Study: Economic Equality (Not Growth) Will Improve Society

CausalCrunch's picture

CausalCrunch
(Beingism Founder)

The Equality Trust -- We are at a turning point in human history. For centuries the best way of improving the quality of life has been to raise material living standards. But we have now come to the end of what economic growth can do for developed countries. Measures of well-being or of happiness no longer rise with economic growth. Even though health goes on improving in rich countries, that improvement is no longer related to economic growth. We also know that rates of depression and anxiety have risen over the last fifty years or so.

Not only has economic growth in the rich countries ceased to bring the social benefits it once brought (and continues to bring in poorer countries), but it now threatens the planet. We are therefore the first generation to have to find new ways of improving the real quality of life. The evidence suggests that we need to shift our attention away from increasing material wealth, to the social environment and the quality of social relations in our societies. For rich countries to get even richer makes little or no difference to the prevalence of health and social problems but, as other pages of this web site make clear, the social problems which beset many rich societies are much more common in more unequal societies. Societies with smaller income differences between rich and poor are more cohesive: community life is stronger, levels of trust are higher and there is less violence. The vast majority of the population seem to benefit from greater equality.

It is sometimes said that societies have to choose between greater equality and economic growth. If that were true, people in the rich countries have clearly reached a point where the rational choice would be equality: if our aim is to improve the quality of life while avoiding further damage to the planet, greater equality can do both whereas economic growth can do neither. However, the balance of evidence from studies of the actual performance of different countries does not suggest that greater equality is bad for economic growth. More cohesive societies are regarded as providing an environment in which business can operate more efficiently and there are at least as many empirical studies which suggest that more equal societies have better economic performance as ones which suggest the reverse. But as this issue remains controversial, it is probably safe to assume that there is no overwhelmingly powerful relation between equality and growth either way.

While it is essential to reduce carbon emissions, the production of waste and the use of the earth's resources, that does not mean we face economic decline or stagnation. The development of sustainable economic systems requires rapid innovation and change, much of which must be resource and energy saving.

Wilkinson RG, Pickett KE. The Spirit Level. Penguin. 2009. Buy the book from Amazon.

The Equality Trust

TwitThis
Category:






Comments

Scapegoat's picture

Scapegoat
(authenticated user)

Pack Rats, Bowerbirds, and Compulsive Consumers

I was working on some conveyors and equipment at the Main Post Office in Orlando not too long ago when gas prices started sweeping upward again after remaining relatively stable for a few years. The Orlando Sentinel carried a story about a woman and her SUV as related to the gas crisis. The woman stated that peers were welcome to "carpool" with her but she wouldn't ride with others, and she intended to keep and drive her SUV no matter how high the gas prices rose. When you talk about equality, most people consider being equal as being like this woman.

Pack rats are particularly fond of shiny objects and will drop an interesting object for a more interesting object, leading to tales of rats swapping jewelry for a stone. Bowerbirds also collect interesting objects to decorate their nest in hopes of attracting a mate. Evidently we have evolved from a common ancestor of pack rats or convergent evolution resulted in us having traits similar to pack rats/bowerbirds. And this trait is preyed upon by advertising.

I don't imagine capitalism will release its grip on the minds of the masses until the cold dead fingers of capitalism are pried loose. Such products as SUVs are necessary to keep the capitalist economy healthy. The Major Media is necessary to put the idea in the masses mind that life would be intolerable without the most recent product or service. The feeling that one should shop till he (or she) drops is the result of the way the mind has been "nurtured" by the Major Media. I don't see how you will ever counter the apparent insurmountable obstacles in the way of your objective.

ineptsegue's picture

ineptsegue
(Beingism Founder)

Insurmountable obstacles

>>I don't see how you will ever counter the apparent insurmountable obstacles in the way of your objective.

Well, that's the essence of the challenge, right? To some extent the continued existence of our civilization depends on it (though admittedly it's also possible we may continue to muddle through in a half-assed way for some time doing the minimum that we need to survive as a culture or species). Certainly the obstacles do seem almost insurmountable, but there are things we can do. Ignorance in the general population about what the problems are is the biggest part of the challenge. If enough people wanted a change, we *would* get one, and society would start to become much more egalitarian. And the scientific fact is, it's in everyone's best interests to create an egalitarian society.

We're all caught up in this causal mess, so it's the responsibility of us all to change it if that's what we want. We'd be crazy not to want it. So contribute where you can by educating others. Write and publish an essay. Talk to others about what's happening in the world and what we can do about it. Go to protests. Become politically aware and active. Be creative!

Will something like a rational society ever will out? Who knows! But what else can we do but try?

Scapegoat's picture

Scapegoat
(authenticated user)

What would make a person "want" change?

As we both know, free will is an illusion. The main purpose of the Major Media is to preserve the Status Quo, which means they strive to create a public mindset that will do just that. This is the primary seemingly insurmountable obstacle necessary to circumvent. The situation may not be hopeless, but it is certainly disheartening.

Noam Chomsky believed in free will, but he has spent a lifetime bitching about the media influences on the general public. He can't see that a will free from causality couldn't be causally influenced. Now that is sad. Chomsky is very perceptive, except when it comes to seeing that an organisms behavior is merely the result of the physical processes of the brain. He who controls the sensory input (information) being fed into that brain controls what is seemingly important in the real world. Chomsky realized this but he thought that because he had the ability to yield or not to an egotistical desire to throw his watch out the window, the feeling and the ability to choose between different options somehow proved free will. At least you realize free will is an illusion. At least you are aware of the impact the Major Media can have on what is important to the general public. At least you are aware that the Major Media can and does have a statistical impact on what the public "wants" and what they don't "want." Now, I can't help but wonder if the awareness that you have, but Chomsky lacked, will help you spread the message better than he has been able to.

Of course, I must add that Beingism Org is a good start.

Scapegoat's picture

Scapegoat
(authenticated user)

Fighting Against an Antialtruistic Ideology

Today I noticed the pigtail going to the tank on my toilet had started leaking. I checked and found the plastic nut holding the water line (pigtail) on had split. So I went to Home Depot to purchase another nut. Now get this, the sales person told me that the store had the individual pigtails but didn't have nuts for them. However, they did have a prefabricated unit made of stainless, that is, all except for the nut, which is made of plastic. LOL! The one thing most likely to break or split they still make out of plastic. But now the prefabricate unit sells for many times as much as the pigtail and nuts by themselves sold for. When I complained that if they sold the individual pigtails, they should sell the individual nuts, the salesman said that even car manufactures have either switched or starting to switch to selling prefabricated units instead of individual parts. At that point I realized we must not give up. We are justified in our struggle against an antialtruistic ideology. I just wish I knew how to wake the public up out of their stupor.

D. H. Lawrence once wrote, "The public, which is feebleminded like an idiot, will never be able to preserve its individual reactions from the tricks of the exploiter. The public is always exploited and always will be exploited.... Why? Because the public has not enough wit to distinguish between mob-meanings and individual-meanings. The mass is forever vulgar, because it can't distinguish between its own original feelings and feelings which are diddled into existence by the exploiter." Now Lawrence had his insight at a time prior to a Major Media as we know it today. Lawrence would probably be amazed at how efficiently the exploiters of this age apply the most recent finding of behavioral science. Nevertheless, we ought not to give up and give in. We are not fighting the fight as much for ourselves as we are for our progeny. We must do all we can and do it as best we can.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.