What is the "right" thing to do is also subjective, and not an absolute.
What is "right" is also usually related to the idea of what is "good."
At the end of it all, what is "right" and what is "good" are related to the instinct for human survival, either as individuals or societies, or any sub-group.
The most narrow will take a very small group and champion its cause.
The more open will cast a larger net and embrace more kinds of people and groups .
The most liberal will be those who see people as one category, or better people and animals and nature as one, or the solar system as one, or the whole universe as one.
Those who are most liberal will de-emphasize their own individuality and focus on the commonalities with other kinds and other species.
In economic policy, we have been pushing too much economic growth based on growth of capital through investment, at the expense of the well-being of workers or the environment. We think capital holds the future, more so than the environment. That is narrow thinking.
The broad economic thinking is to embrace the environment as part of the economic process.
When human beings do not fear death or the existence of its own species, then there should be a case to limit the growth of the human race on this earth at some point, before its natural limit.
3 comments:
These are profound words that I strongly agree with. Is there a need for modern humankind to accumulate so much? Is it necessary to have material wealth as the measure of success? Could this value system be the true cause of modern human misery? How can we shift to a system that values intellect and education over crass materialism? I know dynastic China and ancient Athens have their drawbacks, but their idealisation of knowledge and learning and philosophy as the pinnacle of society is something that we need to re-visit. What do you think, O' Guru?
That brings me to "Wisdom vs Ignorance" in the next post...
I look forward to it. Teach us, O' Guru!
Post a Comment