21. The woman’s treasure wasn’t in making more ponchos and increasing her socioeconomic status. Her treasure wasn’t in her work but in people.
Max-Neef went on to say after he told the story:
“In our environment, you know, you have to do more and more and more and more. No, there, instead of making more, they have more time to enjoy themselves, to have a nice relationship with friends, with family, etc. You see? Lovely values which we have lost.”
The fruit of our labor should be the means to live. The means themselves have virtually no intrinsic importance; they are the mere tools we use to enable us to live. Food, drink, shelter, they are all meaningless without people to share them with and if a quixotic quest to get more of these things has surpassed in importance the act of sharing them, then we’ve lost perspective. Indeed, we’ve ceased to live.