Proportions we give for altruism increase when we have more confidence that our basic needs will be satisfied for the foreseeable future. Objectives of altruistic behaviour differ from nurturing the poor to sponsoring concerts to lofting rockets. Individuals enjoy pleasure from satisfying their wants rather than satiating basic needs.
Assume our needs, principally food and security, are met. How do we proportion the remainder? Let’s make two grand divisions. One enhances food and security. Two indulges pure pleasure. The pleasure is not necessarily hedonistic; sitting in front of a TV for entertainment makes us happy. For the other division, we apply funds for welfare and hospitals. Such potential safety nets assuage any concern about future shortfalls. Whether altruistic or egoistic, many individuals have much to play with.
Thanks to technology, our options for pleasure and the amount of pleasure both continue to increase. Our space probes travel beyond the heliopause. Nearly 100 million people leisurely sit for a day to watch the Super Bowl. And, yachts and airplanes get larger and swankier. This shows that excesses, for some, are great.
Sitting for a day to watch TV is fun but if watchers are wise, they follow-up by repairing any harm done by this lethargy. Here, short-term gain may be a cause of long-term pain. Contrarily, putting effort in knowledge has positive results. Orbiting satellites view the Earth and discern weather trends and environment changes. Here, short-term efforts lead to long term benefits. Thus, today’s allocation of excesses has a dramatic effect on the future.
With continual oversupply and growth, we can continue applying excess in whichever altruistic venue we decide. But, our hard-won knowledge tells us that growth can’t continue forever and eventually we will reach a limit. Then, the ratio of wants to needs may change. Will we continue striving for more knowledge in the hopes of long term gain? Or, will we aim for short term gain, for pleasure and let the future deal with whatever arises?
| See the BOOK | SUBSCRIBE |
Mark, you say, “Assume our needs, principally food and security, are met.”
Need for food can be met. However, there no end to our need for ’security’; it can never be fully met. For instance, my current savings, insurance, retirement annuities etc, may be sufficient to ensure that if I stop earning with immediate effect, my family has enough for its needs for the next decade or so — enough for at least one of my two children to start earning a living to support our family.
This is far more security than any animal would enjoy, right? It may also be far more security than any of my millions of ancestors may have had. But I doubt anybody else in my family will feel that this is adequate. And so they would like me to keep working to meet our security needs!
Insurance companies, sellers of annuities, mutual funds, stock markets, marketers of consumer durables etc are continually working at the level of our economies and of our perceptions to ensure that we NEVER reach a point, individually or collectively, when we shall say,”Enough! My needs are satisfied… and therefore, it is time for me to stop growing.”
There are a number of vested interests that have made it their business to keep us all on a perpetually moving treadmill. If we stop, we do so at risk of severe injury!
To stop this infernal device that we call the global economy, large numbers of us will have to risk injury to ourselves and others. But stop it we must!
Warmly,
Krish
Our economies treat our altruism as another need. We are given opportunities with varying degrees of genuineness of satisfying this need — opportunities such as Rotary Clubs, and charities towards various causes.
At the heart of such organizations, one senses a deep-seated cynicism and the same devices that make our economies perpetually grow. These charities milk us as surely as corporates manufacturing various goodies, and motivate us to grow some more! For instance, Rotary International and The Rotary Foundation sets ever higher targets for fund collection year after year, pitting each club, district and zone spread all over the globe against the other. A spree of altruistic competition!
I wonder if you have noticed.
Your reply exactly reflects my own conflicts. I like, enjoy and want my current life style. I know its maintenance, together with the maintenance for others of my community, comes at an appreciable cost. Any augmentations come with an exponential increase in cost. As yourself, I’m not able to convince myself or my family members to drastically reduce our cost of living. Yet, I know it’s not sustainable. Quite a dilemma.
I believe altruism is a base human characteristic. We each satisfy its urgings in our own way. Some like to donate, some like to obtain donations, some like to allocate donations. Given its influence upon the average person, perhaps it’s an avenue toward establishing a sustainable future, and a future with a worthy goal.