|
To: oped@nytimes.com
|
|
|
|
I'd like to pick up on a couple of remarks, quoted below, made in a recent NYT article on executive pay ("Two Pay Packages, Two Different Galaxies", April 4): "Given human nature, few expect executives themselves to lobby for lower pay" "This [excessive] level of benefits is more appropriate for a lord and his fiefdom, rather than the C.E.O. of a publicly held company," The "human nature" referred to, is in fact more animal than human. We are primates - Earth's Greatest Ape - something that has been known, but which many are still far from understanding or accepting, since Darwin presented his theory of evolution and human origins in the 19th Century. It is in man's animal nature to struggle for survival and advantage in his bio-physical and - since the advent of civilisation - in his socio-economic environment. Naturally enough, it is in this, our "more animal than human nature" that society and the economy are rooted. We should, thus, not be too surprised when a C.E.O. often behaves like a medieval lord in his fiefdom. Both are exhibiting the same, more animal than human, patterns of behaviour, each within the framework of their own socio-economic order, a framework which has changed and, most would agree, improved, over the centuries, but which is still based very much on the same primitive behaviour patterns, sanctified by tradition and the "rule of law". I'm not knocking tradition or the "rule of law", just that so much of it is still rooted in our primitive, "more animal than human" nature. Despite an international army of academics specialising in the fields of human behaviour, sociology, history, economics, politics etc., for some reason they are missing, or grossly neglecting, aspects of reality essential for human survival, in particular, the fundamental non-sustainability our our growth-dependent economy, together with the materialistic aspirations and lifestyles it engenders. We live, of necessity, in an age of experts, but when they collectively miss something, anyone else pointing it out is unlikely to be taken seriously. But why are the experts missing it? Because, being human, they too are subject to their more animal than human nature. Each is seeking, at least in large part, his or her own advantage in the socio-economic (in this case, more specifically, "academic") environment. Most will deny it, of course, even to themselves, for fear of undermining their position and advantage. But if we, i.e. our children and descendents, are to survive and prosper on this planet (Spaceship Earth) with its limited natural resources and finite carrying capacity, we have to start making some radical changes to society, our economy and lifestyles - and to the values, attitudes and aspirations on which they are based. Unfortunately, however, we are all dependent on and have our vested interests in much remaining as it is. We don't mind when other people's interests are affected, but true to our "more animal than human" nature, we all jealously guard, justify and defend our own. Thus, rather than trying to change the existing socio-economic order (which would be impossible anyway in the time available), the way forward (our only hope for the future) is to create an alternative, one based on our enlightened, more human nature, which would give absolute priority to achieving economic and lifestyle sustainability and to creating a far more just and humane, far less materialistic society. The beginnings of a sustainable economy already exist (organic farming, fair trade, moral investment funds, recycling, renewable energy, cooperative enterprises, etc.), but only as small, relatively insignificant niche sectors within the existing non-sustainable economy. They need to organise themselves and expand into an alternative and distinctive socio-economic order, existing parallel to non-sustainable, mass consumer society, thus facilitating the gradual transfer of activities and dependencies (especially in respect to how we make, spend and invest our money) from one to the other. As more and more people realise what is at stake and what their enlightened (in contrast to their narrow, primitive, more animal than human) self-interests are, the new, sustainable socio-economic order will grow at the expense of the the old. If it will grows fast enough, perhaps we can achieve sustainability before Earth's carrying capacity is exceeded. Otherwise, - as seems likely - we are in for a bumpy ride, either to extinction, or to a sustainable, just and far more humane society. Hopefully the latter.
|
