Unmasking Fear and Greed: The Real Reason We Disagree About the Future
What is the vision of flourishing humanity? Easy.
I proposed the following five pillars:
Peace. People living without fear of war, conflict, or oppression.
Prosperity. Access to resources to live a comfortable life. Food, shelter, healthcare, education, other necessities.
Progress: Supporting scientific research, tech advancements, and creative endeavors that enrich lives and expand knowledge.
Sustainability: Using resources so that future generations can enjoy the same quality of life that we do today, reducing waste, preserving natural resources, and minimizing environmental impact.
Healthspan: Live longer, healthier lives. Prevent and treat diseases, promote healthy lifestyles, provide access to quality healthcare.
Common objections to these rosy ideals.
Despite the benefits of the vision outlined above, there are naysayers.
The common complaints are driven by the following culprits: fear of change, love of adversity, desire for competition, attachment to hierarchy, discomfort with abundance, and misguided moral objections. All the above ultimately stem from fear, ignorance, and selfishness. Let’s review the dossiers of these “usual suspects.”
Root causes of dissent
Fear can make us resistant to change, even when beneficial. When we fear the unknown, we cling to the familiar, even if not in our best interest. When we fear losing our position or status, we resist changes that disrupt hierarchy.
Ignorance. (Motivated reasoning or simple mistakes.) For example, the misconception that traditional adversity is universally necessary for personal growth, even if evidence suggests otherwise.
Selfishness or fanaticism is another source of dissent. For instance, those who believe adversity is essential for growth and virtues might want to foist that perspective on everyone.
The perp is unwilling to consider alternative views or the morality of allowing people to seek out adversity by choice; instead, so they can feel comfortable and grounded, they want to impose traditional forms of adversity on everyone involuntarily.
All the above can be reduced to fear, ignorance, and selfishness, and refuting these impulses is essential to building a more inclusive, equitable, and prosperous world.
“Sounds nice, but who will pay for it?”
Instead of getting caught up in feasibility or “who will pay for it” arguments, first be vigilant in establishing that a flourishing society is really something your opponents wants. First find common ground on what we'd wish to do and then go into the feasibility argument.
A feasibility argument can be a cover for deep-seated lack of desire for the outcome discussed. If we establish fear, greed, and ignorance at the outset, we can save ourselves the time of having the feasibility argument and instead work on mitigating the root cause of the debate: that the outcome, whether feasible or not, isn’t desired.
This is tricky to bring out in the open, but it’s worth the effort. Because suppose we don't share the same vision for what we want and don't share the same values and ideologies.
In that case, why get lost in fruitless feasibility debates? They’d only be riddled with circular deflections and obfuscations, in obedience to the root cause of your opponent’s dissent.
Discussing shared values and goals for a flourishing society, irrespective of feasibility, should be mandatory before delving into feasibility issues.
So much comes down to what people care about in the heart of hearts – and what people care about involves emotion.
Conflicting values are the culprit for so much disagreement, not whether something will work. The feasibility part is a red herring.
If our values are aligned, we can find a way to make anything work.
The big question is, what are our values, and why are they not aligned?
The answers may be complicated, but we must confront them if we are to make much progress on debates over economics and the future.