Reading Reviews #4

Chicken soup of soul?

The evolution of human species to become intellectual enough to form civilized communities in general diminishes the cruelty of nature. People are different from animals because “life is equal” now. However, as civilization weakens the law of jungle, it cannot be eliminated. Still, 20% of people possess 80% of total wealth. Still, people are ambitious and competitive about resources. Still, people are greedy.

Absolute fairness is hopeless and meaningless. In fact, the concept of “fairness” is yet to be defined. People from various timelines realize this as their instinct so they fight their ways to compete for resources, under different rules. That’s how most people pass on the gene of greed and always ask for more.

Indeed many people have forgotten to do the best in exploiting what they already have but instead they just keep attempting to grasp more. If everyone can pause to consider how s/he’s living with what s/he has got, and whether her/his money practices is serving her/his soulful commitment, the entire humankind could probably refresh itself.

Korten mentions that current economy is not helping the general public in terms of health and happiness. That’s why he is looking for a new economy. I do value his efforts but I really don’t think building a new economy will work, putting aside the low possibility that it would succeed.

As I assumed that the problem is humanity, I’d suggest that the solution is also humanity.

What we can’t change is the rules that are already set. What we can’t do is to outsmart Wall Street people and prevent them from stealing our money. Although this sounds like losers, but what we can do is to change our mindsets.

We need to shift our attention from earning excessive money to make good use of what we have and turn it into high-quality experiences and memory. Money sometimes represent capability and charm, but it can never represent soul; making good use of what is already there can. Money, as an invention our ancestor created to make collaboration easier, is duty-bound to carry meanings and values from here to there. Allocation is mostly better than accumulation, and we are educated to enjoy the pleasure of sharing.

Now, I get that it really sounds like chicken soup of soul, which will be considered as losers for some aggressive people. They may argue that thinking how to make use of what you have rather than pursuing more shows your lack of the ability to pursue more, and so you comfort yourself by praises and beautiful moral adjectives. Well, if you are among the Wall Street geniuses, you are welcome to think that way, as if I had any method to stop you. However, if you are not that ambitious, or if you don’t want to be like them, I would suggest you consider what you have prior to what more you want.

The rationale is not something like “in that way you will find the finest of your innermost soul”, but it is the best outcome of what you can get.

It is also the mentality, the atmosphere, the aura that the country, even the human species, needs to change.

People are competitive. Again, many people don’t like hearing sayings like “you don’t need that much money; you just need a good heart” because that’s for losers. What they don't realize is that this thought could be very detrimental. They could get lost.

So my point is, let the economy stays what it is. Yes, GDP can’t measure the quality of life, but is it really better if we add “quality of life” into consideration when we calculate economy? Will Wall Street greedy merchants suddenly become super nice and start to consider other people’s wellbeing over their profits?

Some may say at least the government will pay more attention to people’s quality of life instead of the dry GDP. That will be a whole new topic about the relationship between a government and its people.