The Corean Chronicles
The Future Problem of "More"
Prosperity in modern industrial society is absolutely and economically linked to "more," more production of goods, more use of services, higher levels of profits, and so forth. And when "more" is not forthcoming, the problems begin. For example, due to the higher prices of gasoline, Americans have cut back on driving by more than 40 billion miles over the past year, and by almost 4% last May. That meant they bought less gasoline, and lower gasoline sales meant fewer tax revenues, and for the first time ever, tax revenues that go to the Highway Trust Fund will be more than $5 billion less than projected federal spending on construction, maintenance and repairs in the coming year, resulting in either cutbacks in maintenance [already well-behind replacement requirements] or an addition to the already burgeoning federal debt. Consumers are cutting back on purchases, resulting in layoffs in all manner of industrial areas. Even nail salons are seeing less business. Housing sales have dropped to something like a quarter of what they were last year at this time, and it appears likely that more than a million construction workers are no longer working in that area. It's very likely that these cuts in employment and earnings will also create more of a drain on Social Security revenues.
All the various policy remedies being suggested are variations on getting more funds into the hands of consumers and creating a climate of opinion that will encourage them to spend those funds in order to maintain a demand that will support the production of "more."
In short, if economic prosperity depends on producing "more," what happens when we either can't physically produce more, or when we can't afford to buy more in order to pay for producing more? Is there any way to maintain economic prosperity without always having to produce more? Or do we as humans instinctively define prosperity in terms of "more?"
Certainly, there's a general sense of rejection of life as a zero-sum game, where, for everyone who succeeds or exceeds the societal average in terms of income, accumulation of resources, or prestige and power, there are others who fail and fall below the "average." That rejection, however, is based on the experience of the post-Renaissance era, where, in the industrialized world, at least, the ability to produce goods and services on a scale always exceeding past years created the impression that a continual supply of “more” was not only possible, but a societal right.
But is production of "more" possible on a global and sustained basis? Even if it is, for a time, is it a "right?"
And... since science fiction is supposed to explore the future, why haven't more novelists taken on this challenge? Or taken it on without falling back on a government-controlled or tradition-bound solution [as in Le Guin's The Dispossessed]. Is there a practical and politically acceptable economic and technical approach to maintaining prosperity? Or are humans hard-wired into "more" as the definition of prosperity?
What are the implications if one society insists on "more" and another insists on "balance?" Is that the resource equivalent of Heinlein's observation in Starship Troopers that peace achieved through pacificism is impossible because any culture that practices it will soon be wiped out by those who don't?
On the other hand, if the desire for 'more' is a fundamental human need, as Max-Neef says, and there is nothing hierarchical about it, then we are just a bunch of greedy gits that don't know how to say 'enough'. Can societies that insist on balance have any impact on the 'more' societies? I think only if they use economic methods to force a balance, and I don't know if such a thing is possible, because "He who has the gold, makes the rules".
I see this on the individual and family level, too: some people believe they need to own fancier cars and larger homes and more expensive toys to display their successfulness and prosperity.
When most of our society has this mindset, it is impossible to survive lengthy periods of no growth without an economic depression. We are not there yet, but a few more months of no growth could push us into a depression in early 2009.
I see no easy way to fix this. The American culture, since its inception, has believed in territorial expansion, economic growth, and rags-to-riches stories. Changing that culture to one that says "I have enough" will require many persuasive persons to promote this philosophy for more than a generation. The odds of this are very low.
: 11:32 AMOnly last night I was listening to one of the ubiquitous 'business' progs, that seem to have taken over the World Service in recent years: here they were discussing the 'problem' with 'stimulating growth' in Japan, where business attitudes were seen to be too 'contented' for 'economic good'. Eur/US advisors were being recruited to stir them up back into what might be called 'more mode'. This is the only mode modern 'economists' will allow.
Similarly, when would-be white 'businessmen' moved into the 'undeveloped' world, they found it hard to motivate natives to work for them: why should they work for a newcomer when they can quickly gather all they need to get them through the day for free, and then go back to sleep? 'Feckless' and 'lazy' - or worse - was the way hitherto contented native 'workers' were routinely described by their self appointed 'civilisers'.
The normal way around this problem was to get them hooked on something: give them a lamp, and then they have to work for you to get the oil to put in it. Once they have the lamp, they can work at night... Give them a tractor, and they will need oil, and fuel, and spares. You soon have them hooked into the 'western' way of thinking, dependent on resources they previously had no need for, and on into permanent debt, so that, though they may appear to be materially better off than before, it will be many generations before their society again matures to a more contented state.
It is very unlikely that, given projected levels of population growth and resource depletion etc. contentment on the Japanese model at least, is going to be achieveable by most of the currently developing populations of the world.
So indeed, writers should be coming out with modern 'Utopian' works as was the fashion of several centuries ago, but the problem with this is contentment is boing: 'another fine day to day', every day, doesn't make for exciting reading.
So what 'sci-fi' writers and 'future-ologists' need to come up with, is a way to make 'enough' interesting. And the answer is already to be seen: monks; bhuddists; gardeners; naturalists; fossil hunters; joggers; many kinds of scientists; historians and other scholars of many kinds, have all found contentment in study, all through history. It is only recently that these fields have become more profoundly infected with the competitiveness of the 'economists world' and the corresponding discontent that goes with it.
The 'David Attenborough's' of this world have helped to keep alive the spark of wonder and satisfaction that goes with study and the furtherment of knowledge for its own sake. Love him or hate him Bill Gates has given so many of us the chance of finding still another satisfying (if time consuming!) creative outlet, in the very blogosphere that generated even this particular musing!
So there you have it SF writers, go back to your roots, and fill us with the wonder of science: for its own sake. Then future generations might learn how to find contentment that is not dependent on consumption alone.
And, yes: Heinlein is right: you will still need your army (Unless there really are no aliens, and the world does miraculously all become content at the same time - no reason why we should not work towards this though.) but, I was quite moved by a recent broadcast comparison of stirring speaches given prior to battles. There were the usual rallying 'Once more into the breach' renditions, all inspiring combatants to glory in the destruction of the enemy, but much more moving than any of the Shakespearean prose, was the advice of a modern British general prior to battle in the Falklands (I think it was). His concern was not to take any life unnecessarily because humanity was the precious thing: not glory.
So times can change, but it will need an army of Attenborough's and 'humaniatarian generals' in all arms of the world's media and education, and political spheres. And, perhaps a little more help from the SF writers too.
S
<< Back to all Blog posts
