A Time for Choices
That’s the title of a splendid compilation of interviews I’ve been reading, put together by Michael Toms of New Dimensions Radio. He’s interviewed some of the world’s most interesting thinkers about what 9-11 caused them to think.
It’s a fascinating volume. I’ll just draw your attention to one aspect of it. One writer suggests that what we have is a design problem within our society; we have designed a system in which money comes before people. We could easily remedy the human problems if we were to design, and work from a design, that put people first. If we took that as our axiom, of course, we wouldn’t talk about the stock market or business, we’d talk about whether or not human lives were positively impacted. And human lives were certainly impacted on 9-11.
What would this new design look like? Well, the Globe two days ago had some commentators who said that the recent earthquakes in China might actually be good news because they would cause the Chinese to update their infrastructure and the rebuilding would boost the economy. So — all those lives lost, all that misery, and we should be happy because the economy will perk up? THAT’S what it looks like when we have a world design that puts money first.
China’s various infrastructures could have been improved and set right in many ways, and I do not consider the recent earthquakes as some sort of free demolition project that we should all rejoice at. Yet some people are doing just that. Isn’t it interesting how quickly some folks can forget about the corpses of hundreds of people, mostly children?
So, could we redesign the way we see the world, so that we put people first? You bet. Do we want to???
Imagine non-polluting factories that are designed to make work reasonably pleasant, where products are for our benefit, sustainable for the planet, and where the welfare of people was placed first, not profitability. Imagine.
We know how to do this. Here’s an example: in Europe the rail systems used to be nationalized because the thinking was that decent efficient transport made for a society we’d want to live in, where people could get to markets and to work and isolation would be a thing of the past, and social barriers would be eroded gently. It worked. But it never paid. And why should it?
Free libraries, and free museums, and free education all were based on the same thinking. They cost money but are of immeasurable benefit to society and so it is government’s duty to supply them. In the short term they don’t pay - - but in the long term they make for a far better society.
Money or people? Take your choice.
