The Meaning of Life and Other Vegetables

The entire modern economics, starting with Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776), is premised on the notion of Scarcity: Resources are not unlimited, and are NOT sufficient for everyone. There ISN’T enough to go around. That was the assumption and that was the argument. This might have been true in 1776, but is it true today?… Scientific and technological progress have certainly radically changed the human condition in the intervening two and a half centuries. I would argue that today there IS enough to go around for all 8+ billion humans that inhabit the planet, at least as far as basic physical needs go.

There is a deeper, mental level to Scarcity though. It’s not necessarily a physical condition; it’s a state of mind. “If I don’t get everything that I want, it might indicate that there isn’t enough. I didn’t get everything that I wanted because my neighbour got some. There isn’t enough for both of us, and since they got something, they’re in the way of me having it all.” Of course, that brings up the question of what that “all” is. Since there are no bounds to human desire, there are no limits to greed, and no matter how well off we are – as individuals, as societies and as a species – some of us will always feel the pinch of perceived scarcity.

What’s wrong with Scarcity, you ask? Doesn’t it drive progress, even technology and science themselves? That might be true; however, the notion of Scarcity gave birth to the almighty, contemporary god Efficiency. If we believe that available resources are insufficient, we have a practical, and maybe even a moral obligation to make the absolute best use of them. Efficiency means how well we use given resources to promote a goal. Maximum Efficiency means using the least resources possible to get us the closest possible to the goal. Of course, if the goal is not well-defined it’s hardly possible to consistently measure Efficiency (in static terms; improvement in Efficiency might be implemented and measured even when the goal is not well-defined).

The problem is that the concept has become the master of its users. If we don’t know what the goal is, and haven’t stopped to think about (let alone take control over it), then we’re simply being “efficient” for the sake of being efficient (or at least for feeling that we are). “Use as little resources as possible to drive as much outcome as possible.” Which outcome? Does it really matter?… Seems like it doesn’t, to a lot of people. If we make “a lot of things” that look and feel nice, then we’re getting there – right?…

Efficiency is never absolute. It is always relative to a given goal. A given use of resources may yield maximal output towards a specific goal, but very little (or none) towards another. It might even be detrimental to some goals. What might seem like a highly efficient system may actually be totally inefficient, and even destructive – depending on perspective.

Either way, efficiency in approaching a goal is critical only if we accept the premise of Scarcity; with Scarcity as a starting point, lack of efficiency will make the situation worse – the more waste, the less left for everyone in the end. I claim, however, that the current apparent lack in fulfilling everyone’s basic physical needs is not due to real scarcity. With the right intentions and coordination, everyone on the planet could have their basic physical necessities provided. It’s true that this could be achieved with varying levels of efficiency, that is – varying levels of resources input; but lack of efficiency (in other words, waste) is not what’s preventing it. I claim that what’s preventing it is the prevailing developed-world ethos of individualism-above-all, the prioritisation of the self and the individual over the collective.

One could argue that it’s a noble aspiration to fulfil everyone’s basic needs with the least possible resources; why waste?

I would agree; but argue back that once a system is established and working, its efficiency can be improved over time. If indeed the goal is to provide for everyone, achieving this goal first (at whatever efficiency) should be prioritised over the current view that “efficiency is more important than anything else”. Once the goal has initially been achieved, the system supporting it can be gradually made more and more efficient, to conserve resources.

That’s it for today. Peace to all.