Thanks for the thoughtful response! Given how much of our society is driven by ideas old and new, I find that constantly re-evaluating and re-analyzing what we believe about us and the world has become a necessity. To generalize Keynes a little bit, we’re all the moral slaves of some defunct philosopher.
I don't know if you are familiar with the work of David Graeber and David Wengrow titled The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity, where they claim that some of the eastern tribes had managed to develop a way of life that allowed for individualism within the tribe.
I have been struggling with an essay, that essentially tries to emphasize, that in order to survive political unrest, climate change, and unsettling, unpredictable supply of essential goods (remember the shortages of toilet paper and baby food) a local community must come together to meet the needs of the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid, and I'm only thinking of food and shelter.
Your post strikes fear in my mind, that such an approach might lead to tribalism and conformity. My emphasis on just two "needs" might circumvent the worst of such a scenario, because, conservative or liberal, we all need to eat. I'm not sure how to formulate such an idea, that most people could embrace. What do you think?
Thanks for the response! I will try to address everything that you mentioned in your comment, but please do let me know if I fail to do so.
I find that duty and desire are fundamental to any human organization. We have duty to protect and provide for our community, and the desire to pursue our own happiness. In this sense, utopia and crisis simply measure different levels of these two forces. In utopia, we may have successfully automated our duties, such as food production, shelter availability, communications infrastructure, energy, and so on. This leaves us all the time in the world to follow our passions, to create and consume, and to be with one another. In a situation of crisis however, the opposite is true. We find that our needs of subsistence, the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, are now in peril, and we are uncertain whether we have enough. Thus, we may abandon our pursuit of happiness to ensure that the needs of the community are being met. This is the kind of thing we see in humanitarian responses in cases of violent earthquakes or other such disasters.
The problem I see is that we, as people, only seem to care about this right to subsistence when certain areas face crisis. Otherwise, we’d gladly let our neighbors starve if they do not work or produce money in any fashion. But the key to having a society that is both maximizing happiness and also resilient to shocks and crises is to have these basic needs of everyone met at all times. Contrary to popular belief, this is something that our current technology is capable of doing. We’ve solved food production, drinkable water, and have enough shelter to go around manyfold. Any community could have modular versions of this technology that would be sufficient to ensure that their needs are being met. There is no need for tribalism or conformity to rigid work requirements if the goods needed can be abundantly created. And they can be.
Lastly, to put this ambitious idea into a formulation that can appeal to the masses is a hard task. Off the top of my head, I’d say that people perceive subsistence as receiving things for free, stealing, being a parasite. In reality, ensured subsistence is simply nourishment and investment into the future. We take care of children and provide for them not to call them parasites, but to invest in their value as humans and help them accomplish great things in the future. People think that one must carry out duty to receive one’s due, while in reality the due must be paid in advance to enable one to accomplish one’s duty.
I hope I managed to touch on the points you were interested in. Thanks for reading! :)
Such an excellent article. Your research and knowledge is extensive. Thankful for people like you willing to share your gift with the world.
I believe that long-form critical analysis of who we are and the world we live in is the best path forward, even if that path is indirect.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! Given how much of our society is driven by ideas old and new, I find that constantly re-evaluating and re-analyzing what we believe about us and the world has become a necessity. To generalize Keynes a little bit, we’re all the moral slaves of some defunct philosopher.
I don't know if you are familiar with the work of David Graeber and David Wengrow titled The Dawn of Everything, A New History of Humanity, where they claim that some of the eastern tribes had managed to develop a way of life that allowed for individualism within the tribe.
I have been struggling with an essay, that essentially tries to emphasize, that in order to survive political unrest, climate change, and unsettling, unpredictable supply of essential goods (remember the shortages of toilet paper and baby food) a local community must come together to meet the needs of the bottom level of Maslow's pyramid, and I'm only thinking of food and shelter.
Your post strikes fear in my mind, that such an approach might lead to tribalism and conformity. My emphasis on just two "needs" might circumvent the worst of such a scenario, because, conservative or liberal, we all need to eat. I'm not sure how to formulate such an idea, that most people could embrace. What do you think?
Thanks for the response! I will try to address everything that you mentioned in your comment, but please do let me know if I fail to do so.
I find that duty and desire are fundamental to any human organization. We have duty to protect and provide for our community, and the desire to pursue our own happiness. In this sense, utopia and crisis simply measure different levels of these two forces. In utopia, we may have successfully automated our duties, such as food production, shelter availability, communications infrastructure, energy, and so on. This leaves us all the time in the world to follow our passions, to create and consume, and to be with one another. In a situation of crisis however, the opposite is true. We find that our needs of subsistence, the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid, are now in peril, and we are uncertain whether we have enough. Thus, we may abandon our pursuit of happiness to ensure that the needs of the community are being met. This is the kind of thing we see in humanitarian responses in cases of violent earthquakes or other such disasters.
The problem I see is that we, as people, only seem to care about this right to subsistence when certain areas face crisis. Otherwise, we’d gladly let our neighbors starve if they do not work or produce money in any fashion. But the key to having a society that is both maximizing happiness and also resilient to shocks and crises is to have these basic needs of everyone met at all times. Contrary to popular belief, this is something that our current technology is capable of doing. We’ve solved food production, drinkable water, and have enough shelter to go around manyfold. Any community could have modular versions of this technology that would be sufficient to ensure that their needs are being met. There is no need for tribalism or conformity to rigid work requirements if the goods needed can be abundantly created. And they can be.
Lastly, to put this ambitious idea into a formulation that can appeal to the masses is a hard task. Off the top of my head, I’d say that people perceive subsistence as receiving things for free, stealing, being a parasite. In reality, ensured subsistence is simply nourishment and investment into the future. We take care of children and provide for them not to call them parasites, but to invest in their value as humans and help them accomplish great things in the future. People think that one must carry out duty to receive one’s due, while in reality the due must be paid in advance to enable one to accomplish one’s duty.
I hope I managed to touch on the points you were interested in. Thanks for reading! :)