Q&A: Calculating a New Path
Calculating a New Path
Question
Hi Michi,
I assume you knew Jacob Weinroth, of blessed memory, personally — am I mistaken?
I have a warm spot in my heart for him because he argued that the arrangement between the kibbutzim and the banks — which exploited the kibbutzim — was unjust, and in another matter he took it upon himself to represent a Bedouin girl who had been married off against her will, and who murdered her husband after years of abuse. But I’m writing to you because in one of the eulogies for him in Makor Rishon it was said that he admired Marx and his analyses.
In recent weeks there have been more and more articles about environmental destruction, and that led me to the following thought:
True, the capitalist system of production is far more efficient than the socialist one, but the capitalist system is based on overconsumption. So even if we assume [which isn’t true!] that all the inhabitants of the planet enjoy the abundance of products and services that the capitalist system provides us, future generations will suffer badly.
We know that long-term happiness is not at all dependent on buying new products. I don’t need to tell you what does bring people happiness.
Therefore, the time has come for a different kind of thinking.
Of course there will be many interested parties who will try to sabotage such a move, but they too will understand the rule: if we do not internalize that we depend on one another — we will be dependent beside one another.
And that is precisely the mission of the State of Israel — I have told you more than once that under the specific conditions of the State of Israel, social cohesion is the key factor in our survival. Therefore, whether we want to or not, the State of Israel can serve as a model of socio-economic existence that offers an example and inspiration to the entire world.
That means we need to think about how to develop an innovative economy and a strong society while preserving resources for the future.
I remind you that consumer society is a new phenomenon in the world, and it turns out that just as it appeared, it also needs to disappear!
And if we are thinking about future generations, then we also need, knowingly, to put a limit on the extension of our lives. I think that one of life’s pleasures is seeing the descendants who come after us. And all this without thinking about all kinds of “cyborgs.” So what do you think about all this?
All the best
Answer
I can’t state a sharp, decisive opinion. Both sides you raised are correct, and the question is how to weigh them in practice. We need consumption and capitalism in order for the world to progress, and we also need not to overdo it in order to survive (socially and physically). The big question is not which of the two is more right, but how to balance them.
Discussion on Answer
You’re asking me questions that are too hard. But it’s clear that with complete socialism and without intensive consumerism, it won’t progress.
Since you’re a very intelligent person, I don’t think my questions are too hard, but rather that for your own reasons you don’t want [or aren’t available] to deal with this topic.
No. It really is hard. How can one define the progress of the world in general?
My point of departure is recognition of the equal worth of every human being.
What do you think of my suggestion: to investigate the world around us in every aspect and sense possible — past, present, and future.
To make knowledge accessible to the broad public around the world as much as possible [aside from aspects involving security risks of all kinds].
In my opinion, one of the important issues is giving hope to weak populations around the world that their condition can improve in the real, physical world — not expectation of change from one day to the next. That hope needs to be grounded in reality, which can be changed by practical means. I think that giving this kind of hope is the best way to prevent terror.
I think progress also requires looking for ways to investigate issues that are politically explosive, but מתוך awareness of the equal worth of human beings.
Maybe the short-term solutions will seem improper, but if the intention is truly good, then those who are harmed will be appeased.
Although progress requires making decisions in partnership with as much of the population as possible, we know that this is not always practical.
I’ll leave it at that for now — I have more to say about the biases of agenda and sector. But one thing at a time…
All the best
Learning is one specific aspect. It’s far from being a definition of progress/advancement.
Indeed, I wasn’t clear enough — when I wrote about investigating, learning, and making knowledge accessible to the broader public, I meant that thanks to that knowledge people would be able to use it for progress in all essential areas: food supply, which will become harder, advanced medicine, and all this while coping with increasingly burdensome climate difficulties.
That’s a condition for progress, not progress itself. After all, people could just as well use knowledge for bad purposes too.
Thanks for the wishes of success, but what do you think of my latest definition of progress?
Again I’ll say that this is a condition for progress, not a definition of progress itself. Truth is not synonymous with progress, though it is certainly part of it.
When you say that the world needs to progress — the question is how do you define progress?