Skip to main content

Is Greed Really the Only Answer?

You have probably noticed that, according to what we hear and read in the media, it seems that whatever the problem facing Americans today is, it can be solved if we throw more money at it – political, economic, medical, educational, military, energy, etc. All we need is more money and all of our problems would be solved. If you look at the way the US Money Supply is expanding, from about six trillion in 2001 to over 14 trillion in 2007, and you believe that more money is all we need -- then we should not have many problems left.

Dr. Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. His latest book, Arguing For Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialog, is a must read for anyone that considers religion or politics an important part of life. Dr. Jensen addresses the question of whether greed is the only thing we can trust in to get people to do what is needed to solve many of today’s problems. Below are quotes from his book:

    “The concentration of wealth affects the distribution of power. In a nation where the top 1% of the population controls 35% of the wealth and the top 20% of the population controls 85% of the wealth, we can’t talk about political equality without talking about economic inequality. A crucial question is whether this distribution of wealth is consistent with anyone’s moral principles. A central question that is routinely ignored is: Are our economic and political systems compatible? . . . .

    “The most important argument about human nature made today is in the theory behind contemporary capitalism, the claim that the inequality in our system is in the best interest of everyone. Capitalism asserts that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, we must reward greedy, self-interested behavior to create a rational and efficient economic system. Such a system is so creative and productive, the argument goes, that we should accept the inequality that results.

    “Taken to an extreme, this view suggests this scheme is the essence of rationality itself: To be rational is to maximize one’s self-interest, especially in the acquisition of material goods and services. . . . We all are capable, of course, of being greedy and self-interested. And we also are capable of sacrificing for others, including for strangers. Competition is part of human nature, as is cooperation.”

Dr. Jensen includes an interview with Abe Osheroff, a lifelong political activist in his 90s, who reveals some very important insights.

    Robert Jensen: There are two different paths to go down here. One is to say to people, “Listen, I understand that you want all these material things, but if you put aside that greed there is something in the long run that will serve you better.” Or you could say, “I know you want these things, but you have to train yourself not to want them because they aren’t of any real value.” Which is politically more efficiency and more realistic?

    Abe Osheroff: You don’t have to get rid of the instinct for material things to do this. You begin to practice, to learn that it’s more rewarding to pursue a path that brings real love and affection. Everybody needs love. Everybody needs affection. Everybody needs validation. It’s a central problem of human life, and very few people really get those things . . . . When I faced this bribe, I discovered there was a part of me that wanted  the money, but luckily there was something that I wanted more of. . . And I can articulate that now, even if I couldn’t always:

    “The only thing in human life you can give away and not be left with less is love and affection. It is simple, but not everyone understands this. If I give you some of my money, I have less. But, if I give you love and affection, I don’t have less, I have more. It’s the only thing in human relations that is guaranteed to grow like that. I’ve learned that the hard way, and I still have things to learn about it. But that’s at the center of what I try to teach activists – the importance of the role of love.

    “So what should we value more than material comfort? Love and affection, respect and validation. . . There will always be also in the human community – sometimes on a larger scale and sometimes on a smaller scale – deep-seated resistance to greed as the dominant feature of life. Even without being political, people live that way, just out of being loving people.”

As I pointed out above, Dr. Jensen’s book, Arguing For Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialog, is a must read. For more info about it or to buy it go to – http://amzn.to/14lfwqu

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why did they lay their coats at Saul's feet?

The witnesses, laying their coats at the feet of Saul, were the men that would cast the first stones at Stephen in Acts 7. Why did they all lay their coats at Saul’s feet? The Talmud contains a very interesting account of the act of stoning that may provide the answer. “When the trial was over, they take him [the condemned person] out to be stoned. The place of stoning was at a distance from the court, as it is said, ‘Take out the one who has cursed.’ [i] A man stands at the entrance of the court; in his hand is a signaling flag [Hebrew   sudarin = sudar , ‘scarf, sweater’]. A horseman was stationed far away but within sight of him. If one [of the judges] says, ‘I have something [more] to say in his favor,’ he [the signaler] waves the   sudarin , and the horseman runs and stops them [from stoning him]. Even if [the condemned person] himself says, ‘I have something to say in my favor,’ they bring him back, even four of five times, only provided that there is some substance to...

The Moment the Humans Created Shame in the Garden in Eden

For readers of most English translations, this is a story about two naked people who didn’t know they were naked until they ate the forbidden fruit . The reason God told them to not eat that fruit was because he didn’t want them to know they were naked or he was testing their obedience to him . As I pointed out in earlier emails, the serpent wasn’t Satan and this was not a battle between God and Satan over the souls of all people who will ever live. So what did the original author of the story want his readers to learn? Continue to read at - https://mailchi.mp/3e270c10e81d/the-moment-the-humans-created-shame-in-the-garden-in-eden

The Religious Landscape in America from 1775 to 1850

The Great Awakening swept the English-speaking world, as religious energy vibrated between England, Wales, Scotland and the American colonies in the 1730s and 1740s. Between 1776 and 1850 there was not only a huge growth in religion in America, there was also a shift in popularity. See lists of religions in America during those two periods. https://mailchi.mp/073b87f38395/the-religious-landscape-in-america-from-1775-to-1850