[quote=briansd1]
Unlike Arraya, I don’t wish for economic collapse because revolution would bring on terrible poverty through wealth destruction.
.[/quote]
(sigh)
No, more precisely, I would rather a collapse happen sooner rather than being dragged out. The way things are shaping up, it looks like we could get lucky;)
Being 36, there is no doubt the world will transform tremendously over the rest of my life. Currently trajectories are not promising for how this will transpire in the form of social well being. Being that I probably will bring another life into the world, the chances of the our current social systems being functional under current trajectories for the duration of his or her life is even lower. In fact, I’d say non-existent.
In other words I don’t expect anything less than a social train wreck at some point. It’s just the gravitation of the system(regardless of politics). The speed at which information transfers ensures that it will probably happen sooner rather than later. How we handle this train wreck is a choice and could be labeled a revolution, regardless if it is positive or negative.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.”
This is called cultural stupidity. History is littered with failed societies, as he astutely points out. Education level seems to be immune to cultural stupidity.
It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being.
This is called enlightened self-interest. While I disagree with his analysis regarding, what I consider, a romanticization of the past. I do, however, agree with the sentiment.
Furthermore, I would say this only focusing on a narrow self interest is a systemic issue rather than personal. And really calls into question what economists call “rational self-interest”
It seems other great thinkers had similar ideas.
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, “Universe,” a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest — a kind of optical delusion
of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting
us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to
us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our
circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of
nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the
striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a
foundation for inner security.”
