It is hard to predict whether ever, and if yes, when, we will live in
societies, in which poverty is history; in which the basic material
needs of every person, such as food, shelter, and basic medical care, are
met.
Theoretically, such societies are possible. They are, because quite
probably, the sources of energy, which mankind can tap, are
non-depletable: while we will run out of fossil fuels, there are many other forms
which are currently considered “alternative” but have the potential to
become mainstream; and quite likely, many new forms of usable energy will
be found.
Energy sources
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_development
Thus, because it is unlikely that we will ever run out of energy, there
exists the theoretical possibility that in the future, not only will
poverty be history, but beyond that, we all live in affluent societies.
The question is whether, or to what degree, we would experience such
societies as positive. And if we do not experience them as positive, the
question is whether or not there will be people who will destroy
affluence, out of boredom, or because they expect to benefit from a situation
in which hardship is widespread. Or whether we will be ruled by
governments who can tune societies so that problems associated with too much
affluence will not occur.
To evaluate the options, it helps to be aware that human character
expressions, and even human emotions, are, not exclusively but to a certain
extent, offshoots of economic conditions. More specifically, certain
character traits and emotions that we rightfully cherish are related to
economies of need, rather than economies of affluence.
Among these character traits and emotions are: solidarity, friendship,
and even love.
When people are poor, they believe that everything will be better when
they are richer. But once they are richer, they realize that they are
not happier. How can that be? To most people it doesn't make sense, so
once they are richer they try to convince themselves that things are
better, even they don't feel better.
However, that affluence doesn’t make people happier (just as overeating
doesn’t make them healthier), is well established in scientific
research.
Desire to Be Rich and Famous Called a Sure Path to Discontent
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/060600-01.htm
Even in China, people actually became not happier by becoming richer:
Money does not buy happiness: poll
http://english.people.com.cn/200501/13/eng20050113_170468.html
I am German by nationality, so I do want to refer to a German example:
In pre-unification East Germany, many people experienced a high degree
of solidarity. No, it was not a feeling of solidarity with the
government, which the Communist government would so much have appreciated. It
was the solidarity of those who were poorer than the other Germans,
those in West Germany. They could not afford BMWs, only Trabis, and the
East German jeans just didn't fit. But they had a higher affinity for
solidarity, and solidarity felt good.
This is from a CNN article about nostalgic feelings among former East
Germany citizens:
Quote
“Under the former regime, people looked out for each other, explains
the owner. Living under a dictatorship and standing in long food lines
created a feeling of solidarity. "You could depend on each other," he
says, "now it is money, money, money."
Unquote
Ex-East Germans nostalgic for communism's simpler life
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9911/09/wall.nostalgia/
After reunification, the basis for the specifically East German
solidarity was gone, and with it the feel-good effect. Of course, everybody
who wants to can now go to the former West Germany, and buy brand-name
jeans. Or rather, the brand name jeans that previously were available
only in the former West Germany have now made it to East Germany. But are
the people happier?
As indicated above, many positive human emotions do relate to negative
social conditions: solidarity among the disadvantaged, sharing among
the poor, friendship among those in need, and love among those who face
an adverse world.
On the other hand, when negative social conditions are removed, we
often see a rise of unpleasant human emotions which typically are absent
among those who live in negative social conditions: cynicism, nihilism,
destructivism (random expression of destructive behavior). Depending on
certain other factors, there also is the likelihood for “golden cage”
symptoms, such as depression and neurosis.
I would like to strongly differentiate between two kinds of negative
social conditions: the lack of affluence (poverty), and the absence of
safety (danger). Some of the effects of economic misery and of danger are
equal, but others are contrary to each other. And I will argue that a
reduction of affluence may be a valuable tool to engineer desired
emotions, while a reduction of safety result in entirely negative patterns of
emotions.
In situations of both misery and danger, people are, because they will
benefit of it, more likely to develop solidarity and friendship.
However, in situations of danger (because there will be a higher level
of general distrust), people will form smaller units. In situations of
poverty, on the other hand, emotions of solidarity and friendship will
likely have a much broader base.
Even love relationships reflect social conditions. In general, negative
social conditions, misery and danger, are more conducive to love
relationships than are affluence and the absence of danger and violence.
However, danger and violence (or the danger of violence) will result in
a love relationship attitude that is grossly different from that caused
by a certain level of economic misery. Danger and the threat of
violence makes people emphasize monogamy, while misery can result in
promiscuity.
See the following link for psychological research on the different
effects that poverty and danger have on children:
Economic Status, Community Danger and Psychological Problems Among
South African Children
http://chd.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/1/115
But not only are social and economic, conditions responsible for the
character traits and emotions we develop; social conditions also are
responsible for the arena in which humans compete with each other.
I assume that there is a biological basis for competition among humans,
and I assume that it comes down to competing for sexual partners.
Darwin sensed “male competition and female choice”, but even that view
was an offshoot of the social conditions he, Darwin, lived in. More
neutrally, I would talk of male competition and female competition.
19th century socialists believed that by abolishing private property
and emphasizing the creed “from each in accordance to his abilities, to
each in accordance to his needs”, they would abolish competition among
people. But rather, moving competition out of the material realm leaves
people disoriented.
To compete by trying to provide better material conditions is a
psychologically easy setting. Even people of limited intellectual capacities
can understand that those who provide better material conditions will be
more successful in finding sexual partners. Thus, a certain level of
economic need makes people industrious, and brings out character traits
that are supportive of improving material conditions: not just industry
but also reliability, interest in furthering one’s education (because
it will result in better economic opportunities), friendliness (because
it entices people to become a buyer of goods and services).
When humans compete with each other by trying to be economically more
successful than others, the world is simple. However, the positive
effects on attitudes will only be present up to a certain level: a level
well below affluence. Furthermore, the positive effects will also only
remain present for as long as the competition is restricted by definite
rules. Most importantly, violence and the threat of violence must not be
allowed to provide a competitive edge.
I do not want to go into full details about what social conditions
(especially what social conditions of need) will have what effect on human
behavior and emotions. I just want to emphasize that future governments
with enough power should be capable to engineer social conditions that
are conducive to certain human emotions and behavioral patterns. And if
a strong government realizes that the only philosophical values that
have a scientific foundation are optimal sexual experience, and, after
that, a gentle death, then a strong government will be able to engineer a
social order that is appropriate to these philosophical values. And
these engineered new societies will have to avoid the trap of being overly
wealthy.
I refer to Marx regularly, and his, and other Marxist’s use of
materialism to analyze societies is one of the most valuable aspects of
Marxism. But I believe that I am a better materialist than Marx himself was,
and many Marxists are. I am of this opinion because I have a more
differentiated approach to the reverse application of materialism (change
social conditions to effect certain character traits and emotions) than
Marx and Marxists, who believed and believe, naively, that simply
abolishing private property will solve all contradictions.
It’s anyway not a question of who owns property but who controls it.
Fine-tuning social conditions in order to effect certain valuable
character traits and emotions is a highly sophisticated endeavor, and it
cannot be handled well by governments who result from Western-style
democratic elections. It needs more continuity and more consistency than
Western-style democracy can provide. It also needs more unchallenged power,
and the cooperative effort of an intellectual elite.
This article only provides an outline of what can be achieved by the
reverse application of a materialistic analysis of societies.
First of all, we are firmly guided by the intention to create societies
that are optimally suited for the largest possible number of people to
enjoy optimal sexual experience throughout their lives, and to end
their lives in a gentle death.
Because they are conducive to these goals, we want to foster certain
human character traits and emotions, while we want to foster others.
To maintain or enhance character traits and emotions such as
solidarity, friendship, and love, we have the option to either allow a certain
level of inherent poverty, or of inherent violence.
Here we shall decide firmly in favor of poverty. Violence, even
low-level violence, is totally detrimental to both, the likelihood of optimal
sexual experience and the likelihood of a gentle death.
Inherent violence is detrimental to optimal sexual experience because
it makes people (women more so than men) seeking safety in permanent,
monogamous relationships.
On the other hand, to maintain a certain level of poverty favors human
interaction on a broad basis, for the purpose (and the pretext) of
solving economic problems.
Furthermore, maintaining a certain level of poverty within societies
firmly directs competitive behavior towards economic goals: the desire to
purchase certain products, even luxuries. If a certain level of poverty
were not maintained, the competitive impulse would likely show in a
rather irrational fashion, such as conspicuous consumption.
How people compete through wasteful consumption has been analyzed
already by the US economist Thorstein Veblen in his book, published in 1899,
The Theory of the Leisure Class.
http://experts.about.com/e/t/th/the_theory_of_the_leisure_class.htm
If people cannot profile themselves well through their pursuit of
material successes, they move into unpredictable arenas that are harder to
control: drug abuse, adherence to destructive ideologies such as punk,
or football hooliganism.
Furthermore, maintaining a certain level of poverty can have a decisive
effect of counteracting age discrimination. It can be a desirable
eigendynamic in societies that younger people enter sexual relationships
with older people because older people could provide economic assistance.
No, this would not have to mean a prevalence of prostitution and
commercial sex. The appearance of middlemen who were to profit from
facilitating sexual relationships among others should certainly be suppressed,
as should be establishments that commercialize sexual contacts, such as
nightclubs, karaoke lounges, and sex bars.
Social security in general should be limited. While social security
should be far-reaching to ease the burden of child bearing, child birth,
and child raising, it should otherwise only cover emergencies. To
maintain, within a society, the atmosphere of an economy of need, there
should not be general free health care.
The economy of a country should be largely private, as this will be in
line with the intention to keep the competitive impulse of people
largely economic. However, private economic activity must be subjected to
two measures: 1. strict rules against violence, and 2. substantial
government fees and taxation (indirect rather than direct) to siphon off
excessive wealth and to assure that an economy remains an economy of need.
These funds siphoned off by the government should then be spent on
public concerns and projects.
Like much else which is said in this article, this idea is not new. You
can find parallels in John Kenneth Galbraith’s “The Affluent Society”,
published in 1958.
Affluence and Its Discontents
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050901214.html
John Kenneth Galbraith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kenneth_Galbraith
New in this article, and my other work, is how I relate ideas on
political economics to a personal value system that emphasizes optimal sexual
experience.
And because optimal sexual experience is my primary concern, I
definitely differ from Galbraith in that I advocate that money siphoned off by
the government be not so much spent on infrastructure, and definitely
not on and “war on poverty”, but on measures that are conducive to
optimal sexual experience for as large as possible a number of people, such
as: containing and curing sexual diseases; easing the burden of women
in child bearing, child birth, and child raising. Because it is very
much in the interest of men that there are as few practical limitations as
possible on women, too, in seeking optimal sexual experience.
