A world of scarcity and abundance have different rules. We have flipped the two as people have become richer. Our resources are finite, but we have freed ourselves from the enforced desperation when they were relatively infinite. There is a strong case that we could end poverty by choice. The problem isn't the lack of resources, it is the distribution of those resources. Our total consumption rate isn't sustainable, even if some of us still don't have enough.
I believe it is important to answer the question 'how much is enough?'. I also think the one answer that shouldn't always be allowed is 'more'. A friend of mine doesn't like the word 'should'. He feels it carries implicit judgment. I agree with the principle that we right and wrong are determined by agreement and consent. Largely, people should be left alone to do whatever they like... unless it harms others. That is where I am okay with judgment. That is where I get very judgy. We don't live in isolation.
I am a rule-loving anarchist. I am allergic to non-consensual hierarchy. In my ideal world, everyone would be empowered to say Yes or No, always. That doesn't mean that we should be allowed to do whatever we want.
Rules make the game more fun. Constraints stop winning being the result of someone else losing. The two strongest cases for constraints at the moment are (1) our joint unsustainable consumption, and (2) our joint unsustainable poverty. Rules are just agreements between people to make things better.
One of those agreements should be a consideration of what is enough. You can live a life of abundance within constraints.
No comments:
Post a Comment