Message-ID: <s2da6796.007@crs.loc.gov> Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:44:53 -0500 From: Jonathan Sanford <mailto:JSANFORD@CRS.LOC.GOV> Subject: A high standard of living and a healthy society To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
Dear Peggy,I agree that living standards and the health of society both need to be raised. I just think it is going to be hard to do them wheile also reducing the amount of resources that the world uses. Some other folks seem to think that the most important thing is reducing the use of finite raw materials and lessening the pressure on the environment. They want to reduce the level of world consumption. I think those goals were attainable only if we change world popular attitudes (welcoming deep austerity) or we willingly let some of the world's people die. I don't think the one is achievable and I think the other is immoral or unethical. So I am afraid that we have to be ready to see world resources continue being used at unsustainable rates for a considerable period of time. Changing the name of the economic system or some of its ownership rules is not going to effect this situation.
Jon
>>> The Otts <mailto:ottx4@IX.NETCOM.COM> 01/11/97 07:25am >>>
Dear Jon,I finally have to enter this discussion. This is not just in response to your message, but to the direction this whole discussion has taken.
It seems that the focus has been on the acquisition of material wealth, by individuals, corporations and nations as the measuring stick for an increasing standard of living. While I do not disagree with this completely, I feel it does not go far enough. We must also look at other quality of life issues. Who can say that the standard of living is better when material things are readily available and affordable, but at the same time the crime rate increases, especially among young people; the divorce rate increases bringing with it broken families; the poverty rate increases, especially among children; and the gap between the rich and poor increases while the size of the middle class decreases?
Could these not also be reasons why capitalism is not sustainable?
Is it possible to have both? -- a high standard of living in terms of acquisition of material things _and_ a healthy social structure?
Jonathan Sanford wrote (among other things):
> Only by lowering overall living standards, letting some people remain
> impoverished, or by compressing the use of resources relative to
> output can we reduce the pace at which resources are used. I do not
> know of any economic system which has wide popular support that
> promises (brags) that it will reduce popular living standards or let
> some starve so others can live well. Advocates of some type of
> socialist system argue that they can improve living standards
> overall--they don't promise gradual impoverishment.
Peggy Ott