Dear Sir/Madam,

 

As much as I approve of the The Independent's campaign against grotesque boardroom payouts, I don't think it is going to the root cause of the problem, which lies deep in our more animal than human nature, upon which we have largely based our economy and on which it thus depends (Average pay package of a FTSE 100 chief rises to £1.73m).

What concerns me is not just the unfairness of income differentials, with some top executives getting more than 50 times the average national wage (according to your figures, for example, Sir Christopher Gent of VODAFONE  is deemed to be worth about 150 firemen - so who can blame them for wanting a pay rise which, no matter how large, still looks pathetic by comparison?), but the fact that they are an insurmountable obstacle to us ever achieving sustainability on our finite and vulnerable planet, Spaceship Earth, something we have to do in the next few decades if we do not want coming generations (perhaps even our own children) cursing us for what we are doing, plundering, decimating and disrupting what, after all, is their planet too.

It is usually assumed that the poor are the world's biggest problem, when in fact it is the RICH. Not simply because they place a much greater per capita burden on our planet’s resources and carrying capacity than the poor, but more importantly, because they act as “role models”, whose non-sustainable lifestyles literally billions of others are seeking to emulate. 

If the world's role models and trendsetters are constantly held up, admired and envied for their material "success" and extravagant, non-sustainable lifestyles, as they generally are in the media, what hope is there of persuading others to live less materialistic, more sustainable lives? None whatsoever. Especially when one considers that our economy requires and encourages us with the billions it spends on advertising to do the very opposite for the sake of profits, jobs, economic growth etc. But on a planet with finite resources and a limited carrying capacity this can only lead to disaster on an unimaginable scale.

I hesitate to say it, because I know I will be laughed at, but what we need is a MAXIMUM WAGE, or rather, an attitude and ethos within which the idea of a MAXIMUM WAGE could develop and be taken seriously.

It's a crazy idea, I know, but perhaps just crazy enough to save us from the hopeless, non-sustainable course we are currently on.

I'm not suggesting that a MAXIMUM WAGE could be imposed by law, or by overthrowing the existing order, but in a prosperous, democratic society like our own there is nothing to stop it being adopted "voluntarily". Except, of course, the perception and assumption that it would not be in anyone's “self-interest” to take less than they can get - which is also a basic tenet of our economy and the reason why company executives give themselves pay awards as high as they can get away with.

Here I come back to what I said about the root cause of the problem being in our own, more animal than human nature. Because it is on this that so many of our attitudes and aspirations (and so-called market forces) are largely based. This is where the assumption comes from that taking as much as we can get is necessarily in our own self-interest.

While this may well be true for our narrow, materialistic self-interests, beyond which our animal nature is incapable of seeing, it is not true for our “enlightened” self-interest, which only our higher, more human nature is capable of understanding. And continuing to plunder and disrupt our planet the way we are at the moment, is NOT in anybody's “enlightened” self-interest, certainly not that of our children and coming generations.

Thus, all that is required, it would seem, is for us to recognise our enlightened self-interests and to act on them. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done, not least because the economic system on which we all depend and in which we all have our vested interests (jobs, invested money etc.), is based and dependent on our more primitive nature and its perceived, but less then enlightened, largely materialistic self-interests.

There is no denying the magnitude and urgency of the problem - although that is precisely what en masse we are doing (the Kyoto Protocol, for example, barely scratches its surface). When faced with a problem that seems insurmountable it is natural to try and ignore it or play down its significance (to bury one's head in the sand). But it will not go away, it will only get worse. Perhaps we can get away with it (not facing up to the problem) for another 10 or 20 years, but the consequences for today's children do not bear thinking about. Only a monster would knowingly do such a thing. We are doing it unintentionally, in our blindness and stupidity. If it is any consolation, coming generations will curse us not for being monsters, but for being so blind and stupid, although ironically we are always telling ourselves how clever we are.

We need to adopt (if we are to avoid, or at least reduce the scale of the approaching disaster)  a radically different attitude towards MONEY, whereby it is not just, or even primarily, a matter of how much income or money one has, but of how it is acquired and - even more importantly - what we do with it, i.e. how we spend and invest it.

If I were to inherit a million pounds it would be criminal for me, knowing what I do, to spend it on a materialistic, non-sustainable lifestyle and/or to invest it in non-sustainable sectors of the economy, but I'd be a fool to give it away.  What I would aim to do is spend and invest it in my enlightened self-interest, which primarily is the creation and support of a sustainable economy and society, which needs be must also have fair and proportionate differentials of income and wealth.

More on my homepage.