Dear Sir/Madam,

The case of Paul Burell  (Princess Diane's former butler) and his revelations of royal secrets is as interesting for the light it throws, not on royal relationships, but on modern British society ('A cold and overt betrayal', 25 October, 2003). 

While one cannot help feeling sorry for William and Harry Windsor, who can blame Paul Burell  for taking the opportunity to supplement retrospectively (and very handsomely) his relatively modest butler's wages? He will "earn" more (probably a lot more) money from his book and its serialisation in the Daily Mirror than he did from his 20 years of service with the royal household. 

With the money comes his elevation, from a necessarily humble and dependent servant, waiting at his masters' table, to a man of power and independence. Now he can stand on his own (financial) feet, step up to the table and help himself to a generous portion of what he fancies.

Why does this particular sight of someone achieving financial "success", and the social elevation that comes with it, disgust so many people? Why are we not disgusted rather by the system that produces such behaviour, and gives two young boys (William and Harry) servants and more wealth at birth than most hard-working citizens of this country will earn in a lifetime?

Paul Burell is simply looking after himself and his own, just as British royalty and aristocrats have done - with spectacular success - down the ages, and as modern free-market economics encourages us all to do - to the well-practiced tut-tuting of Christian ethics. One need only think of directors pay, which shows commoners to be every bit, or perhaps more greedy and self-seeking than their aristocratic brethren. 

What about all the donations to charity and good work the wealthy do? It is in their your own self-interest; they can afford it; and besides, if society were organised more fairly, their charity would not be necessary.

What kind of a society is it that allows some privileged members to have 10 - 100 times more income or wealth than other hard-working members? 

I'll tell you: It is an unjust and, in the modern world, also a "non-sustainable" society - because contrary to the popular belief, it is not the poor who are the world's biggest problem, but the RICH. Not simply because they place a far greater per capita burden on our planet's limited resources and carrying capacity than the poor, but even more importantly, because they act as role models, whose non-sustainable economic activity and lifestyles millions, if not billions, of others seek to emulate.

If the world's role models and trendsetters are admired and envied for their material "success" and extravagant, non-sustainable lifestyles, as they usually are in the media, what hope is there of persuading others to live and work sustainably?

Everyone has heard of "the straw that broke the camel's back" - but have you ever wondered, "whose straw was to blame?"

Paradoxically the answer is, "no one's and everyone's". That is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. 

The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which we all have to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we do know that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone, once they can afford it, wants their own car and to be able to fly in an aeroplane as often as they wish, not to mention all the other non-sustainably produced goods and services which our amoral, growth-dependent economy is only too eager to sell us.

At the moment, everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have (or can borrow) the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their own inclinations, but by the whole system with its multibillion dollar credit and advertising industries.

It is difficult to recognise the insanity of a situation we have all grown up in and thus see as being quite normal, especially since we, our economy, jobs, investments, pensions, lifestyles, aspirations, etc. are so dependent on the madness.

The point I am making is that British society, like western society in general, is fundamentally flawed - because non-sustainable. We have to make it sustainable, or perish. 

It will require making radical changes to our economy and lifestyles, which is something few people have a problem with - provided it affects others rather than themselves.

In fact, so few people are prepared even to contemplate radical changes to their own lives that no such change is possible, certainly not in the relatively short time available to us.

Instead, we have to create an alternative, sustainable and moral economy.

The fact is that we are ALL dependent on each other, but no ONE should be dependent on any ONE else, not in the kind of society I wish to live in.