Reframing Humanity's Canons
Most readers of The Hames Report will be aware of my abiding concern that along with all we have gained from our innate capacity for invention, the economic, material and social benefits, we have lost sight of what it really means to be human. We can literally argue for hours about the merits of the global economy, the role of capitalism and free markets. We may even resort to using the same statistics to support our diametrically opposed views.
Conversations about the things that should really concern us, however, such as compassion for our fellow humans, a love of nature, appreciative relationships, or the freedom to describe what we believe and how we feel without fear of repression, are increasingly conducted in hushed tones, if at all. In that context I am reminded of Winston Churchill who, when it was proposed that his cabinet put a stop to funding the arts and divert the money into fighting Hitler instead, responded, If we do that then what are we fighting for?
I am not suggesting for one moment that most politicians and company executives are evil. I actually believe the contrary to be the case. We are all, in our own inimitable ways, trying to do the very best we can to get through life unscathed, not totally worn out by the relentless need to conform and perform in alignment with society's rules just to survive. To be honest, though, monitoring the farce of Brexit, ongoing hostilities between the US and Chinese empires, or the gradual slide into ignominy of the Australian Liberal National Coalition, is rather like watching a Greek tragedy unfold. Protagonists falling to their disaster through a combination of personal failings and circumstances which they cannot see and with which they could not deal even if they did see them coming.
Some vital notions about what matter to us sapiens are not secreted underground. They have no need to hide. For example, the beliefs we use to sustain the illusion of humanity’s progress remain in full view, yet out of sight - and therefore mostly undetected and unchallenged. If by chance they are disputed it is invariably done in ways that support or oppose a narrowly defined case without altering the underlying construct.
I am reminded of Yanis Varoufakis who, as Finance Minister of Greece in 2015, was reciting his plea for a substantial renegotiation of the so-called 'Greek economic programme' with Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble from the German Federal Finance Ministry. Varoufakis was astounded as Schauble insisted that democratic elections could not be allowed to change the economic programme of a member state! Varoufakis responded that the Chinese Communist Party would be delighted to hear that because it is also what they believed.
Another example more relevant to this essay but distinctly less amusing is climate change. The science is indisputable. We must curb greenhouse gas emissions or risk perishing along with most other animal life. But that proposition challenges several key tenets underpinning the prevailing neoliberal worldview – a framework that asserts our superiority over other species.
Hindu, Christian, Jewish and Islamic scriptures all endorse our right to plunder the Earth. The ruling elite see no cause to change direction by keeping fossil fuels in the ground. Meanwhile the right to express an opinion is used to confuse the issue by disputing the underlying cause of a heating climate.
The behaviours arising from these kinds of confusion fall into two types: those who see the wisdom in acting to mitigate the impact of climate change, because they can see the effects already and feel obligated to prepare for the worst and denialists who, perched on the fence, assert loudly their right to be heard while waiting to be proven correct. The tragedy is that at no stage do we reflect on the beliefs that give rise to such follies. Instead we are content to vote for one side or the other in a Cartesian slumber.
In a recent article published in Medium, my friend Joe Brewer indicated that a key hypothesis within which the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are framed is questionable, and that the goals may actually be unattainable as a result. He argued that positioning the goals within the constraints of the current neoliberal economic paradigm exhibits a distinct lack of inventiveness and that by overlooking previous social transitions key elements for the shift to a sustainable world are lacking.
Brewer noted a complete absence of any reference to history prior to 1990 - the date chosen arbitrarily for comparisons of global poverty and hunger rates in the goals. Accordingly he suggests those who drafted the goals do not adequately appreciate how the world-system came to be the way it is, nor do the goals as expressed show us that a new kind of economics and development is both necessary and feasible.
If Brewer is correct - and I believe he is – investigating the current worldview for potential flaws or ontological biases, and being prepared to craft a new worldview that introduces alternative beliefs more in keeping with contemporary conditions, is a critical success factor, particularly if the UN Goals are as important to humanity as many presume them to be. Examining differing modes of economic activity, and how these reinforce certain social structures and mores, also becomes a critical factor.
We can get to a future where no one starves to death and everyone has their basic needs met. But any claim that this future is attainable with development-as-usual is as poorly informed as the climate deniers who cling to the belief that business-as-usual will be good for the planet in the long run.
The most popular economic models from the past encompass tribal egalitarianism, various barter systems used by hunter-gatherer communities, informal trade networks, mercantilism and, more recently, the contractual prescriptions favoured by nation states. Each mode carries its own in-built conventions about what works best for the health of the society. But there are serious problems with some of these – especially in their most recent guise.
For example, many orthodox economists suppose growth, most commonly predicated as the consequence of a continuous cycle of innovation through obsolescence, is vital for a healthy economy and, consequently, in the fight against adverse effects such as hunger, poverty and social polarization. Most evidence, however, points to the contrary.
Under industrial capitalism the process of wealth accumulation, generated from all kinds of institutionalized production, has massively benefitted affluent individuals and cartels more than any other single group. Additionally, as the global economy has continued to expand, poverty and economic instability has increased. Today just a few billionaires own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of humanity. It would be imprudent to demonize capitalism and to ignore the positive impacts free markets have had in helping people rise out of penury. But the fact that an ultra-wealthy elite are able to prosper, compared with the one in every nine people who struggle to find food each day, is a demonstration of how warped we have allowed the global economy to become.
Extreme inequality of this type is as perilous as it is grotesque. It has resulted in the super-rich acquiring immense material wealth - but also the power to bend rules and policies in their favour. But this is only one factor. We have permitted the more predatory aspects of industrial capitalism to prevail almost unchecked. As a result we are burdened by financial systems distended with debt, a repertoire of complex and opaque devices designed to evade tax or facilitate dubious arbitrage, and trade treaties designed by a powerful elite to benefit mainly themselves. It has now reached a stage where capitalism is devouring democracy.
Brewer notes that in developed and developing countries alike, the lowest tax rates, the best and most comprehensive health care and educational options, and the chance to influence how the society works, are given to the wealthy and their children. Meanwhile many of those who suffered at the hands of slave-powered empires, or were exploited by the conquering and pillaging of their lands by colonialist nations, live in abject poverty. According to the United Nations this latter group numbers around 743 million people and is growing since the pandemic hit.
The neoliberal economic paradigm keeps tensions between the creation of wealth and the creation of poverty in a state of equilibrium. No system can ever deliver what it has not been designed to produce. If the outputs do not match our intentions there is no other option other than to change the constraints that are forcing the system to betray those objectives. Yet any serious proposal to democratize, or to effect radical change in the global financial system are routinely ridiculed and judged far too disruptive to the established order. Of course. That is the point!
For the past century or more, we have tolerated an awkward situation where markets siphon wealth to the top of the social hierarchy and governments use a proportion of tax revenue to provide just enough benefits to prevent the base of the social pyramid from collapsing. This system of wealth production and distribution is designed to reward the wealthy and keep the poor in check. And it does precisely that.
This steady transfer of wealth from producers to owners is the root cause of the inequality that exists in the world today. The theory that economic gains initially benefitting the wealthy , such as investors, businesses and entrepreneurs, will eventually 'trickle-down' to poorer members of society, creating new opportunities for the economically disadvantaged to achieve a higher standard of living, started as a joke and has been proven to be totally flawed. It is based on two false propositions: first that everyone must eventually benefit from economic growth; second that growth arises from those with the resources to increase productive output. In theory these both appear to make sense. In practice it is not quite as straightforward.
If we cannot reinvent this false monetary dogma, used to justify income inequality for far too long, the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to widen as it is today. But that does not encompass the full extent of the problem for this is not only an economic issue:
In many countries an aging population is putting untold pressure on health care, welfare, housing, infrastructure, superannuation and taxation systems.
A potentially massive rise in unemployment figures must be factored in as services absorb the kind of artificially super-intelligent [ASI] automation previously only used in industrial manufacturing and farming.
And then, of course, we must discover how to value currently unpaid activities, such as house work and hobbies, as valid methods of exchange, much as we had to do in valuing labour a couple of centuries ago.
ASI is exerting a slow but inexorable degradation on the value and availability of paid work. It is highly likely that super-intelligent machines will soon colonize every aspect of embedded production – impacting entire professions and eventually eliminating swathes of teachers, prison officers, managers, accountants, lawyers, drivers and construction workers.
Most work in the future will be undertaken as partnerships between humans and technology. Indeed the only tasks likely to be totally quarantined from the ASI invasion, and then only for the foreseeable future, will be those requiring a creative mind, human discrimination, critical thinking and compassion. These obviously include people that help others find and pursue meaning in their lives - like coaches and mentors, nurses, therapists, counsellors, leisure time advisers, and experience orchestrators.
Those who can manage the link between personal desires, happiness, and the new technical possibilities, will still be in demand. But traditional jobs that are routinized and susceptible to algorithms will inevitably be replaced by robots.
The social implications are too frequently ignored or misinterpreted, particularly as the effects of automated labour are likely to fall upon society unevenly. For one thing we are likely to see far less full-time work. The casualization of the workforce that began decades ago shows no signs of slowing. Then the character traits capable of surviving widespread introduction of ASI into the workplace, such as social and emotional intelligence, a kind and caring demeanour, and experimentation and collaboration, are mostly 'feminine' in nature. It should not come as too much of a surprise, therefore, that many jobs undertaken by women are relatively safe (for the time being) while work typically performed by men is at greater risk.
At this stage we have not found any satisfactory answers to these issues, mainly because we are still seeking solutions from within the confines of conventional wisdom: the current supply and demand economic paradigm on the one hand, plus the notion that work in and of itself is a necessary virtue, fundamental to our sense of self-worth and individual identity, on the other.
These are two of the most important pillars of the civilizational model. But the latter, especially in the form of a work ethic promoting diligence, discipline and frugality (morals pilfered from the Protestant faith) has been used as a cudgel within neoliberalism to cajole the population into compliance, and thence to justify modern serfdom. This is then used to validate official attitudes to the unemployed, along with those who pursue activities deemed to be of little economic value, including parenting, house work, and artists for example.
The widespread loss of traditional jobs, the dilemma of how to cater for an aging population, and the imperative of sharing the wealth produced by society more equitably, will usher in a social and psychological transformation unlike anything we have ever experienced previously. This transformation will derive from new narratives in addition to the discarding of obsolete dogma.
Ultimately the issue of forging a more equitable post-capitalist society must be framed by asking three morally challenging questions:
How can we create an inclusive economic system that works for everyone irrespective of their status, gender, ethnicity or education?
How can we shift from an extractive paradigm that threatens the survival of humans as well as other species to a more regenerative one nurturing all life?
As the need for intellectual and physical labour declines, how should we reconfigure the relationship between work and play such that leisure, creative endeavours, and the orchestration of social experiences, are able to replace drudgery as legitimate and vital symbols of human actualization?
If we look to history and other societies we see clear indications that the transition to a new social democracy and economic world-system is possible. It is also in the best interests of the super-rich to acknowledge and help facilitate such a structural change – though many remain sceptical. But it requires the adoption of a new teleology based upon abundance rather than scarcity, an acknowledgment that a steady state economy is more viable in the longer term than an unstable one grounded in the need for constant growth, and a universal willingness to design current inequities out of the world-system.
These three constraints are at the heart of how wealth and poverty have been generated in the past, clarify why the system has become skewed to benefit owners of material assets, and how equality can be deliberately designed into a more sustainable universal worldview.
Soon we will run out of jobs. It stands to reason that we need to redesign the viability of how wealth is produced and shared. This will require reimagining the very notion of work and its place in society. Although it has many detractors, mainly because of the many myths we have created justifying hard work, and is only a partial solution at best, the idea of a universal basic wage, or similar, makes sense in the context of a more equitable future.
Having determined these important factors we can shift our attention once again to the Sustainable Development Goals.
It should now be self-evident that these goals retain their relevance simply because they are the results of a world-system where poverty, inequality and injustice, are deliberately designed into the worldview. By reinventing the civilizational worldview, and by changing just a few constraints in the current world-system, we can decide that poverty is unacceptable. In one metanoia we can eliminate economic discrimination and the effects this generates.