To: oped@nytimes.com Re: Man's "more animal than human" nature vs the need for fair and proportionate income differentials Date: Friday, 08 October 04 |
|
|
|
I liked Bob Herbert's
op-ed in today's NYT, which shines
light on a much neglected
"problem " at
the very core of our society (Working
for a pittance).
It is a
"problem" whose
roots go very, very deep - in
fact, right the way back to
man's "more animal
than human" nature,
which still provides (mostly
denied or unrecognised) many
of the values, attitudes
and aspirations on which our
society and economy are based.
We are the planet's
"Greatest Ape "
and although we have a good
deal of social behaviour
programmed into us, it evolved
to enhance the survival of the
family and clan, not society
at large (let alone our whole
species, which is why our
efforts to address global
problems - particularly those
relating to our impact on
climate and the environment,
which are threatening our very
survival - are so hopelessly
inadequate).
It is our "animal nature " which insists there can be no limit to personal wealth or income, and employs our great intellectual ability to rationalise and justify it. In contrast, our higher, more enlightened, human nature tells us that there have to be "limits ", now that we have become so powerful and numerous. Otherwise the ever increasing drain and strain we are placing on Earth's limited resources and carrying capacity will be exceeded and we (or our children and coming generations) will be in very serious trouble indeed (which is a gross understatement, of course). There has to be a limit to the number of "straws " each of us is allowed to place on the "camel's back " (here symbolic for Earth's finite carrying capacity). There also have to be limits on wealth and income differentials. Before we can do that we have to change some of the values, attitudes and aspirations which are rooted in our "more animal than human" nature, for ones based on our more enlightened, human nature. I'm talking "revolution " of course - but it is either that or extinction. Which doesn't really leave us a lot of choice.
|