One thing seems glaringly apparent to me: in a finite world, the =
"resource pie" MUST come to be far more equitably divided among all =
humans. The huge disparity in wealth among "haves" and "have nots" =
(among and within nations) simply has got to shrink vastly. The sooner =
this happens, the better in every way. How it can come to pass is the =
big question, but I suggest we begin by addressing this topic much more =
strongly within the U.S.--it should be a huge issue within our political =
dialogue.

One key realization is that no individual deserves more of the good life =
than does any other. Currently, the allocation of wealth and ease is =
mainly the result of accident of birth. Those who inherit wealth =
automatically remain wealthy and likely become wealthier, and this is at =
someone else's expense (since all wealth is based in part on liquidation =
of natural capital). The same among nations. This system is immoral. =
Some reward should be available in recompense for great creativity, hard =
work, etc., but this reward should be more in terms of social status, =
and not material goods. There should not exist ANY jobs that do not pay =
a living wage. The person who works as a clerk at 7-11, so long as =
he/she plays by society's rules, deserves to have all their needs =
fulfilled, just as much as a university professor or CEO. My ideas on =
this came partly from E.F. Schumaker's "Small is beautiful", a =
tremendously important book. He points out that society provides huge =
benefits to corporations, by providing infrastructure and a (more or =
less) healthy, educated public to work at the corporation's factories =
and buy their products. All this is underwritten by taxes paid by all of =
us. Schumaker would have all corporations belong to the public. I think =
I agree.

One starting point would be to press hard on the topic of the vast =
compensation received by CEOs in U.S. companies--hundreds of times that =
of the average worker in the same company. Does anybody really believe a =
CEO single-handedly creates the true value of a company? (I.e. the new =
ideas and products, not the false, quick payoff produced by a merger). =
No, the engineers and others who receive a small fraction of the CEO's =
salary create these things. Why do we continue to tolerate the huge =
disparities in wealth among individuals, social groups, and nations? =
Rectifying this would go a long way toward putting us on the track to a =
sustainable human endeavor, in my opinion. Indeed, it is difficult to =
imagine very important changes in economies and other aspects of human =
behavior until this glaring issue is resolved.

I would even go this far--all oil and all natural gas (for example) =
should belong equally to all people (with a large allowance to the rest =
of the biota), with some generous formula allocated to future =
generations. Just because the oil is under Texas, why should U.S. =
citizens, or whatever corporation manages to extract it, reap the =
benefits? It is a birthright of the planet, not some lucky subset of the =
planet's inhabitants, again dictated by accident of birth. If this all =
sounds insanely na=EFve and idealistic, so be it--but it is important to =
first decide what is moral and just before deciding what to settle for.

Dave Whitacre

Reply via email to