Dear Editor,

I have the impression that the massive, socially and economically harmful (ultimately disastrous), and grossly unjust transfer of wealth, from wealth creators (i.e. those who work) to property owners, which is taking place as a result of the drastic increase in house prices, is going largely unnoticed (House prices rise 12%, says registry, 9 February 2004).

Personally, I stand to inherit a quarter share of a house worth at least £200,000 when my mother dies. That is £50,000 for myself and each of my siblings, for which none of us has ever lifted a finger. There are others, of course, who stand to inherit, or already have inherited, a great deal more; an only child of just moderately well-to-do parents might inherit a property worth as much as someone on an average wage (a nurse or policeman, for example) will earn in half their working life.

Some house owners, of course, are cashing in themselves on the increased pecuniary value of their property, using the various means available, enabling them to take a greater share of the goods and services produced by the economy without contributing anything in return. Unearned income is nothing new, of course; certain segments of society have always lived - often extremely well - from the work of others.

As a child, my parents often said to me that "money does not grow on trees", and I believed them. It certainly didn't for them; they had to earn every penny they had.

It was sometime before I realised that for some people money effectively does "grow on trees" - a "money tree" being any source of unearned income.

I know, there are countless justifications for the various forms of unearned income: e.g. interest on savings as a reward for deferred gratification, dividends on shares as a reward for "astute" investment and risk taking, etc, and then, of course, there is the self-justification of the "market", which is assumed to function best in the common interest when everyone is free to take as much as they can get while giving as little as they have to.

The economic tensions created by 100's of millions of people driven by the desire to make as much money as possible from what they have (property, skills, labour, fame, etc.), while paying as little as possible for what they need is tearing our world apart, socially and ecologically.

The trouble is that those of us in a position (with the power, i.e. money) to do anything about it, are, for the time being at least, materially profiting from the status quo, making it very difficult for us to recognise just how unjust and, even more importantly, how unsustainable it is.

It is said that there is no such thing as a "free lunch", that ultimately everything has to be paid for - and it is true. Ultimately we (or our children and grandchildren) will have to pay for all the free and cheap lunches that we are currently enjoying as we plunder and spoil our planet, Spaceship Earth, ruthlessly exploiting its material, plant, animal and human resources.

Another problem is that we so quickly get used to these free and cheap lunches and take them for granted. If there is easy or unearned money, a bonus, dividend, benefit or whatever, going onto our bank account we don't feel inclined to question where it is coming from. Most of us just say, thank you very much, and some do not even do that.

It is not a small, or even a large, minority of greedy, ruthless businessmen who are the problem, but we ourselves, virtually all of us, including the poor and disadvantaged, who share the same non-sustainable, materialistic values, attitudes and aspirations as the rich and privileged, who we dream of joining. In the meantime we jump at any opportunity for a free or cheap lunch, fantasise about winning the lottery, and distract ourselves following the exploits of celebrities in the media.

In Monday's Guardian, Felicity Lawrence points correctly to "free market" economics being responsible for much of the inhumanity and injustice in the world ("Wanted: workers who are flexible, cheap, expendable"), but she is wrong if she believes that it can be made just and humane by regulation through enlightened government. 

Our free-market economy is a monster which revolutionaries have sought to slay and social democrats to tame. Both have struggled in vain because they failed to understand the nature of the beast they are dealing with, one rooted in the primitive - more animal than human - nature of each and everyone of us. 

That is why, when it comes to producing material wealth, free-market capitalism works so well, by cleverly exploiting man's animal fears and desires.

Married to modern science and technology, and at immense cost to the environment and coming generations, it is producing a hitherto unimagined flow and quantity of material wealth - und the proverbial "rat race" to go with it.

It is not in the nature of the beast (i.e. man's animal nature) to be concerned about fairness, humaneness, democracy or sustainability. These  are concern of man's higher, more human nature.

We are under the very dangerous illusion that it is our higher (human rather than animal) nature which is now largely determining the course of history, which is odd, considering that you only have to look even at our most recent history to see immediately this is not the case. There have been some recent improvements, but they do not amount to much. Man's higher nature does have some influence, but not nearly as much as we imagine - perhaps because it would be too frightening to face up to the reality.

We are riding, and dependent on, a dangerous beast, an economy based largely on our "more animal than human nature". despite what social democrats say, and no doubt believe, it cannot be tamed. Neither can it be slain - not without slaying ourselves.

The ONLY solution is for us to create an alternative, an economy based on our higher - more human than animal - nature and on enlightened self-interest. In embryonic form it already exists (organic farming, fair trade, ethical funds, recycling, sustainable production and consumption of environmentally friendly goods and services, cooperatives, renewable energy, etc).