This post might seem to be a bit dark. I have been thinking hard about a saying my grandfather learned from watching his parents.
Grandad grew up in a family where everyone worked hard. His parents had been poor in England and immigrated to Canada where they found work. They bought a house. Money became the measure of all good for his mother and father, and my grandfather and his younger brother were sent out to work very early in life. Everything they earned had to be turned over to their parents - after all, they had to pull their weight. Such practices were not unusual in that time, but as a result of his disappointments, Grandad saw money, and the drive to acquire more and more, as the root of all evil, and said so.
Over my life, I found a balance to this - earning money as a way to provide for family, and help others in my community - not so evil.
Now, here is a dark story that has haunted me for over three decades. An acquaintance's husband, who had been a pharmacist, had recently passed away. In conversation with his widow, I was told that her husband had developed a treatment that he believed would cure cancer, but nobody in the scientific community was willing to believe or even test his idea. When he died, his treatment went with him. I have no idea whether that husband was deluded or a genius who might have ended a terrible scourge.
In thinking about that possibility, what occurred to me was how many jobs in hospitals, research facilities, and fund-raising efforts would have been lost had this pharmacist indeed found a treatment to end all cancers. And the dark thought accompanying that is the sure knowledge of how determined the research community responsible for testing his idea would have been to suppress such knowledge. And why, might you ask, would they do that? One word: money.
To what lengths would someone go to protect their fortune? Where else has truth been suppressed for the sake of money? Cigarettes? International relations? The food industry? Climate change? Social media? The "war" on poverty?
Feel free to add to the list ...
Now for the difficult questions:
What can be done to find a better way to reward hard work and intellect?
How much money is enough for any one individual?
Hi Deanna,
ReplyDeleteI have just finished reading a book entitled History & Obstinacy by Alexander Kluge & Oskar Negt which reaches down to talk about “the capitalism within us”. A revision of their 1981 edition to capture the effects since of globalisation. A Very laborious read - no pun intended! Not a good read.
But nevertheless, I do think it’s not so much a better way to find a reward but to understand the curvatures of our inner reward nature and how best they might be met in the world in which we inhabit.
Obstinacy doesn’t acknowledge (Richard Rorty) the future of the world as it is. Eg We always have in mind it’s being at the place where it would be if it continued to move as we see it moving now. We do not realize that it moves not in a straight line , but in a curve , and that it’s direction constantly changes.
The only way forward in my view is for a ethically based sustainable system that meets that need of the capitalism within us that is evolving - but with an ethically based format. Very vague i know, but one can’t go much beyond that in such a comment. That answers to the second question then follows suite - any excess over and above what an ordinary person needs for a reasonable standard of living needs to be shared with others. Utilitarian Philosopher Peter Singer wrote a good book on this. Best wishes
Pleasant to have another bringing a dose of optimism - something I'm usually responsible for. ;-)
DeleteBest to you as well Lindsay.
Hi Halle,
ReplyDeleteGood to see you're still here keeping up the good fight.
I agree with Lindsay that things could, indeed should, be better. However, what we're seeing now is the result of the uncontained greed of the very wealthiest and the fear and panic among the merely rich who fear losing everything. As you noted - To what lengths would someone go to protect their fortune?, the answer would appear to be 'How far can too far go?' (Remember the Cramps?).
Now we have businesses that profit from this new disease.. masks in every variety and material, plastic barriers, limitless pcr and now lateral flow testing, and vaccines and boosters forever. Wotta bonanza! And they're doing their best to keep us all blaming one another while they schmooze at their balls. Did you ever imagine these rules were made for everyone including them?
Personally, I'm a fan of of John Liu's sustainability model. If only. eh?
All my best wishes to you.
Susan (and Crow)
Hi Susan and Crow, of course. :-)
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed hearing John Liu's ideas. What we seem to be lacking is a mechanism to get the countries that rely on selling fossil fuels (like Canada, I'm ashamed to say) to be persuaded, in some fashion they understand (like getting paid), to give up supplying carbon dioxide to the world, and instead start trapping it and putting it back where it belongs.
Here is an idea from Kim Stanley Robinson that is quite instructive. It is presented in the form of a message from a thankful people sixty years in the future when all the changes we made have saved the planet.
If only indeed!
Thanks so much for stopping by and, importantly, adding to the conversation.
All the best.
Deanna (and Halle)