Front Page
Friday, January 10th, 2003As I have written elsewhere, it is a complete waste of time to expect big government and big business to help us. They are the problem. They are invested in a model of society that depends on separation and scarcity. Big government wants only to get re-elected and big business wants only to make a buck. Together they completely dominate our current political-economic system by their reality of one dollar = one vote. They cannot solve our human crisis. They don’t have a clue. They can only make it worse. It’s up to us. We can only rely on ourselves. We need individuals of integrity to join with us to build a new model of society that depends on co-Operation and abundance. And, by abundance I am referring to an abundance of integrity, intelligence and responsibility. Then we can begin restructuring our society in ways that will lead to a relative abundance of matter-energy even within the finite world we inhabit. Modern society is currently ruled by a political-economic system that is controlled and determined only by money. One dollar = One vote. The only votes that count in our modern human society are the dollar votes you exercise by buying or not buying products. Products found in today’s market can be divided into three categories. These are synergic products, neutral products and adversary products. 1) There are synergic products. The use of these products makes the user more happy, more effective, and more productive than they would be without the use of the product. The product is good for the user. The user must win, but even more importantly, everyone else must win. I win, you win, others win, and the Earth wins. Synergic products are good for humanty. Vote your dollars wisely by only buying those products that help humanity. Buy only synergic products.
2) There are neutral products. The use of these products are without benefit or harm. The users of these products would be equally happy, equally effective, and equally productive without the use the product.
Scott Meridith writing on the Energy Research Group , an internet discussion group in March and April of 2001:
“For example, I’ve often observed that the entire global “soft drink” industry could and would be eliminated in any rational world, as this is a collossal waste of energy and resources, with only two outcomes:
- a brief and mildly pleasurable stupefaction of the senses
- tooth decay“So, is the energy involved in the soft drink industry doing “useful work” or not? From a rational point of view, obviously no. Completely and absolutely useless. Just rots your teeth. Now calculate how much energy it uses, in all aspects, and how many people it directly indirectly employs.”
A neutral product is one that has no effect on the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the user of the product. No one wins. No one loses. Neutral products are of no benefit for humanity.
Since these neutral products have no benefit, buying them is a complete waste of time, energy, and resources. So don’t buy neutral products.
3) There are adversary products. The use of these products are harmful. The users of adversary products are less happy, less effective and less productive than they would be without the use of the product. An adversary product is one that reduces the happiness, effectiveness, and productivity of the user of the product. The user loses, and even worse everyone else loses. I lose, you lose, others lose, and the Earth loses. Adversary products are bad for humanity.
Don’t buy adversary products.
I am often asked, “What I can do to help. How can I make the world work better for all humanity.” All of us could develop our own Buy/Don’t Buy lists.
Apparently human intelligence scientist Daniel Coleman agrees with me. Read our third from a series of letters to President Bush reposted from EDGE. See: 1) Steven Pinker’s letter
2) Kevin Kelly’s letter.Assume President Bush asked you the following question: ”What are the pressing scientific issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advise on how I can begin to deal with them?”
Dear President Bush
Daniel Goleman
One large set of pressing problems our nation and the world face—ranging from growing rates of childhood asthma to global warming—stem in large part from a shared root cause: the cumulative impacts of our habits of consumption. The asthma and global warming, for example, both stem largely from the build-up in the air of particulates from the production (through, say, coal-burning power plants) of the energy we use in our homes and the exhaust of autos. Yet most of us make little or no connection between our own buying habits and concerns like our children’s asthma or the warming of the planet.
The reason: Virtually none of us can give a precise answer to the question,”What are the impacts for health, the environment, our planet’s resources, the gap between rich and poor, of the products we buy? The answers are potentially available, but now are hidden by a fog about the consequences for ourselves and the world of our own actions as consumers.
Yet the multiplier effect—the vast number of people who buy those same products—creates a vast network of inadvertent, adverse consequences. This goes on because we have little or no information about the hidden links between what we buy, and how it impacts our world, our health, our climate, our children. So those of us who complain about or suffer from these problems still continue to be part of their very cause.
My proposal: surface the hidden links between what we buy and the consequential impacts of those products. Then let consumers make choices based on this new information—in a sense,”voting” every time we purchase goods—and let the power of the free market, rather than government policy alone, become a force for improvement.
So, Mr. President, I urge you to deploy the forces necessary to fill in the hidden links between the goods we consume and their impact in the world. Then create a website that consumers could access at the point of purchase—perhaps by passing a palm pilot-like device over the barcode to get to the product-relevant area of the website.
That website should provide immediate data comparing a product to others in its category on any of several dimensions, such as working conditions in factories where components or the product was manufactured; wages (weighted for national norms, etc.); how much energy was used in producing and transporting the product to market; impact on the environment of its production (this alone involves multiple factors, from industrial byproducts like heavy metals and other toxins, to polluting micro-particles); and so on.
Ideally, consumers could determine which of such dimensions were most important in their personal decision to purchase, and so have a built-in logarithm that would pop out the best choices as they wander down the aisles of a store.
As we’ve seen in the diamond industry—with the industry wide effort to certify the source of diamonds to keep from market “blood” diamonds that finance corrupt regimes and civil wars in Africa—consumer preferences can become forces for social, political, environmental and economic good. But this can only be only true if consumers become aware of links that are now hidden.
Such transparency could alter the buying habits of substantial numbers of consumers, and so create a new marketing advantage for some companies. Ethically driven (or simply nimble) companies could find market advantage in becoming the”good guys” in their category, and so gain market share. This could then open up an entirely new arena for competition between companies, creating a financial incentive to find ways to improve the environmental; health, and other consequences of everything from their manufacturing processes to their wage structures.
Of course, gathering the required data poses a formidable task. It can begin modestly, focusing on the easier dimensions of information. But ultimately filling in the missing links could require a Manhattan Project-like intensity of research, that would draw on findings from fields as diverse as industrial engineering and sociology, environmental sciences and economics, biochemistry and systems theory. It might also require the creation of an impartial body to gather and vet the data—something like a mega-Consumer Reports. Perhaps a new cabinet post for transparency, Mr. President?
Copyright ©2003 Edge
More about Daniel Goleman
