In a previous post it was stated that we are united in our need for water, food, excreting, shelter and clothing. In another post it was stated that Earthlings had created many Social, Economic and Religious Systems to live together. The Social and Economic systems were meant to control and provide the first. Religious systems provide meaning to many for life here on this planet. Taking the first two ideas we can begin to see where we can start to think outside the box. The third one is one that can’t be changed except by those who believe in them. This not to say some change is needed in these also. A topic for discussion at another time.
The question becomes which is more important to address the Social or Economic system? This is a little difficult as they do have some affect on one another. If you look at it the Economic system needs to come first. It defines how the basic needs of all Earthlings are provided. Within that are are laid out a lot of the ways in which we interact socially .
How do we design an Economic system that helps us to interact socially in a different way than we do now? The dominant Economic system seems to be Capitalism at this time. The basic interpretation of this system is “What can I do for you that will make my life better”.
This seems to have produced greed, selfishness and a lack of being able to see each other as Earthlings together on this planet. It has also produced a system that is unfair in the distribution of our basic needs. Producing hunger, thirst, homelessness, lack of adequate clothing, illness and disease.
What is it we need to consider in an Economic system that provides for the basic needs of all Earthlings? By looking around our planet earth is there any economic system that provides these? Is there any combination of Economic systems that provide for our basic needs as Earthlings?
These questions are put out to you. I have my own ideas on this subject. It would be great to hear your ideas as well. To be able to start a discussion on this topic of an Economic system that is Earthling based. One that is based on “What can I do for you that will help us both have a better life”. A system that provides all of the basic needs for every Earthling on this planet.
I don’t think that America’s current economic system “creates” greed. It may be that the way that the current system works enables people to act in accordance with their innate greed. Keep in mind that people can be “greedy” and yet unable to sate their greedy desires.
An important question is: “What do we mean by ‘greed'”?
The definition of greed is tied to the accumulation/consumption of wealth. It is important to note that money, in and of itself, is not wealth. Money is a proxy for services and for tangible goods. The services and tangible goods are what the term “wealth” refers to.
Should we define greed as simply one person or group having more wealth than another? Should we define greed as someone having more wealth than the work which he/she has done is worth?
Should we define greed as someone taking more wealth than is necessary for him/her to live? If so, then how much wealth is necessary? We all have ideas as to where the poverty line is, but, wherever we draw it, there are still people who make do with less, so all of our definitions of “poverty” are somewhat arbitrary.
Should we define greed as someone having wealth without doing anything to earn it at all? How should we define “earn”? Sure, we may all agree that someone who has caught a fish earned that fish. If that person then traded the fish for a loaf of bread, did the person earn the bread? If the person traded the fish for a certain amount of money and then traded the money for a loaf of bread, did the person earn the bread?
If a second person took the fish from the first person by force did the second person earn the fish? If a person who is in possession of a fish gives it to someone, did the second person “earn” the fish as far as our definition of greed is concerned? Would your answer change if the recipient of the fish was the person’s child/dependent? If a person caught a fish and then died before he/she could do anything with it and the person’s heir took possession of the fish, did the heir “earn” the fish?
This kind of consideration is crucial for deciding upon a socioeconomic system.
Most people seem to me to hold a definition of greed that implies that they think that people should have only that wealth which they have earned through their own labor. If we adopt that as the foundation of our system, then we would not necessary provide for all people as you seem to want to do, because there may be lazy people. Also, there could be no inheritance of wealth. What should happen to a person’s wealth upon death in such a system?
There would be other considerations if we, say, decided to distribute wealth evenly across the populace. Many historians argue, and I agree, that much of what we have now (accumulated knowledge of the universe and tangibles such as medicine, infrastructure, cars, computers, and monuments) were possible in large part because most of humanity’s wealth was concentrated in one person or a small group of people. If the wealth of ancient Egypt, say, were spread evenly across the people and not concentrated in the ruler, it seems very unlikely that the Egyptians would have chosen to build the pyramids or that they would have been able to get enough people on-board and coordinated to do so even if some people had had the will to do so. Maybe humanity could do without pyramids or any of the trappings of modern life. Whether we want to do without would be an important consideration.
In summary, it seems to me that the first step would be to define the terms I mentioned here. That will help to establish what the goal would be. Then one could try to design a system which would serve that goal.
Thanks for the thought that you put into the response to this post. I can only tell you that my idea of greed when I referred to it was one of those you stated. This is the accumulation of more wealth than is necessary for an individual. It seems to me that through out the history of Earthlings greed has existed in some form or another.
I do not think that humans have any inherent qualities other than those needed to survive. Anything else such as greed comes from the evolution of Earthlings living on this planet. In truth I don’t have a clue as to why we arrived where we have except for this. All ideas, concepts, emotions and thoughts have come about because we have existed and continue to exist on this planet. We are not it seems at the mercy of instinct.
The distribution and manufacturing of resources is something that needs to clearly have a goal. In my mind one other than we have now. I stated that we need to look at these and make a decision about how they work. It will take a mental adjustment for anything new to actually be implemented. Especially since I think it takes looking at it from the point of view that no one owns anything. All Earthlings in my mind own all of it together.
There are all kinds of people on this planet. Some are lazy, industrious, self-sufficient, independent and other types of personalities. So yes any new system has to account for the incorporation of the many personalities that exist. How do they fit into any new system designed? Do they fit in at all?
In my mind the first goal is that whatever we create needs to benefit all Earthlings. It needs to eliminate war, poverty, homelessness, hunger, thirst and any suffering. In my mind there is no need for any of these. Earthlings have created what exists and are fully capable of creating whatever they want. The big problem being that the planet is occupied by Seven Billion Earthlings at this time. A lot of minds to get to accept a new imagined order.
Why should the new system benefit all “earthlings”?
Point 1:
I don’t think that it would be possible to make something that would benefit all earthlings, because there would likely always be points at which disagreements would lead to an impasse. That impasse would need to be resolved at the expense of one faction or another.
I like the utilitarian approach because it allows for one to feel altruistic by serving the needs of the many and it also allows for the reality that one can, at most, only serve the “many” and not “all”.
Point 2:
It seems that you are interested in fairness. How would it be fair to give every earthling resources regardless of what that person has done?
Point 3:
Please keep in mind that controlling resources is a way to control what people can DO with those resources. Would you like for everyone to have guns and ammunition?
Point 4:
Life is a competition. Life is pitted against other life in order to A) keep the population of every species in check and B) to enable evolution. How would the human population be kept in check if we give everyone resources? How would the new human society prevent over consumption of resources and the over-production of pollution? How would we maintain the gene pool and how would we adapt to social and/or ecological changes if there would be no winners and losers? Would people decide who lives and who dies? Which person(s)? How would those person(s) know better than nature which people will best fit into the system of nature?
Your points are well taken. Point 2 is the only one I would like to address at this time. If I understand what you are saying it is an attitude that comes from our current economic system. The other points are considerations for attitudes or ideas that certainly need to be looked at for something new to exist.
When a person works and earns an income they get to buy the resources they need or want. If a person doesn’t work and has no income then they do not get to buy the resources they need or want. To take care of these Earthlings welfare and other institutions were created. Those that do not get taken care of by some form of help are usually destitute and survive the best they can. From this I think the attitude of what resources a person deserves or not arise.
So yes in the new world order everyone must participate to get the resources they need or want. The question is what to do about those that refuse to do their part. To be sure they are not entitled to any resources since they are unwilling to participate in making any. Resource meaning food, clothing, shelter, housing and such. These Earthlings will need to be dealt with of coarse. The question remains how? I am not sure at this point since I had not given it to much thought honestly. My hope is that with different ideas and attitudes this would not happen.
I wanted to take time to reply to the other points made in this response.
To Point 1:
Of coarse the need for an attitude shift is needed before any new system of Earthling interaction is taken. There doesn’t have to be anything that is at the expense of one group or another. The attitude would be shifted to choose whatever outcome is best for all Earthlings. Selfishness or self interest needs to be shifted to what is good for the whole is good for me as well. It is a shift from what can I do for you that makes my life better to one of what can we do together that makes all of our lives better.
To Point 3:
I can see how the idea of controlling resources might be construed. The understanding that was intended was that resources be used differently. So some control of resources is needed to insure they are not wasted. Resources in the context of what I was trying to purpose were those that are needed to give all Earthlings what they need to survive and be comfortable. So in the design of any new system it is about controlling the resources themselves and not Earthlings. Of coarse history shows any system of Earthling design can be misused.
To Point 4:
Excellent questions! Ones that need to be addressed by thinking outside the box. My questions being can we get past competition if all our needs are met? Is it possible for us to decide to control our own reproduction level? This being complicated by religious issues. Can we only use the resources we really need and produce them cleanly? Does the possibility exist for accepting DNA manipulation to produce the best Earthlings possible?
So your questions are great. The answers are still to be determined by those of us who seek a change from what exists now to a new world order.