Our inability to measure long term consequences from short term gains will be the death of us. Covid, climate change, and conflict are holding a mirror to our collective behaviours.
Henry Madison wrote about the shift back to normal that's essentially pushing us off a cliff towards the default normal we had prior to this century:
"As Max Planck famously observed, social change mostly happens not because of thought and innovation; it happens because one generation dies with its ideas, and the next then gets to run with its own ideas. (The reason institutions are so crucial is that they allow ideas to transcend generations.) So during that great peace and prosperity post-WW2, whole generations forgot what created it: Massive public investment and action. The new elite generation that came to power in the 1970s forgot that and began a process of erasing all of those 19th and 20th century public health and welfare actions: What we now call the birth of 'neoliberalism' and libertarian politics. Just names really; you need to zoom out to see the true social movement it represents. It's societies' most common form throughout all of human history: feudalism topped by some form of monarchial figure. That monarch can be a president too. The US presidency is the most regal figure of power in the world today; populism has transformed that democracy back into the social form the US had desperately tried to escape. The main point is that Covid inaction is just one further part of this same movement that's been going on for over 50 years: The removal of the 'public', an invention of the late-19th and 20th centuries, to restore societies to the form they'd had for centuries previously."
I've recently written more about that we've barely ever managed to creep out of feudalistic systems before we're swept back under again. It seems to be too much of a draw for the powerful to sacrifice the many for their own overwhelming gains, so the people have to continuously work for equity. If we relax for a second, we go under.
An article in April's PNAS Nexus further explains the problem in concrete terms with a hope for a more Indigenous worldview that works with nature instead of defeating it:
"Propelled by imperialism, extractive capitalism, and a surging population, we are speeding past Earth's material limits, destroying critical ecosystems, and triggering irreversible changes in biophysical systems that underpin the Holocene climatic stability which fostered human civilization. . . . We advocate a global cultural shift that elevates kinship with nature and communal well-being, underpinned by the recognition of Earth's finite resources and the interconnectedness of its inhabitants. The imperative is clear: to navigate away from this precipice, we must collectively harness political will, economic resources, and societal values to steer toward a future where human progress does not come at the cost of ecological integrity and social equity. . . . Modern imperialism is embodied by industrial capitalism, which prioritizes resource extraction and maximizing profit. This paradigm is deeply embedded in the fabric of global affairs, influencing international trade, political dynamics, and the economic frameworks of nations. . . . The cocoon of wealth enjoyed by developed nations belies the suffering and misery many low latitude and semiarid communities already endure in tenuous heat and drought conditions. . . . It is past time to build a new ear of reciprocity with nature."
I'm not sure any of this type of behaviour is new; instead, I think that our enormous population and technological progress has made our greed more obvious and absolutely lethal to ourselves and most of the larger mammals on the planet. Our reaction to Covid, climate change, and conflict is just showing us who we really are. We can no longer avoid seeing the effects of our actions.
In order to change our collective behaviours enough to make a difference, we need to learn two intertwined lessons that have been taught and repeated for thousands of years: reduce our desires and avoid hubris.
On Reducing Desires
In Plato's Protagoras, Socrates explains the problem with how people make moral decisions like this:
"The same magnitudes seem greater to the eye from near at hand than they do from a distance. This is true of thickness and also of number, and sounds of equal loudness seem greater near at hand than at a distance. If now our happiness consisted in doing, I mean in choosing, greater lengths and avoiding smaller, where would lie salvation? In the art of measurement or in the impression made by appearances? Haven't we seen that the appearance leads us astray and throws us into confusion so that in our actions and our choices between great and small we are constantly accepting and rejecting the same things, whereas the metric art would have canceled the effect of the impression, and by revealing the true state of affairs would have caused the soul to live in peace and quiet and abide in the truth, thus saving our life?' Faced with these considerations, would people agree that our salvation would lie in the art of measurement? ...
What would assure us a good life then? Surely knowledge, and specifically a science of measurement, since the required skill lies in the estimation of excess and defect...
...when people make a wrong choice of pleasures and pains--that is, of good and evil--the cause of their mistake is lack of knowledge. We can go further, and call it, as you have already agreed, a science of measurement, and you know yourselves that a wrong action which is done without knowledge is done in ignorance. So that is what being mastered by pleasure really is--ignorance...
Lovely.
We've been over this for thousands of years, yet we still value unfettered lives that lead to unspeakable tragedies, which we call evils, over some measure of restraint which could provide some current deprivations but lead to greater pleasures later: that which we call the good.
So it goes.
But it doesn't just harm society at large; it harms our own experience of happiness. We just can't feel that well enough to believe it. The more we desire, the more we chase after the objects of our desire, and the less we'll ever reach any kind of eudaimonia. Most of the trinkets we chase after give us only a moment of fleeting joy and cost us hours or years of work to pay for them. If we can reduce our desire for things, then maybe we can actually find happiness or contentment or a sense of enough, and maybe there will be more of what we need to go around.
Aristotle's solution is through education, but it feels like it's way too late for that.
"It is on account of the pleasure that we do bad things, and on account of the pain that we abstain from noble ones. Hence we ought to have been brought up in a particular way from our very youth, as Plato says, so as both to delight in and to be pained by the things that we ought."
It's good that we got religious indoctrination out of schools, but we really need general education to also include some ethics. Instead, our schools have largely made efforts to never teach about morality in a curious distancing from religious education, as if they're necessarily enmeshed. We do it a little when grade one teachers ask, "How would you feel if someone did that to you?" but we avoid going much further. Apparently it's just not our place to suggest to children what's right and wrong. They'll figure that out later for themselves (guided by the social media instead of any wisdom gleaned through the ages).
Epicurus advocates to work as little as possible and live simply with good friends and conversation. He uses the term prudence instead of measurement, but the gist is the same: learn to figure out what you actually need instead of trying to get everything you want.
"If thou wilt make a man happy, add not unto his riches, but take away from his desires. . . . The wealth craved after by vain fancies knows neither end nor limit. He who has understood the limits of life knows how easy it is to get all that takes away the pain of want. . . . The first duty of salvation is to preserve our vigour and to guard against the defiling of our life in consequence of maddening desires."
Stoics and Jesus said similar things, so you'd think at least one of those would hold some sway to fight against the bombardment of ads to provoke us to chase after one thing after another.
Blindly being led by our cravings and desires is intimately tied to how much we feel the need to impress one another, not with our character, but with our consumption: our shiny new EV or pictures from our latest trip or yet another pair of shoes.
On Avoiding Hubris
It's tricky to find the best word for this, and hubris doesn't quite fit, but close enough. We need to act following our internal values instead of acting to get external rewards (likes and dopamine hits) or to avoid external punisher (unfollows, cancellations, or actual work). The internet sets us up to do the complete opposite of that. We're being programmed by algorithms to act to increase "engagement" of our "content" instead of just putting our authentic self out there to share with others.
But that's just part of the problem. This goes way back before the internet. It's our nature. And we have to be aware enough to rise above these instinct wired into us that lead to short term gain but are so often later followed by long term ruin.
Plato made a causal connection between the inner workings of our state, however global it may be, and the inner workings of our consciousness. He called it a "soul", but that's far too enmeshed with religious meanings of the term. He explained how a state can fall into tyranny, and he reflected that in each individual person as well as they fall into degeneracy: We try to do good things because they're good, then people notice that and thank us and draw us into wanting to do good things for the compliments. Then someone offers us money, and that's amazing, and we start doing good for a payment. Next thing you know, we'll only do good for payment, and we start to feel ripped off if we do something without any material compensation. Soon enough, we realize we can get more money if we're willing to do corrupt things. And in the final stage, we're no longer doing anything but stealing from our neighbours like wild beasts.
We're currently stealing from our children as we use up every possible resource on the planet for our luxuries, ensuring they have nothing for their necessities. It's the love of honour, distinction, prestige, and status, firstly, that sends us down this road. And it is far more difficult to avoid now that so many of us spend most waking hours online:
"He being not originally of a bad nature, but having kept bad company, is at last brought by their joint influence to a middle point, and gives up the kingdom which is within him to the middle principle of contentiousness and passion, and becomes arrogant and ambitious." (Republic, book VIII)
William De Witt Hyde explains two tests to judge for yourself whether you're on the way to becoming a degenerate:
"First: Will you do what reason shows you to be right every time, at all costs, no matter if all the honors and emoluments are attached to doing something a shade or two off from this absolutely right and reasonable course? Second: Would you rather have what is best done by somebody else, and let him have the credit of it, rather than get all the credit yourself by doing something not quite so good? The man of pride and ambition can never be quite disinterested in his service of the good. . . . The appetitive side of life is always present, even in the most upright of men. It may be asleep, but it is never dead."
There's no simple answer to all the things because each circumstance is so complex. That means we have to think all the time, and that's a lot of work. And it's something we're no longer practicing. I'm still saddened by the types of courses that count towards a Master's degree today, that ensure students don't think about the content. Judging by the vast difference in approach in a Master degree between 1990 and now, we're largely no longer teaching critical thinking in the same way. Without that type of skill development, people might legitimately struggle with assessing right from wrong in their own lives, and more easily get sucked down the path of caring money or status instead of caring about being a good person, like choosing to push for their own plan even when they realize someone else's is actual better. That kind of intentional forwarding of another's plan is almost unheard of now.
It almost feels illegal to promote and celebrate the best option instead of our own.
De Witt Hyde explains that, like Plato, Jesus also cautioned that even love can take us into immorality if we don't start from good intentions and a loving heart:
"These counterfeits are chiefly devices for gaining the rewards and honors of Love, without the effort and sacrifice of loving. One of the most obvious rewards of Love is being thought kind, generous, good. But this can be secured, apparently, by professing religion, joining the church, repeating the creed, giving money to the poor, subscribing large sums to good causes -- all of which are much cheaper and easier than being kind, and true, and faithful, and considerate in the home, on the farm, in the factory, in the store."
We care more about appearing good and lovable, or at least vaguely acceptable, instead of developing our own character to embody it. That sense of trying to be a moral and just human being in our daily interactions feels so lost right now, like it's nonsensical to even suggest it.
We can never be certain of the outcome of our action, so all we can do is to act with the best intention, an intention that's authentically kind, honest, prudent, and just, an intention that reinstates public health and welfare from a love of humanity, that ends conflicts, and promote simple living instead of mass consumption. We're not going to solve the problems of the world, but we don't have to be such assholes as it all comes crashing down.
No comments:
Post a Comment