Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Material security for all human beings
mindatrisk
Veteran
We now live in a world and a time where humanity has the means, the resources and the majority will for all human beings to live in material security. Granted, most people aren't thinking along those lines, but I think that if most people were asked then they would wish for all human beings to be able to eat, have shelter, have access to clean water, have clothing, have education, have medicine, maybe an XBox etc. etc. So, what is stopping us? Is this a vision that humanity can work towards? What might be the obstacles to achieving it?
1
Comments
Then add the spreading of resentment toward the poor (who don't "deserve" to be helped, etc. etc.). I think the greatest obstacle is this resentment. This is the language of "deserve" or "not deserve." It may often be manifested through racist attitudes, but not necessarily-- but I do think the resentment is prior to any racist attitudes--in other words, addressing racism doesn't address the deeper issue of resentment. Resentment is the most insidious and evil thing which dehumanizes those who are less fortunate-- as well as themselves. As for the US, part of this also comes out of the so-called "Protestant work ethic," culturally speaking. More and more I think that resentment is the greatest obstacle-- its a sort of anti-compassion. Most people don't even recognize it, like this fellow:
http://valleywag.gawker.com/happy-holidays-startup-ceo-complains-sf-is-full-of-hum-1481067192 I've seen many many MANY similar sentiments expressed like this in the US (this joker just happens to be very "articulate" about his resentment).
Such resentment is a sign of weakness, being enslaved by pettiness. It's sad, because they demean themselves just as much as those they think "deserve" to be poor.
So Even if we went all utopia like, we'd still be screwed. But the long and short answer to your question is a simple teaching of the Buddha.. we all have attachment, aversion, and delusion and this is the cause for dukkha.
You see, when you post something that I see as worthwhile and logical, I'm willing to give you support. Now later in this thread you may post something I disagree with, but for now, thumbs up.
What's worse is that most of us follow suit, fearing that society would drift into chaos and crisis and economic barbarism without them, without wage labour and profit, when the reality is that we're actually descending into chaos and crisis and economic barbarism because of them, because we refuse to let these relics of a past epoch go, because these things are holding us back. We've reached a point where the working class, even with vast reductions in hours of labour and/or employment, consistently produces more than can be productively consumed in the capitalist production process (i.e., in a way that produces surplus value for the capitalist) despite no shortage of need.
I think this attitude partially has its roots in the early days of capitalism, being influenced by a combination of factors, including the emergence of the 'Protestant work ethic' in conjunction with the enclosure of English commons, anti-idleness and poverty legislation, poorhouses, and the transition of people (often forced) from serfdom into wage-labor. In this process, the idea of making money, and especially the idea of capital accumulations ("The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" and all that Marxist jazz), took on a moral framework in which being idle (i.e., not making money) was seen as something immoral and sinful. In essence, wage labour became something almost sacred. And this attitude wasn't just limited to the growth of capitalism in Europe, but made its way to the New World as well. For example, the ethics of hard work and accumulation can be found in the writings of Benjamin Franklin, who coined the phrase "time is money": It may seem like there's no alternative, that we've reached the 'end of history' and the final phase of our socio-cultural evolution; but I honestly beleive we have the capacity to create a world characterized by equality and material abundance in which things like distinctions of rich and poor and oppression truly become superfluous. I think this is precisely what Marx meant when he wrote, "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win." The world he foresaw is a world of material abundance and social equality that no longer revolves around the realization of profit, with production primarily benefiting one class of owners, but the needs of all.
I believe that, as a species, we're neither a perfect nor fallen creation; we're the product of material forces that have evolved into creative and producing beings, and through the social nature of that creative and productive activity, we collectively create our nature, our social consciousness, our reality. And because of this, we're not simply limited to a modern world characterized by oppression and distinctions of rich and poor dominated by an aristocracy of wealthy capitalists and moneyed corporations.
As a species, we've changed a great deal and will continue to change. The question is how and in what direction. If we continue condition ourselves to believe we're innately greedy, however, then that's the reality we'll reinforce.
I watched the movie Zeitgeist one afternoon several months ago, I recommend it if you haven't seen it. It created the experience of being on a bad mushroom trip (uh, I had a friend once. . .) but when it was all over, I spent a while watching much of what I took for granted teetering around, no longer absolute givens.
It could be terribly depressing, even despairing, if one didn't have the Buddhadharma as a guideline through the confusion. There is a 1% clamped onto 90% of the nation's wealth (thus political power), as one example of extreme imbalance. We Dharma walkers aren't allowed the pleasure of finger pointing and blaming the Koch brothers or Tea Party idiots manipulating the unwashed by jerking them around with their Christianity. We have a much more responsibility than finger pointing and fist shaking.
We created this. Or, allowed it, which is pretty much the same thing.
Also, we have the benefit of knowing beyond a doubt it is bullshit, besides being impermanent. Nothing like impermanent bullshit to give you a breath of fresh air
Gassho
makes sense to a point.. perhaps my argument should be more that humanity does not have the technology and capacity to sustain it's numbers at this time. It's still basically the same issues, its really more a matter of semantics between the worries of overpopulation and what this guy is saying. he is saying "it's not a problem IF".. he is not dismissing the concept of it being a problem outright.
IF unicorns and dragons were real we'd have a more magical world too... good news if true.
Also just compare poverty in impoverished countries to obesity in developed countries.
I mention that just in case you were implying (or believing) that obesity is caused by gluttony or over-indulgence by wealthier people... It's not. Obesity is a complex condition caused by many different things. Genetics being the biggest factor of all.
The economic factor comes into play because cheap foods that the poor can afford in bulk for kids and family is usually high in carbs and calories, low in nutritional value.
The "healthy / healthier" foods and fresh produce are more expensive per weight and not even available in all areas, especially urban areas, (sometimes called "food deserts").
You must enlighten yourself-others can help. Help from others is especially useful when it comes from a kind heart. If you are contemplating Chairman Mao's dictum
"all political power comes from the barrel of a gun". Then well being for all men is a long way off. Force as in forced taxation for the benefit of "some needy person", comes at way too high a price.
Through free markets and a thoroughly constrained governmental force, mankind can work it's way through to a world without dire want. Force has always been used to make those with guns wealthy and the rest slaves. This is history. But yes, if we could eliminate the force which perverts aspiration, desire and productive activity, in the name of fairness, we could pretty quickly have a world with plenty. Delusion is a powerful tool in the hands of evil men with great power-and guns.
9 zeroes=125,000,000,000 or 125 billion cubic feet. now if a person is 5 cubic feet-that is a really large person, then there is room for 25 billion in every square mile(cubic mile) of ocean. Another way to look at it is: you could put every couple (2 people) in the world in the state of Texas and they could each (couple), have a 50'x50' lot. My wife and I could live on a 50x50 ft lot and have room to grow our food. Of course without a free market we would be very poor and have a subsistence level of survival.
The point is, the world is large and if we don't make too large a footprint on the earth we can all easily live in the USA, or China, or....Now the problem is not excessive population. Quite the contrary. The population (especially in non-religious nations)
is beginning to shrink. George Bernard Shaw said it best: The problem with Hitler was not his goals it was his method. Instead of making race the basis of elimination he should have simply eliminated the crippled, the lower intelligence or otherwise uncapable. Or, he could simply have kept them from reproducing and that would have accomplished the same goals in a generation or two. John Maynard Keynes has been promoting these policies since ww2. They are working.
This is all very lacking in human kindness. Could we please get back to Bodhichitta
or some more enlightening subject.
That is barbaric ^^^
Let's have compassion for all.
That is barbaric ^^^
Let's have compassion for all.
Please note the above is my quote of George Bernard Shaw.
You are right that is barbaric. It seems kinder than just murdering them as Linen and Stalin or Mao or Hitler (another Socialist, Nazi=national socialist) did, but in the end it is the same mentality. It sees people as a means to the ends envisioned by a few power mad maniacs. Shaw helped found the Fabian Socialist Party whose symbol is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Their motto is "As a wolf in sheep's clothing go among them." He and his buddy John Maynard Keynes helped create the world bank and the IMF=International Monetary Fund. These Socialist activities have been running the banks and the press. Not surprising really. Thanks to the www you can look this stuff up pretty easily.
With great wealth and the press it is not too hard to spread delusion.
You are right that is barbaric. It seems kinder than just murdering them as Linen and Stalin or Mao or Hitler (another Socialist, Nazi=national socialist) did, but in the end it is the same mentality. It sees people as a means to the ends envisioned by a few power mad maniacs. Shaw helped found the Fabian Socialist Party whose symbol is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Their motto is "As a wolf in sheep's clothing go among them." He and his buddy John Maynard Keynes helped create the world bank and the IMF=International Monetary Fund. These Socialist activities have been running the banks and the press. Not surprising really. Thanks to the www you can look this stuff up pretty easily.
With great wealth and the press it is not too hard to spread delusion.
lol The National Socialist German Workers' Party was about as socialist as the Democratic Republic of North Korea is democratic.
In actuality, Hitler, despite his socialist rhetoric, was a fascist who persecuted socialists and communists and sent them to concentration camps along with gays, Jews, Romas, etc. In fact, the very first concentration camp, Dachau, which opened in 1933, was specifically for "all Communists and – where necessary – Reichsbanner and Social Democratic functionaries who endanger state security."
Actually, that's not true either. :-) Also a complex issue with many facets to consider when the numbers are gathered...
Here's one thing I can tell you...
"Overweight-Obese" is said to be anywhere from 30-40% of the population of the US. I don't recall exact figures, and that is from a questionable source. BUT lets go with it just the same- Overweight and Obese = 35% of Population in US.
According to the American Diabetes Association; diabetes in America = 8.3%.
If weight caused diabetes, you would expect the diabetes rate to be at least around 25-30% - not 8.3%.
Obesity is not a cause of diabetes. Obesity is very often a symptom of diabetes... therefore there is a correlation or link between the two. But food/diet doesn't cause diabetes, and neither does weight.
Either your body keeps processing sugars and carbs properly, or it doesn't. Age is a HUGE factor, and we as a population are living an average of 15 years longer than just two generations ago.
So there has been a rise in the diabetes stats over the years, which makes sense when you also realize that now they consider "Pre-diabetes" a "condition" and add those numbers to the stats for diabetes.
Also the normal range numbers for Diabetes and pre-diabetes has been LOWERED in the last decade.... when they did that- suddenly hundreds of thousands of people were labeled "Pre-diabetic" and "Diabetic", literally overnight.
It's a numbers game that serves Big Pharma and doctors very well.....
Elsewhere, on another Buddhist forum, I read someone argue that making everyone non-poor is just exacerbating samsara and is ultimately unsustainable. (i.e. give a poor man a cookie, he wants milk, and eventually an X-Box and now he's unhappy because of all this material stuff he's grasping onto.) And its unsustainable because if you build a grand society with wealth all around, it decays, changes, falls apart just like everything. :-(
I don't buy it entirely because I figure the Boddhisatva vow in terms of economics means providing people with the means to practice. That might be preaching, but it also means making sure they have leisure time to focus on something other than the next meal.
I think this is why chanting for material goods in Nichiren is not necessarily a bad idea, despite it being counter intuitive. Chanting gives people of modest means the self confidence to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.
Still, when chanting fails, or people aren't inclined to chant, it's back to political will (do the people running the place care), and public policy (is tough love effective? the right wing things so, I think the evidence says some policies work, some don't, may have mixed results, life is complicated).
All I know for sure is that if I was working minimum wage (below a living wage), had a family, a substance abuse problem, didn't have the human capital to get a better job, lived in a town with a 7-11 and a Walmart and a meth-dealer on the corner.... there is no way that person is going to be able to practice, sit, meditate or entertain thoughts about if they have a self or no-self, or if the universe is fundamentally empty or not.
At best we can give them a false hope of post mortem paradise or hope that reincarnation works and they have better luck next time. Or we can agitate for a political system that cares, public policies that work, or take some direct action ourselves.