"The Elite"

Knowing that most of the wealth is owned and wielded rather mightily by few people, "the elite," it is easy to fall into the trap of blaming the system-induced problems on those people.  An "us vs. them" attitude ensnares our minds and hearts and leads to solutions that are unwise and unhelpful.

It is hard to be patient and reflect for the person who is starving while watching another greedily consuming all the food on the table (planet).  They are justified in their anger, but hasty violent reaction to a complex system-wide problem will not resolve the underlying problem.  As the disparity in access to life-sustaining resources continues to widen, communities and countries are unleashing their violence on the perceived targets and those around them.  If those that are fed enough do not start working to correct this problem for themselves and those who are hungry, violence will ripple out in widening circles and eventually ripple through their own lives.  Suffering and anger are warning signs of problems, and if they are ignored, their severity will grow.  We should treat these signs with respect and learn about their causes.

But, back to "the elite."  The elite are indoctrinated, just as we all are, that wealth needs to be accumulated. Despite all the feel-good talk that money doesn't make you happy, we all know that no money = no resources = no life = no happiness.  The fact that the world out there is always trying to get more and more of the money you have means you must be cautious about how much you let go.  How can you ever have enough when you live in a world that does not care whether you live or die, only that you can pay for it?  If you make $200,000 a year and you feel generous and want to give away 100,000, you might not do so because you have to "save for a rainy day."  What if you get cancer and cannot work?  That will cost a lot more than 200K!  Also, as you accumulate wealth, you will likely be surrounded by those that have similar resources, so you have to keep up with the Joneses.  The consequences may be real for not conforming.  If all of your colleagues have multi-million dollar homes, drive luxury cars, eat at expensive restaurants, and travel to high-cost destinations and you decide to eschew that lifestyle, it would send a signal that you condemn their lifestyle.  That attitude could see your way out of a job, out of "the elite."

Even if you own your own business, you have to "make nice" with clients.  You may have to put up appearances so they think you have a legitimate business.  Isn't that what we do by putting on suits?  Suits aren't made for comfort, they are made to give the wearer a sense of respectability that they wouldn't have if they showed up in pajamas.

"The Elite" need to be educated about the system just as much as everyone else.  Actually, they may need it even more since their lifestyles are more immune to the consequences of poverty, disease, and lack of resources.  They need to see that that their lifestyles of "abundance for few" is not just unhealthy for the planet and many of the world's people, but also for themselves.  Within the current economic paradigm, they depend on money not just for their resources, but for their social standing and self worth.  They must also realize that if they intend to have children, their kids will be at greater risk of social unrest, of never-ending worry to maintain their hold on resources, and less clean, less healthy food, water, and air.  Their children will have to deal with people who want to gain their trust to exploit them.  They will have the worries of keeping up with the Joneses and the stock market.  They too, will know, that the world cares about the money they have, not them.  They will have to squash their conscience to ensure that they keep their profits.  They may have to abandon their passion to pursue wealth-generating activities, no matter how much they detest those activities.

It's not that "the elite" deserve more pity, it's just that it's important not to get trapped into the simplistic thinking that usually follows from an angry reaction.  Anger has its place, and if things are left unchanged, anger and violence will grow.  I hope that is not what it takes for people to wake up to the problems ahead.  It may be, but I hope not.  That's why I continue to be motivated to pursue the awareness raising campaign of the Zeitgeist Movement.

Work, Buy, Consume vs. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle

This compelling image reminds us about the cycle of consumption. Actually, we work, buy, and consume many times over before we die, but that image would be too large to construct.  

In the Zeitgeist Movement, the emphasis is on education, awareness-building.  This is a necessary project because the system cannot change if only a few of us want it to change.  With the exception of the ultra-wealthy, most people do not have much power alone to change the status quo.  Unlike personal revelations, in which we can change our behavior immediately, insights into our economic system and structural violence do not allow us to change those factors quickly.  It can lead to feelings of being overwhelmed, disappointed, frustrated, angry, and despair.  To add insult to injury, we cannot practically avoid the system which we reject.  We still need to buy food, pay for shelter, and other resources (gained at someone else's expense).  "How many people have been poisoned by the pesticides used on the papaya I just ate?  How brutally have the people been treated at the factory (I saw it first-hand) where my shoes were made?  The landscaping crew that constantly maintain the grounds in my townhome community, are they paid enough to live on?"  Guilt.  I see the horrors of this system, and yet my dependence on it strengthens it.

The goal of the Zeitgeist Movement to transition to a resource-based economy will take a long time, and it requires sustained effort without feeling any system-changing impact.  That's why we need to be patient and just do what we can to create a balance between what needs to be done and enjoying life.  Something that can be done by all of us is to reduce, reuse, and recycle.  Have you noticed how the media/public service announcements tend to exclusively focus on recycling?  We can all reduce and reuse if we make an effort to do so.

  

Focusing on reducing allows us to spend less money, thereby making us a bit freer from workplace enslavement.  It also decreases our impact on the environment.  And finally, by limiting our participation in the Work, Buy, Consume cycle, we accelerate the rate at which that system implodes.  As the foundation cracks, people feel the unsteadiness, and look for alternative solutions.  This searching makes the Zeitgeist Movement more relevant, more meaningful.  And that will hasten the transition.

"That's just the markety world we live in"

“The forest cleans water.”--David Powell, a forester with Virginia's Department of Forestry. He says when you look at a forest, just sitting there, it's actually doing stuff. For you. “Forests are very good at filtering out and preventing erosion and sedimentation; it also helps clean out the air.”
Sabri Ben-Achour: This is what's called an ecosystem service -- when nature does stuff for people. The trouble is, even though people benefit from nature just doing its thing, nobody gets paid for letting nature do its thing. Actually, they get paid to do the opposite: forests get cleared, roots dug up -- benefits gone. That's just the markety world we live in. So Virginia's forestry department wants to pay for the benefit and maybe get consumers to do so too later down the road…Using models, they'll quantify the benefit of a forest to a water source, wrap it up and put a price tag on it and make it a product. But who pays how much and for what?

Hanson: For decades, we've been talking about saving nature for nature's sake and that's worked to some degree -- we have a lot of protected areas around the planet, etc. -- but there are limits. For a lot of governments, a lot of people, a lot of companies, that's not a convincing argument.

----  transcript of broadcast

The person who comes up with the scheme that commoditizes the forests’ processes and can sell it to the public will surely be the next billionaire.  At first, I couldn’t help but laugh at this broadcast, imagining these people scuttling about to find ways to make a profit from this natural process.   But later, when Craig Hanson spoke about the lack of progress in convincing people to care for the environment for nature’s sake and for our own survival, I felt sad.  The question, “what does it take?” keeps entering my mind.  How bad must things become for people to implement the change that is required for us to thrive?

A friend of mine, referencing back to stages of development, pointed out that it usually takes either some kind of personal catastrophe or a giant helping hand that saves a person from catastrophe to create the conditions that allow someone to see beyond a narrow frame of reference.  For example, a person rooted in “red” who thinks the State should stay out of their business could experience a shift in perspective if they have a life-threatening illness in which outside support is the only means for survival.  Not only will they be shaken by the severity of the unanticipated disease, but they may feel gratitude for the support provided, which allowed them to survive.  From this experience, they may be transformed to acknowledge that society functions better when we work together instead of constantly trying to grab power from each other.

Even though it isn’t fun and cheerful to hear about impending economic and environmental collapse, this message needs to be repeated in as many ways as possible to alert us all to the dangers we are facing so that we can try to prevent the horrific consequences on the horizon.  We need to share these messages in personal ways too. The damage is real and is heartfelt, here and now, not in some forecasted future.  The gripe about gasoline prices is something we all share in the Western world, and perhaps that is a starting point for some to explore our system-wide inefficiencies.  Unemployment is another.  It seems that very few are untouched by these factors.  If we act sooner rather than later, we will all gain, and, I hope, have a chance to thrive.

Sports, Death, and Justice

As a sports-like wave of excitement makes its way around the American Stadium, many people are getting carried away in that wave.  There are a few deeper discussions about the meaning of Osama Bin Laden's death disrupting the flow of that wave, which is a healthy sign.  One of the radio programs I heard yesterday tackled the issue of "should we be celebrating someone's death so joyfully?"  The caller felt disgusted that people were having a party because someone was shot dead (not to mention the fact that a woman was used as a "human shield").  The host rejoined that people weren't so much celebrating Osama's death as they were a sense of justice served.

He was pointing to the fact that people have a hard-wired sense of fairness and since so many loved ones were killed on September 11th, it makes sense for people to congregate in this communally expressed feeling of justice: "He got what he deserved!"

Unfortunately, there was no examination of what it means to have justice.  While there are many studies to support the finding that people do have a sense of innate fairness (people make all kinds of irrational decisions to ensure fairness, at their own expense), an issue like this is far more complicated than the well-planned parameters of a psychological experiment.

When the twin towers came down I was living abroad and the newswire was full of information about the collapse, but there was not the same patriotic rhetoric that Americans were exposed to.  It was publicized that some groups around the world were jubilant about the 9-11 attacks.  Why were they excited by such tragic news?  Not because they were thinking about the "loved ones" that had died, but because they felt that the impenetrable giant called the United States became vulnerable.  The almighty US was targeted and successfully attacked by a small group with relatively scant resources.  There was a sense of justice that America finally had to pay the price for its indulgences and exploitation, and they were happy about it.  Sound familiar?  Even countries that publicly stood united with the US, had citizens that felt that America got what was coming.

The fact that "justice" has become uncoupled from the real human lives lost is a symptom of the breakdown in our thinking.  Is it fair that so much "collateral damage" has been incurred at the pursuit of justice?  That kind of question just mucks things up, doesn't it?  But, it is part of the circumstances. With each side--and there are many!--striving to serve justice, we end up with more and more casualties.  And the spectators, just like in sports matches, take a sense of pride when their "team" wins a match.  Americans are celebrating their collective achievement.  The other team is diminished in reputation, in spirit, and in this case, in actual numbers.  Hillary Clinton said with a lioness determination, "We will not be defeated."  And the game we play goes on and on and on.

It's "their turn" now.

And that's what some people felt.  They were scared because retribution seemed inevitable.  Police were on alert and people worried that another attack may come.  And in a game where all of the people represent the "opponent," any one of us could be the next target.  Putting our own personal lives on the line raises the stakes of this game and it becomes much less fun to play!  If my family gets blown up in this game of Justice, is that still worth it?  Do I really hate the opponent that much?  Who is he/she anyway?  Hmm......  Oh yes, it's Bin Laden.  He is The Terrorist, the true threat.  But, if he's dead, then what am I afraid of?

The threat is not in any individual person, but in this seeking of justice through killing.  And further, it's in this idea of justice.  Where did the injustice really begin? Why did some people feel glad that America got attacked?  Why do any terrorist or violent groups retaliate against the more powerful enemy? Perhaps that is the clue.....the more powerful enemy.  The reality that there is an imbalance of power may be the beginning of the injustice.  The reality that this power imbalance is used to exploit others at the powerful's gaining of more power is the point at which the seeds of "justice seeking" begin germinating, and that's exactly what those psychological experiments point out.  Again, we may be hard-wired for fairness, but it is only when the circumstance fertilizes the seeds of injustice that justice seeking begins.  This understanding makes the scope of justice so broad, complex, and dynamic that we prefer to just go on killing each other.  That's much easier than reflecting on it.

My neighbor is my compatriot today.  We are hooting and hollering in the streets.  But, when he runs over my garden patch tomorrow in his big gas-guzzling, fume-spewing truck tomorrow, I'll get him!  I'll slash his tires, key his car, and that'll show him!!!  How easily we switch sides.

To really create justice for ourselves, not just perceived immediate justice, we must create a just world.  We must look at the whole dynamic and our part in it.  Relationships as small as those we have with other individuals up to those we have with other nations must be viewed as part of a larger dynamic that generates the world we have today.  And if that's too much for you to think about, then at least center yourself in compassion.  From there, you will create healthy relationships and as a result, a healthy world will emerge.

Royalty Mirrored

Yet another blog/article about the British Royal Wedding....but with a different perspective.

It seems that people are starkly divided: they either hate the ostentatious reckless spending or they are adoring the luxuriousness of it all.  Some people have asked, "how can they be so insensitive to proudly display their excesses in a world suffering from constant deprivation?"  To be honest, I am sympathetic to this sentiment, but I am concerned about suffering whether there is a show of indulgence or not.  There really is no need for this kind of deprivation.  There will always be natural phenomenon that threaten our survival, but most of what threatens people these days is human-created, and that means we can fix them.

So, in light of the fact that these problems can be fixed, but are not, and the fact that many people are supposedly captivated by this Royal Wedding (although I'm suspicious of how interested people are because no one around me seems to give a damn), what could account for that interest?  Is it truly a simple dichotomy of either you are interested because the suffering of others has no meaning to you or you are not interested because you care about others?

I think the issue is more complex than that.  A lot of people feel the world is full of suffering and they just don't want to be exposed to it more than they are because they feel powerless to do something to rectify it.  For example, if their friend were in danger or hungry, they would run to assist, but when the problem is structural, they see no way of alleviating that problem.  They are sympathetic to the suffering of people around the world, but they cannot find a means of fixing that problem so they want to turn their attention to events that are celebratory.

It got me thinking, why do people care about anyone's luxurious life.  Why does the general public care at all about the lives of the rich and famous when they do not share in it?  In fact, why is there not offense taken at these few living it up on their backs and apparently enjoying every minute of it?

Perhaps the answer lies in the concept of the "mirror neurons."  In the same way that a sense of sympathy and despair is invoked while seeing videos of children starving to death, perhaps there is a similar (although opposite) reaction when watching those who are pampered from abundance.  There is an intellectual understanding that their lives are different, but for a moment, there is mirroring of the feeling of being lavishly cared for.  Since the poor will most likely never directly experience those riches, they experience them vicariously, and that's really the best they can afford.  

Note to Peter Joseph

Peter,

I’m sorry you were hurt and I hope you take the time to recover emotionally.  Also, I know you are constantly pulled in many directions and your exhaustion is apparent.  I urge you to take the time you need: for rest, recreation, and socializing in ease.  You need to laugh again, spend some time in nature, and just live peacefully for awhile.

The Zeitgeist Movement is a resource for people to be disabused of prevailing indoctrination.  It is not about imposing a point of view, instead it’s about letting nature flourish.  The ZM debates a lot about “human nature” and works to provide evidence that we’re not all nasty, exploitative, and competitive by nature.  The main theme is that if we release ourselves from the artificially created (and dehumanizing) economic system, which sets person against person, we will allow our natural inclinations of collaboration and trust to come forward.  The result will be a better society for all of us. 

The harder part for us, is our tendency to think small.  We think of our individual selves, and possibly an extension of that, our families.  Education—and I’m not talking about just the formal kind—help us move beyond those limitations of perspective.  Education can take many forms, from films to one-on-one talks.  The VP believes that a film is the best way to go.  In its purported goal of using science to make decisions, has the VP found this to be a scientifically substantiated “best use” of resources?  To show a society that is free of money in which humans contribute in ways they care about and have talents for is a great vision to present to the public.  And it’s been done before in a "dressed up" fiction.  That work is well-known under the name of Star Trek. 

I understand the other goal of wanting to express one’s creative vision.  This is important, and I believe it is why you, Peter, made your films using funds you could generate.  It has been helpful and meaningful.  Now, if you had 50 billion at your disposal, would you use it for another film (your creative expression) or for something more influential in scope?  If that project was something you didn’t have the talent to direct/organize, would you give the resources to that other effort, knowing that it will help humanity on a larger scale than your presumed project?

I believe the answer is yes, and I’m glad to infer this on your behalf.  The VP has decided otherwise.  The VP has been useful in suggesting technical solutions and challenging entrenched thinking.  For this, it has been and will be appreciated. It's always a great idea to be disabused, since we all undergo so many years of abuse.  The VP wants to represent their organization in a particular way and be the center of their creative projects.  I understand this desire, although I think it lacks a sense of the larger perspective.  Perhaps that will always be a recurring limitation of our minds, and that’s exactly why we need each other to inform us (in an environment of trust) when our perspectives are embolized. Thanks for contributing to that effort!

Charity

I read a comment recently that basically said we can't force people to be charitable to the "less-fortunate." In other words, charity must come from the kindness in their hearts.  This comment was made in the context of workers being stripped of benefits, but it really applies to the idea of social welfare as a whole.  The thinking goes something like this, "I worked hard and earned all my wealth, so if I want to share it, I can, but if I don't, no one will force me.  Forcing me is dictatorship!"


The rich have a peculiar atmosphere of their own. However cultured, unobtrusive, ancient and polished, the rich have an impenetrable and assured aloofness, that inviolable certainty and hardness that is difficult to break down. They are not the possessors of wealth, but are possessed by wealth, which is worse than death. Their conceit is philanthropy; they think they are trustees of their wealth; they have charities, create endowments; they are the makers, the builders, the givers. They build churches, temples, but their god is the god of their gold. With so much poverty and degradation, one must have a very thick skin to be rich. --J.Krishnamurti


This thinking reminded me of the quote above.  If you treat me ruthlessly as "your" worker for years on end, but then you give a dollar a day to a starving child in Africa, have you then acquired--yes, I mean acquired--the label of charitable?  If charity were truly in your heart, would you have brought about a system in which your worker was exploited to begin with?  Wouldn't you have made a society in which charity didn't get selectively applied to those of your choosing?  You, the god, have "chosen ones" to bestow your charity on.  But, you are always at a safe distance, forever being careful not to truly jeopardize your own lot in life.  This is not charity, it is self-aggrandizement.  Having acquired so much in monetary power, you turn to other acquisitive challenges: fame, respectability, admiration (social power).


The other problem has to do with depth of perception.  You realize that workers work for you because they need money.  It's not out of responsibility to help you, which is why you feel justified in not helping them.  The reality is that these workers take low wages because that is the best that they can get considering their circumstances.  They take jobs with few vacation days, long hours, and barely enough pay because that is their best option.  Isn't that a form of social welfare for you?  You get access to an abundant supply of cheap labor.  The economic system supports this social welfare program for you. So, the problem isn't with social welfare, it's just the fact that you want to be the only recipient of it.  Why should you have this benefit?  Why do you get to pay workers less than what is needed to live comfortably?  Because they have no real choice?


It is true that someone can quit and work at another low wage job, but how is that helpful?  If money is needed to "earn a living," then how free are we really?  So, even though you don't want to be forced to share your resources/wealth, you don't mind forcing others to be deprived of it.  


If you were truly charitable, there would be no reason to force people to share their wealth because deprivation would have been solved already.  You would not be complicit in a system that treats people as commodities.  You didn't pay your mom $4 for a gallon of breast milk when you were an infant nor did you force her to provide it.  She did so, naturally.  In the same vein, why don't you make sure that I have access to what nourishes me so that I become a healthy, happy, and balanced contributor to society?  Is it because you just don't really care?