the problem with wealth
If we had found ourselves in a position where we had more than we needed, and yet there were others who clearly did not have enough, then our natural sense of morality would have impelled us to distribute our surplus appropriately. That is how we humans evolved to think and behave. That was until our decline into civilised society, when we abandoned our highly developed adaptions, including morality, empathy, generosity, and an understanding of fairness (egalitarianism), in favour of the primitive motivations of selfishness and greed, giving rise to unavoidable injustice and poverty.
Having repudiated our natural human morality, the privileged now lurk disdainfully behind the artificial construct of the law, one whose primary function is to protect their wealth and status at the expense of the poor. Nobody earns, or is deserving of, entitlement – it is a contrivance that is distinctly rooted in the hierarchical class structure that is the imposed model for every ‘civilised’ society.
Hierarchy; a primitive arrangement that our sophisticated brains evolved to override, one that unavoidably relies on exploitation and abuse, because it is established on the idea of power, which means power over others.
The real problem with wealth is in its celebration – rather than the condemnation of those who clearly have a blatant disregard for the fundamental notion of fairness – and also in the unbelievable absence of any meaningful limit as to how much money any individual may accumulate.
However, that inequity is most commonly witnessed through the increasing poverty and homelessness that has become a normalised feature within all societies, and through the ongoing media reports of the harrowing conditions that millions of people – displaced by war and the escalating climate crisis – are forced to endure.
By contrast, the uppermost end of the wealth spectrum often remains concealed from public scrutiny, as the ultra-rich retreat into exclusive social spheres, shielded from our view. This distorts our perception of the true scale of economic inequality.
And so, even if we are modestly positioned, we tend shun, or even spurn, those victims who suffer the harsh realities of inequity within our own societies, when we ought to shift our focus towards the rapidly expanding class of millionaires and billionaires, those whose influence and actions are directly linked to those frightening levels of escalating global poverty.
The law, in this regard, is amoral, as it has been designed by the privileged to safeguard their interests, yet it is presented as something that is absolute, if not sacrosanct. A convenient mechanism that undermines reason and compassion, and one that has no consideration for the wider community, let alone the future survival of the human race. The richest 1% – who control 50% of the world’s wealth – pay a mere 0.5% in taxes, and are also responsible for 16% of global carbon emissions.
Indulging in excess, when so many are impoverished, is simply an abuse of privilege; a shameful and unjustifiable departure from our natural disposition. Anyone who thinks that it’s acceptable to bask in such obscenity is not deserving of the classification, Homo sapiens, as they are just immature primates who only understand life in terms of their own self-interest. (The same goes for anyone else who aspires to inhabit such an immoral position.)
to the wealthy
The planet we depend on is in crisis due to your immaturity, and if you persist in not having any regard for its welfare, it is not an exaggeration to suggest that you are culpable for a genocide of the greatest magnitude ever witnessed in our history,
The bottom line; if you cannot see beyond a childlike concern for yourself, and a preoccupation with indulgence and greed, then you are a disgrace to humanity, and your life has been nothing but a mindless act of violence against the incredible phenomenon that life is.
You cannot be both ‘caring and wealthy’ at the same time – it is impossible. Of course, you could try to reconcile this oxymoron by donating a fraction of your surplus to the needy, but that would have to be an overt public demonstration, an attempt to dilute the otherwise unsavoury societal impression that accompanies your destructive lifestyle. The act of giving in this case is used to enhance the public perception of you, the benefactor, rather than being a genuine act of generosity.
philanthropy - being charitable
There is a deep rooted shame attached to greed which has to be masked, and so we have created a society where it is a legal ’right’ for citizens to accrue unlimited excess, whilst others are literally starving. Seeking vindication from this contemptible position by ‘safety in numbers’, or by deferring the shame onto those who are more wealthy, or donating a meagre contribution to a charitable cause, are all pitiable attempts to delude oneself that having more than we need, to the detriment of others, is morally justifiable.
Philanthropy is, in truth, an extension of egotism; an opportunity to both absolve the rich of their guilt, whilst at the same time, gaining notoriety and public praise for their perceived ‘generosity’. But it’s worth remembering – just as the slave will claim that all he wants is to be free, when what he really desires is to be the master – the poor, although literally begging to have just enough, will jump at any opportunity to be unreasonably rich.
However, self promotion is visible in all echelons of society, where people will give money in exchange for a badge, a wristband, a T-shirt, or other merchandise, which expressly announces that they have made a donation to a particular charity or cause. We ought to give for giving’s sake, not as a trade to gain some social cachet.
It is society that has cultivated us all to be selfish and greedy, a destructive deviation from the true character of the human animal we once were, one where the welfare of the community and its future unquestionably took precedence over self-interest.
survival of the fittest
The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, is often misused to justify the idea of ‘survival of the strongest’, as if strength were the measure of survival. But ‘fittest’, in the context of survival, means the most fitting for the environment. Our pursuit of power, wealth, status, and our short-term preoccupation for self-indulgence, is absolutely incongruous if we are to have any prospect of a positive future. It will be the rich who will try to survive our mindless destruction of the planet, by fighting over the dwindling resources and shrinking habitable land, until the climate is too extreme for anything to survive. It is a pathetic and fatal strategy that could easily be avoided if we were to develop our brilliant intelligence and nature-given sense of moral responsibility.
Aug 2024