Where are we going, how can we change?

an investigation into the motivations for human action
as applicable to a sustainable future

The Influence of Economics

He that is of the opinion money will do everything may well be suspected of doing everything for money.

Benjamin Franklin

Economics is the distribution of wealth. Individuals place value on that which is demanded. The accumulation of wealth indicates the success one has in supplying that which is demanded. The basic elements of sustenance: water, food, and protection, are always in demand, or life could not be supported.

Before the principle of ownership was established, the need for distinction of wealth would not have been necessary. The supply of any commodity would have been equally rare or plentiful to any individual. However, the stage when material possession and ownership was established must have arrived early in Evolution, and would have first developed out of the distinction of relative fitness of one being over another. The relative fitness of an individual is understood by the group in recognition of status. The demarcation of status, based on the ability to provide for the satiation of desires, was the first step towards the valuing of material possession. Animals show this initial stage in the relative dominance of one over another to establish the ability for protection. A greater value is given to those more suited to protect themselves and their relations, and this is recognized by others in the establishment of rank within the group.

Protection is the most primary of the needs for sustaining life. Without it, the provision for food and water can not be established. When greater protection is afforded, more time is available to provide for nutritional needs. For this reason, the ability to provide protection is the most valued factor in establishing status amongst animals. Without the maintenance of good protection -or safety- higher quality of life beyond mere sustenance can not be achieved.

We recognize the stage beyond merely providing for sustenance as having achieved comfort of life. In animals, just as in humans, the ability to have leisure time is a basic comfort of life. Those who have achieved greater status will have earned the ability for more leisure. We all understand that life is more enjoyable and comfort is attained when we have time to relax away from work. Time away from work is valued, even in the most predatory business climates, by accepting days-off, holidays, and vacations.

Humans distinguish themselves from animals in that they may provide for comfort of life by use of a second measure, material possession. Ownership of material possessions along with the ability for leisure time constitute the two qualities determining quality of life in humans.¹² Animals do, as well, have some small need for possession in saving the provisions of sustenance. However, the animal’s need to protect its body and its stores of food from predators and the forces of nature makes saving really part of its necessity of protection, and is required in a lesser degree than for humans. Humans, due to their expansion into climates of the world more unsuited to the body, require greater savings, compared to animals, of the basic elements of sustenance. This is part of the human’s provision for safety. This need for saving the elements of sustenance, to provide for greater protection from the forces of nature, is the point at which material possession took on significance. Greater savings, in turn, allowed for more safety and the greater ability for leisure time. For those people, whose needs are more able to be met without great savings, because they inhabit climates more suited to the naked body, find that leisure time is more easily provided with lesser needs for storage. This is evidenced by primitive hunter-gatherer societies in Africa who, it has been discovered, actually had much time for leisure throughout the day because of lesser need for savings.

The need for status is not simply a matter of choice amongst humans as some philosophies might espouse. Just as in animals, rank will be naturally determined based on the fitness to succeed. Those societies who have attempted organization, without regard to status have not been successful, and only through forceful means to discourage natural competition have they attempted to maintain a less competitive atmosphere. Of course, status was still achieved although through more subtle means, but still on the basis of wealth, as a symbol of standing in the society. When the natural inclination for members of the group to organize along lines of rank has been systematically suppressed discontent has been the result.

In countries, like the United States, where comforts of life are now generally guaranteed for most, possession must take on an extra symbolic nature to help differentiate status.

In America, because a person with a relatively lesser ability to pay can now be just as likely to have as good a quality of life and chance for longevity as one with considerable advantage, status can no longer be determined just on this basis. An American of the middle class, for example, has no limitation on living as long and enjoyably as someone in the highest tax bracket. It should be pointed out, that in the more economically predatory environments, such as in the United States, access to adequate health care is considered a luxury item, and so it must be assumed that those being compared in this example, would each have the ability to provide for this need. However, as has previously been described, once comfort and longevity of life has been established, wasteful display of material possession becomes necessary to provide a further indication of status. The society places additional value on the display of items, of no useful purpose, to give further indication of rank. The purposes for conspicuous consumption of leisure and possession are directly related to the need to establish rank within the society. This is one factor in the failure of the so-called communist economic systems in the former Soviet influenced nations of Eastern Europe. The establishment of rank is natural among groups of animals and humans. An economic system which does not recognize this will not last.

In all systems of economics, the relative value of commodities is determined by the perceived rarity in obtaining them in conjunction with the demand. In places of systemic barbarism, for example, great demand will be placed on protection, as the means for obtaining it will be rare. The value of the commodity for protection is always the highest among the provisions of sustenance, and those who can supply it will be paid a high asking price when its supply is rare. Everyone understands the basics of supply and demand. It does not need to be outlined in detail here and one can reference the writings of Adam Smith for a thorough outline of this principle in regard to Capitalism. Global economics now operate under systems mixing Capitalism with Socialist protections. Except in states of anarchy, this is the rule. These systems are distinguished, not so much in overall philosophy, but in the extent to which distribution of wealth is influenced by pure market, or capitalist, influence and to which extent it is influenced by social or government distribution. The system of assigning value to human work through money has been effective in distributing wealth in a fairer and in a more immediate manner than economics based on central planning. Market forces operating through supply and demand have been proven to be an effective way to distribute wealth with fluid and fast response. This is evidenced by a second factor in the fall of state-controlled Capitalism, in the Soviet influenced countries, as well as the necessity to turn towards a more market influenced economy in countries like China. Centrally planned economies were proven to be less capable of predicting what their society’s demands would be. In countries who have attempted central control of supply, black markets or general discontent was the evidence of goods not being supplied in accordance with demand. Capitalism supplies that which the society demands in the quantities it demands it. If less or more is being supplied, the market corrects itself as individuals change their supply. The Capitalist system is the purest example of how individual demand, based on action motivated by natural desire and values, has swift influence over global response.

The limitations of the Capitalist system to provide for all that a society might demand, have been evidenced in disasters such as the American Great Depression and in the prevailing plight of the underclass segments of the population. Socialist protections, created by governments and institutions, provide for some of the items which are beyond the scope of market influence. These items either: are not demanded by the general population, but still considered to be of value to the institution in power, are of too grand or too complex a scale, or are offering too little profit motive for any private individuals to undertake them.

As an example, a space program is not generally demanded by an individual. There is effectively no individual demand for a space program as it can not be readily consumed. Some governments, however, have determined that although a space program is not generally demanded it is valuable. An example of demands of too grand a scale, are public works projects or national defense which may be demanded by the public but can not be effectively provided for by any entity other than the federal government due to the enormity and complexity of their undertaking.

Demand unmet because of too little profit motive is seen in the American health care system, where all segments of the population may demand health care, but the profits, if it is made available to all, would not be worth the risk of providers operating within the market economy. There is a point at which demand will not be met due to lowering profit margin. There is also a point where things simply can not be afforded, even if they could be considered a component of the most primary needs for sustenance,(as health care is a component of protection). This example makes clear that it is not true that the market will effectively provide for all that is demanded. In fact, it will only provide for that which is demanded if it is believed to yield a profit. The market is subject to the rule of profit making. An individual would not go into business to provide services or goods that would not achieve a profit. In the case of American health care, private insurance companies are not willing to supply health insurance at prices which they deem are not worth it. They, naturally, are in the business of profit making, and would logically not take on any demand which is below this margin.

The case of the American health care system points out another weakness of the pure market system. This is its inability to differentiate wise or unwise decision making. It can only react to that which is already demanded. The market is not wiser than the general population. An individual might logically choose not to sign up for health care after making a risk choice not to throw away cash on something whose use may not likely be needed. However, this decision may prove unwise in the end, (as the purpose of insurance is to provide a safe-guard for events that are difficult to predict). Capitalism can respond well to immediate demand, but it can not respond wisely, unless individuals demand wisely. For the general populace to have the capacity to make wise demands on the capitalist market is impossible to guarantee. Individual wisdom can be increased through education. However, youth is by nature inexperienced and not fully educated. A large proportion of the population will be young. We do not expect young people to be wise and there is no guarantee a person of any age will be.

Do we need a changed economic system to deal with the real and present dangers of a world rapidly changing beyond our control?

Centralized planning has already been shown to be ineffective in distributing wealth fairly. It has also been shown to be at odds with human nature. The more extreme centrally controlled economies, such as those once influenced by the Soviet Union, failed as individual demand could not be affectively met. A planned system can not predict the whims of individual demand and respond rapidly. This is most effectively accomplished through open markets. However, the pure market also has weaknesses which must be overcome by societal protections.

Capitalism does not contain values any more than a machine. It is only a mechanism. It does not have a conscience. The market is only a reflection of the collection of individual demands occurring in the society. If one looks at the market, one will gain a fairly clear picture of the values of the society. In the United States, it seems evident that the prevailing demand places most importance on characteristics such as: greater quantity, larger size, faster speed of production, affordability, newness, and waste. Other characteristics such as craftsmanship, care, skill, longevity of use, aesthetic affect, and sustainable impact are now of a lesser importance. It should be made clear that this is the general trend of valuation but does not mean that the overall lesser demanded characteristics are not still highly demanded by a sizable segment of the population. It has been recognized, in fact, that some of these today lesser-demanded traits are in fact more primary to the natural appreciations housed in the genetic make-up as they are central to the concept of appreciating quality.

A consensus on degrees of quality can be recognized by a large enough sampling of individual judgments and that quality is comprised of the characters of craftsmanship, care, and skill. Humans will appreciate higher levels of these traits in material objects or services offered. The ability to discern these qualities is enhanced by an education which sensitizes one to their existence. Those who have achieved a higher education, in regard to strengthening this sensitivity, will covet these characteristics and demand them. It can be said that the educated, in regard to quality, will place great value on the synthesis of the overall design effect within an object, the precision of detail, and the elimination of wasteful elements. Those whose genetic ability to discern quality has gone undeveloped will generally place greater value on emulation of what they believe to be the elements of quality. Because of a lack of discrimination, or development of taste, mis-educated individuals may seek out items, they believe to be indicative of a higher degree of quality, but in fact are not. This often leads to valuing cartoonish symbols of the traits of quality evidenced in items that are considered gaudy or kitsch. The refinement of the ability to recognize quality is in no way disposed in individuals along class lines or by tax brackets. Examples of the lack of appreciation of the defining characteristics of quality are evident amongst the most well-to-do. Newness, size, and quantity are often confused for aspects of refinement, or beauty, and are coveted. However, if one looks at the human body, one will realize that synthesis of the whole and correct proportion are more important to recognition of the beautiful than merely size or quantity. The same is true of items which are too large and whose elements are too disproportionate, (which would be described as grotesque). Youthful or healthful appearance is recognized, in regard to the human body, as beautiful but this is not synonymous with newness and when applied to articles such as buildings is not the same as high-quality. Oldness which imparts a sublime affect, such as shown in a castle or a gothic cathedral, may be inherently of higher value than a structure, built exactly the same, only newer. In the case of buildings, sustainability can be shown to be of intrinsic value because it must involve longevity which demands the use of care, skill, and craftsmanship. Antiques are also given a high value because their oldness leads to rarity. The age of the article has the effect of making it more precious.

The effect of emulation can not be underestimated. It is apparent that the most valued characteristics in today’s American market place are emblematic of purely an ability to pay. This is felt necessary to achieve reputability. Humans will emulate the behavior of those of the class they want to be associated with. In the United States, the need for emulation, to show a greater degree of expendable wealth leading to greater recognition of status within the community, is a strong economic demand. Houses of greater square footage, automobiles of greater size and newness, the continual replacement of household items for newer models, vacation homes, home remodeling, recreational boats, and greater redundancy of household items, such as television sets, are all symbols of status. These items are displayed purely for their wasteful nature, and for the average American, who does not employ a staff of servants, the demands for payments and upkeep of these items only increases the necessity to work and decreases the amount of the other component of comfort of life, namely leisure.

The motivation of profits is of course the top factor in ensuring supply meets demand. Profits are maximized both by a greater margin of cost of production and saleable price and the frequency with which sales can be made. Because monopolies have been generally outlawed or regulated, and the global economy has been opened to increased competition, the first of these factors has been fairly effectively controlled. Items offered for sale in most categories do not have great leeway over setting exorbitantly high prices over the cost of production if they wish to maximize profit. For this reason, profits are generally increased by increasing the frequency of sales. Increasing frequency of sales is directly determined by the rate of consumption by the buying public and the speed of production to meet this demand.

It is important to recognize the factors involved which lead to rates of consumption in order to understand how they are important to profitability. Consumption is required at the most basic level to provide for the necessities of sustenance. This, as with all the components of consumption, is increased within the overall society by an increase of population. Increasing population is, in fact, one factor economists point to as assuring greater demand and a growing economy. A growing economy is normally maintained as necessary in Capitalism to insure an increased quality of life. This point will be returned to, in order to investigate its accuracy. However, obviously, with greater mouths to feed, and more bodies to house, the demand for consumption of food and housing will go up, ensuring overall economic growth. Besides the needs for sustenance, consumption will also be affected by the demand for, some of the characteristics previously discussed, namely: newness, size, quantity, waste, and sustainability.

It is obvious that with an increased demand for newness, products will be replaced at a more rapid pace and overall consumption will go up. This phenomenon is very evident, for example, in the computer market. Computer technology, peripheral hardware devices, and software is constantly updated and replaced by newer models. The gains in productivity they afford are important to profit making amongst businesses and this demand for newness when applied for beneficial results is natural. Other demand for newness, however, is not related to usefulness but is simply a product of emulation. It should be recognized in regard to useful newness that a point can be reached where newness does not lead to increased productivity and profit. However, it may not be recognized as such, as the effect of emulation takes over. This is the point where demand for newness, which makes available a useful innovation, gives way to demand for newness only for newness sake. For instance, in the realm of software, there comes a time when innovations, leading to increased productivity, will be lost with new software editions. The time spent learning new commands, icons, and set-ups for the latest edition of software, along with the cost of buying the program, may actually lead to lost productivity because of the need to train employees in learning new techniques, which even once employed to their fullest extent, will not lead to an increase over the maximized use of the earlier version.

This is very evident in business such as architecture, where productivity was increased as cad software replaced the pencil. As long as the pencil was used, little new training was required, as any advancement in the pencil technique was not difficult to master. Cad software, however, required more time in training, but once learned did lead to an overall increase of productivity. There is no question that greater speed of completing drawings with less labor has been achieved. It should be realized, however, that the overall profitability of the firm, has not appreciably gone up, only that more projects must be done to pay for the increased equipment and ever updating of software and relearning of techniques. One could possibly argue that the quality of life for the computer draftsperson may be increased over those who employed the pencil. However, no fewer work hours are evident, with backache and body fatigue just being replaced by carpal tunnel syndrome and eye strain. As well, it would be difficult to prove that an employee of the firm or an owner has achieved a relatively greater quality of life, when all factors are considered, from say the 1960’s, when the pencil was still used, to today.

It is easy to see that the current increased demand for size and quantity also increases the consumption of materials. Houses are now demanded in larger square footage requiring more amounts of material. As well, greater demand for quantity of cars per household requires more consumption of material to build them and the fuel to run them. These can both be related to the demand for waste, (the need for conspicuous consumption). It can be argued that like newness, increased consumption due to these factors has as well not appreciably increase quality of life since the 1960’s as more work must be done to pay for and maintain a greater volume of material possessions.

The final factor affecting consumption is sustainability. Unlike the previous factors, as value for this factor is increased, consumption levels would decrease. Greater sustainability involves a greater longevity of use of the product with lesser amounts of maintenance. This essay is concerned with those factors involved in the sustainability of the resources of the Earth to provide for human life while minimizing suffering. In so doing, consumption of items and their equal replacement must be a factor. There must be an understanding of the requirement within the economic system for consumption as well as a determination of what part of these could truly be considered capable of being equally replaced. It has now been established that the frequency of sales, required for profitability within the market economy requires consumption. It can not be established as to what part of the products made could be produced from materials considered replaceable. However, we know through common-sense that most food stuffs are replaceable. Other elements once used, such as stone, fossil fuels, old-growth forests, other permanently altered environments, and extinct species can not be considered replaceable.

The effect of craftsmanship, care and skill has no definitive necessity to increase consumption of material in the products made. It is true that a product of higher level of craft and overall quality such as a rug or coat will likely have a higher density of material. The greater thickness in these examples, however, adds to the overall strength of the product. It is generally true, that a product, other aspects being equal, that is tougher, will be considered of a higher quality. This can be translated into an object of greater sustainability. It will simply last longer. As well, the time involved to create a product of higher quality will be higher. Time investment is necessary to achieve higher quality with all other element being equal. This means that less product of high quality will be able to be made in the same time compared to one of lower quality. Because of this limit on speed of production, with a lesser need for replacement due to the greater longevity of an item’s usefulness, any increase in density of material in a high-quality sustainable item, will be offset and overall consumption will be reduced.

Increasing population can be seen as the one factor which most guarantees increased consumption. Obviously, the more people there are, the more consumption must take place, regardless of the character of the products being demanded. This of course ensures the growth of the economy. However, more suppliers must also be provided with more jobs. There is no evidence that in countries with greater fertility rates, a greater standard of living results. In fact the opposite is generally true. There is a remarkable correlation when referencing fertility rates and life expectancy, to show that in general, countries with a high fertility rate also have a short life expectancy. The standard of living in the countries of high birth rate is low. Suffering is well-known to be greater, along with lesser individual freedom, in countries known as the third world. What seems to be a greater factor in determining a rising standard of living among individuals is a rise in education. The countries of Western Europe have a low fertility rate and also have a long life expectancy. These countries are also known to have a good availability of strong systems of education.

The predatory nature supported by the need to do business has been mentioned previously as a motivation to act. It may be fruitful to look more deeply as to how this basic predisposition is supported by humans as necessary to succeed within the global economic system and how it has been tempered by the oppositional sympathetic side generally manifesting itself as good-will towards man. The predatory nature which arose naturally, once possession became defined, is characterized by barbaric behavior at its extreme. Violence, theft, and threat of bodily damage were necessary components in the means to acquire and protect property. These means, although outside the realm of what is legal, may still be used today to gain advantage in the economic world. However, the means of societal retribution, through prison, fines, and shame have been accepted by societies to make clear the risks facing perpetrators not respecting the rules of possession. Jurisprudence was created to protect the natural sympathetic qualities of man and to promote fair play with regard to the collective.

Violent barbarianism, outside of war, is not tolerated by civilized societies. However, the predatory nature remains and is valued, all be it in a watered-down version, within the business world. The qualities of cunning, scheming, clannishness, selfishness, and aggressive disregard for others are necessary and well-respected characteristics for those attempting to achieve success within the global economy. These traits are of course promoted amongst business schools and are recognized virtues necessary for business success. The aggressive predatory nature, still, however, retains a tainted quality for the individual business person, and the sympathetic is always the character more enjoyed by others. One may be respected for his strength, aggressiveness, and will to fight, as exemplified by the business tycoon, but does not go well remembered on a personal basis for these qualities. It is not generally customary to place the departed’s final bank balance on a headstone, or eulogize the net worth of an individual in summation of his most revered accomplishments of life. The sympathetic will be most appreciated by other members of the community if one is to be remembered with fondness. The ability to exert pecuniary dominance is respected and necessary within the global economy but is still regarded with some degree of distaste, even within the mind of the business tycoon.

At the extreme end of the predatory scale, the fully-cultivated barbarian is exemplified by the dictators and warrior conquerors of the world: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, etc. These people are respected and honored by society for their ability to dominate and gain advantage. History pays them great esteem, not for their personal character, but for their ability to carry out their will to power. They are generally seen as aberrant, however, in the lack of influence their sympathetic nature exerted. This is the mark of the criminal mind, one who has not cultivated his good-will toward others and attempts selfish aims by any means.

Those who have expressed the sympathetic nature to the extreme, with little regard for the predatory, are those religious and moral leaders who are lionized for their good-will towards others: Gandhi, Christ, Martin Luther King, etc. These types are seen as the good with the former being the evil. This distinction makes clear the positive favor of those who have cultivated the most extremely sympathetic nature as being good in the general consciousness. It is for this reason, religious and moral leaders, who want to be seen as good, must be seen to subdue their predatory nature. These sympathetic natures will be recognized as tainted if they have shown a zest for monetary advantage. This is the purpose for religious leaders taking a vow of poverty, or the need for the most honored moral leaders to refrain from making displays of coveting personal wealth.

A paradox, however, occurs with respect to that which is valued by the global economy and that which is generally valued by the individual. The global economy is referred to as a good for mankind and promoted by the Western influenced world. However, it is always with some discomfort that those, who by necessity, have tapped into their predatory nature and have been raised up by the business world as examples of the good and successful. The successful business man may compensate for the guilt occurring due to this paradox, if concerned with his overall historic impression as being to the good. This can be done by: philanthropy, giving back to the community, charity work and religious devotion. Those like Bill Gates, Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc. are seen with ambiguity due to their great predatory business sense but philanthropic deeds. If the business mogul is not seen to have any regard for the sympathetic nature, he will be perceived by history, to be successful and respected for his ability to exert influence, but will not be perceived as good.

There are characters who, having achieved great business success, still retain an overall historic impression of being good. Some examples are people like The Beatles, Charles Dickens, Jack Nicklaus, Benjamin Franklin, etc. It would seem from the impression left by these types that, whether true or not, they are seen to have been given business success mainly by means other than cunning and calculation. That they may have achieved financial success is seen as only a by-product of having delivered work of high merit. The success of their achievement was seen to have been due to exertion and production of high worth which did not require calculated submission of the competition by devious means. Success was seen in these individuals to have been achieved through fair-play and only on the merits of the quality of their own efforts. The disposition of these characters would generally be characterized as optimistic and somewhat joyful and unconcerned with scheming toward the degradation of the competitor. These types are apparently most similar to the general run of those in the economic world. They, through their own conviction, believe in achieving economic success by exertion and the quality of their work but not in the calculated scheming of harm to others. These more regular types accept that competition requires some to succeed more frequently than others, but this can be determined through fair-play and good competition. This view, has in the more civilized societies, been strengthened by rules and laws of conduct in business practice. The character of Ebenezer Scrooge makes clear the factors leading to the perception of the successful business person in the eyes of others. He, although apparently not becoming less profitable after his visitation by the ghosts of Christmas, was able to change his repute from bad to good by acquiring a cheerful disposition, philanthropic nature, and greater regard for fair play, (at least as known with regard to his compensation of Bob Cratchit). These characteristics must then be necessary to appeal to the concept of good. It should also be noted true, that one who does not achieve any success in business, through simple laziness, sloth, or inability will not be seen in good favor, especially with simultaneous lack of cultivation of the sympathetic component. Lack of economic success through irresponsibility or ineptness does not lead to being favored as good. It should be recognized that it is only amongst those cultivating the sympathetic, but not lazy and irresponsible habit, that the lack of business success will be believed to indicate a good nature.

Those economies which run on the ideology of non-open and unfair competition, through centralized control, are known to have dissatisfaction amongst the population. The innovation and quality of the general product is always inferior due to lack of motivation for exertion and innovation by the maximum number of competitors. Those who subscribe to the ‘everyone is equal’ doctrine are consistently met by dissatisfaction in the population and the need to establish a double-standard to deal with an ideology not in accord with human nature. It can be seen that humans will accept and appreciate those individuals most highly who they believe have shown dominance in business when established by fair play and simply on valuation of quality without the necessity for cunning or influence to impede the merits of the competition.

As sustainability, must deal with economics in regard to non-replaceable consumption, it must be decided which characteristics are within the natural bounds of human nature and necessary for economic success but may be considered modifiable. Certainly, recycling, or other reclamation techniques can help to make consumed products reusable and increase the amount of that which is now considered non-replaceable capable of some percentage of replacement. However, it is difficult to tell to what extent these efforts can reduce non-replaceable consumption due to the difficulty with collecting used material and the degradation of material as it is converted back into product. This being put aside as a factor, however much it should be maximized, one can look at immediate factors forcing consumption. The needs for sustenance are basically constant and it is illogical to attempt much reduction of personal sustenance consumption in regard to food and water beyond what is best for the maximization of the well-being of the individual both physical and emotional. Additionally, food items are re-grown and any over consumption will be met with an immediate stress on supply as is seen in places of starvation such as in some third world nations. There is a limit to the capacity of the Earth to provide food, but other materials being rapidly depleted, whose consumption more greatly affects pollution, climactic, and environmental change, will more likely be brought to dangerous levels before the crises of food and water become catastrophic.