We will go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.
We will go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself because it wasn’t cost-effective.
KURT VONNEGUT
At what price, salvation?
In order to be a free society, fully capable of pursuing all of the liberties and freedoms that are granted to us, is it possible that some of this freedom gives way to our own destruction?
We see continuous battles between large corporations and government, as the corporations are fiercely working specifically to increase value for shareholders, such that in many circumstances, decency, morality, empathy, compassion and common sense are thrown entirely out of the window, in favor of the proverbial bottom line.
Large governments become corrupt by virtue of the power they control, and their true desire to benefit the people they represent is replaced by individualistic personal greed, regardless of whether the government is representational, autocratic, socialist, communist or other… eventually human greed corrupts the model.
Almost every industry is guilty of behaving in this manner. Whether it is the food industry, packaging countless untold artificial ingredients and watching people blow up with obesity, or the petrol industry, not taking proper caution or consideration, and doing billions of dollars of ecological damage in their wake, almost all industries cross the line.
In our society, the single guiding line is the bottom line. If an entity is not creating value for its shareholders, it is missing the mark, and is most likely to be attacked by other entities with less compassion and a deeper penchant for being ruthless, regardless of consequence.
What would be the path out of such a self-destructive spiral?
If the ruler of a hypothetical kingdom was experiencing all of these problems, and they came to you and asked you how to prevent their own society from completely collapsing and dying in the wake, what might you offer as a viable solution?
Would you proffer suggestions of compassion? Or utilization of empathy? Distribution of common sense? Regulations to preclude predatory organizations from feeding upon innocent victims?
Where would you draw the bottom line?
If you are the one who is responsible for not only delivering value to the shareholders of this fictitious kingdom, but also ensuring that the shareholders would be alive to enjoy the profits that they have generated, where would common sense, and intelligence slip in to mitigate the continuous problems that are plaguing this kingdom?
Would you preclude specific foods from being manufactured any further, in order to stop people from abusing those foods from becoming obese? Or would you be more insistent, that other organizations adhere to more strict rules and regulations, such that they are not going to have any further problems in their production and delivery methodologies, thereby precluding environmental hazards from taking place?
We are prisoners of our own economy, and until such time as we are overwhelmingly, willing to work together in compromise fashion, we are all continuously on board a train to final destruction.
Margaret Mead wrote: Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.
Happy Thursday!
Leave a Comment