[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Social and Political Aspects



Sanet;

I think this has been an excellent exchange of viewpoints on economics,
politics, society, and sustainable agriculture.  I doubt that I have much to
add.  But, at the risk of putting words to someone else's thoughts, it seems
to me that most (not all) of the apparent conflicts in views arise from a
felt need to set specific standards by which to measure success, progress,
or sustainability.  Some would measure success in terms of dollars and
cents, and would try to put dollar and cent values on all ecological and
social costs and benefits so they could be brought into the market place for
allocation.  Others would prefer to measure all costs and benefits in terms
of their impacts on the lives of people and would prefer to convert dollars
and cents, or even environmental impacts, into their value to society and
would attempt to allocate resources through the political process.  Still
others, although not mentioned in the most recent exchange, see the natural
ecosystem as the ultimate arbitrator of all values, including economic and
social values, which can be addressed only through an expression of ethical
or spiritual values.   Each approach seem more logical than simply dealing
with one dimension - be it economic, social, or ecological - and ignoring
the others or assuming them away.  But, I contend that no single scale of
value - economic, social, or ecological - is adequate to measure true
success, progress, or sustainability.

We cannot ignore economic efficiency - the pursuit of short run
self-interest - but neither can we allow self-interest to dominate the
broader interest of society nor to degrade our basic ethical or spiritual
values.  We should pursue our collective interest as communities of people,
but we can't allow our individual human rights or the natural environment to
be degraded by our collectivism.   Certainly we should live ethical, moral,
spiritual lives; but we cannot possibly do so without concern for our
legitimate individual self-interests and concern for others, both of the
present and future.  True quality of life is a product of all three -
self-interest, shared-interest, and altruistic-interests.  We are just
kidding ourselves if we think we can live a life of quality without some
reasonable balance among all three.

The three dimensions of sustainability - economic, social, and ecological -
reflect these same three dimensions of quality of life.  All three are
inherently interrelated -- are but parts of the same whole -- but are
fundamentally different.   Markets may be efficient allocators of private
goods and services - those things which fall in the realm of self-interests.
Political processes can be efficient allocators of public goods - those
things which fall in the realm of shared-interests.  An ethical or moral
consensus is the only logical means I can see for allocating ecologically
goods and services, because they reflect our responsibilities as stewards of
the earth.  They do not belong to us, neither individually nor collectively,
nor do our dollars or our votes change our ethical and moral
responsibilities.  No one measure is adequate for all three.  And, we cannot
allow any one measure to be used as a single yardstick of success, progress,
or sustainability.

Perhaps pursuit of pure economic self-interest would dictate that still more
farmers go out of business.  But on the other hand, perhaps putting more
farmers out of business is socially and ethically wrong.  If so, we might
strengthen our economy only to discover that we have severely weakening the
social and moral fabric of our society.  We seem to assume that allowing all
of the other family business to fail has been good for society, so now we
should allow family farms to fail as well.  Perhaps allowing individual
enterprises to be replaced by large-scale, corporate entities has
strengthened the economy, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has been
good for our society -- or for humanity.  A "strong economy" in socially and
moral bankrupt society  is but an illusion of strength.  It is not
sustainable.  It's not necessarily immoral to allow someone to fail at
farming, or at other type of endeavor.  But, we should always be willing to
ask if we have fulfilled our social and moral responsibilities to provide
them with opportunities to succeed, or have we allowed their opportunities
to be suppressed by the pursuit of greed.

It seems to me that attempts to build strong collective societies have
failed because they put too much emphasis on society, shared interests, and
too little emphasis on individuality and spirituality.  It seems that
religious societies are inherently weak because they put too much emphasis
on spirituality, altruistic interests, and give too little attention to
social and individual values.  It seems obvious to me that what we, in the
so-called developed societies, are seriously at risk because we are putting
far too much emphasis the individual, on short-run self-interests, and are
giving too little concern to our common good and to our ethical and moral
responsibilities.  It is quite easy for me to believe that in most
instances, we are putting too much emphasis on economics and too little on
just about everything else.  A sustainable society requires balance and
harmony not dominance and suppression.

In the days of Adam Smith, our "founding fathers" assumed that they didn't
have to worry about balancing self-interest with social and ethical values.
Smith and others assured them that the pursuit of self-interest was
consistent with the greatest social good - and that quite likely was true in
those days.  Most economic enterprises were farms and other small, family
operations, and ethics and morality were the dominant forces in an
economically depraved society.  They didn't see a need for an economic bill
of rights to ensure equity of economic opportunity or to protect individuals
and society from economic tyranny.  They didn't see a need for an ecological
bill of rights to protect the environment from human ignorance and greed.

But we live in a different world today.  Practically none of the assumptions
required for Adam Smith's invisible hand to change "greed to good" hold true
in today's economy.  If the founding fathers were drafting a new
constitution today, they undoubtedly would seek to ensure the protection of
individuals, society, and the environment from the tyranny of economic
greed.  Smith and Jefferson both foresaw the day when further
"enlightenment, new discoveries, new truths, and changes in circumstances"
would warrant changes in the constitution.  If we are to ensure
sustainability, I believe that day has come.  But, that's a whole-other
paper.  (Any who are interested may check it out at
http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/billorri.htm
<http://www.ssu.missouri.edu/faculty/jikerd/papers/billorri.htm>  ) 


John Ikerd






To Unsubscribe:  Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".  If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail