Following the election that will certainly have a major effect on the direction our country takes over the next few years, I want to write about... my razor. Bear with me. I got a free-sample Schick triple-bladed razor in the mail about six months ago. It’s ugly as sin but I'm still shaving with the same blade six months later, with no noticeable change in the quality of the shave. This has to be a big mistake on the part of Schick company, unless they were crafty enough to seed a few near-infinite-life razor blades into the population in hopes that hordes would buy the regular two-weeks-to-the-trash models after hearing the raves. The main point is there's a sizeable economy based on the continuous production and disposal of razor blades. This is where I start thinking out loud with some deep thoughts, going beyond Occam’s Razor into oversimplification:
There are two kinds of economy in the world.
The first is the consumer economy. People make things and provide services for other people to buy. The continuous exchange provides great wealth for those with the largest resources and greatest ability to provide specialized services. When everything runs well it benefits even those with few resources or specialized abilities at least enough for them to survive and show up for work the next day. The difference in wealth between these two extremes is monumental, and the range follows a known distribution. We point out that this is what motivates the creators; without it, we wouldn't be creating all these great things and services and the organizations that provide them, and then the less resource-full people would really be hurting. Some things that may bother us about this economy are: (1) It drives us to buy things we don't really need. We start to feel responsible for working very hard so we can buy and consume more. It’s based on a kind of greed. Our lives become empty. (2) Every producer/consumer exchange, down to the eventual disposal of the goods, involves some waste -- there's entropy all along the way in the form of pollution and spent energy resources. (3) It will grow until it’s not sustainable, and along the way lots of people will die badly.
This is the "unthinking economy". It works on its own with little conscious control (excepting that of Mr. Greenspan). Population and the manufacture and exchange of goods and services will expand until the growing population uses all the available resources at a rate that is just barely sustainable and life is just bearable for some threshold number of people. (Well, we can hope that people tend to have fewer children if they're crowded and miserable, but is there evidence of this?) There doesn't seem to be much we can do about all this. It's too big for us. This election is one small but significant example: we're too dumb en masse to rein it in, or those who benefit most are able to influence those who benefit least, through highly researched, extremely effective mass media-based influence. (This influence is perpetuated when television lets overworked, disconnected people feel connected to other humans, however paltry that connection may be.) If resources actually run out too fast, population will change drastically to accommodate the fact. If the disparity between the comfortable and the miserable becomes too great, there'll be social upheaval. We can say that this humans-on-earth organism really is an organism, but we can't say that it's a conscious one, and certainly not an intelligent one (Can the Internet begin to change that by bringing geographically scattered minds together?)
The other economy is the economy of the individual and the direct community, where we can operate consciously in our daily lives with the people we come in contact with. We can even choose what we buy or don't buy with a measure of care. A lot of what’s important to us in the community where we actively choose to work (apart from our jobs, or even there if we’re fortunate) is in direct opposition to the dumb economy. It’s where our exchanges with each other are not material – in fact there’s often an uncomfortable feeling if commerce intrudes. We work to help each other. Sometimes it’s simple tit-for-tat neighborliness. Sometimes it’s working as a group on something that has no commercial potential (music or sports for example). Sometimes it’s helping disadvantaged strangers as part of an organized effort – a real attempt to compensate for the disadvantages of the unthinking economy.
Some of the major differences in our beliefs about the role of government – classically the difference between democrats and republicans – seem to hinge on how well we think the consumer economy (what I’ve called the unthinking economy) works to make for a good society. Once, on a short airplane trip, I got into general political discussion with the fellow next to me. He thought government should be involved in assisting people as little as possible. I wanted to get to the bottom of our differences. I asked him if he thought everyone, no matter what the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, had a decent chance for a good life in this country – a chance to make a big improvement for themselves if necessary. He said yes. He thought that everyone has the ultimate capacity to overcome any disadvantages on their own, if they really want to. So in five minutes I’d found our fundamental difference. I believe it’s valuable to help people in tough circumstances, and that sometimes some people really need help. (I don't have the whole free will thing sorted out well enough to believe otherwise.) I do think it’s best when done for individuals and small groups by individuals and small groups rather than big organizations. Individual care is the coin of this second economy. But the unthinking economy is huge and the Pareto distribution is a blind fact. So I think government has a role in helping too.
Several of the blogs on my blogroll had some role, recent or otherwise, in influencing me to write this rambling post, but particularly Steve, David, and Kurt. They deserve credit, but no blame.
November 06, 2002 08:19 PM