Some Thoughts on Human Well-Being
Sometimes I try to imagine what I would consider a fair and just world, a world where every person is afforded the most basic of human needs, one where the rights of a person come before ideologies and dogma, one where the basic well-being of a person comes before political banter and rhetoric. Imagine a world where the important things like food, water, shelter, access to medicines, access to education, equality of opportunities, and the right to exist come first, before the endless money-grabbing of corporations and obfuscation of facts by governments for political gain. Imagine, just for a minute, that this is not only possible, but necessary for the survival of humanity.
This world may sound like a utopian dream, but if we stop for a minute to think about what we want as individuals, and what we would like for others, this all becomes quite simple. I propose that we could create this world, but to do this it would take a shift in our consciousness, and some people, namely those who have something to lose, may have trouble relating to what I am proposing.
Firstly, consider this statement: There is, for each of us, a bottom-line, a state where our basic needs are met. This is the lowest acceptable form of well-being. Yet it’s not enough to just supply or allow these basics to be available, since there are so many ways these things become complicated or obscured by the wants of others. There is a way for the well-being of others to not only be available, but to be exceeded, and this is what we need to aim for into the future. There is, in all the possible futures we could create for ourselves, a way for humanity to thrive, and not simply be satisfied with limping on into the future.
The well-being of others is secondary, in most people, to the well-being of ourselves. However this does not mean to say that our well-being does not depend upon the well-being of others, quite the opposite in fact. If we live in a society where each of us is afforded the needs and dignities of a “good life”, then the general populace of that society is bolstered and is more capable to sustain this level of being. Unfortunately for us, we suffer from an incurable “need” for more; More money, more possessions, more objects. This is innate within our species, because once we go beyond the basics, our minds tell us that we need more to save for less abundant times. We crave more because we do encounter times where food and water are scarce, and by setting ourselves up for these leaner times, we effectively create a way to survive them. The problem here arises when times are good all the time, and this is where personal, corporational and governmental greed come into play.
In poorer countries we see again and again the corruption that can arise in governments and religious institutions, where the leaders and spiritual advisers have more, exceedingly more, than the populace, and the people who live in these environments suffer because of their lack of access to the basics in life.
I am sure that most people don’t set out to create misery when gathering wealth. In fact, it is quite apparent that the struggle for more, in those who already have more than they could possibly ever use in a lifetime, is almost an addiction, an illness of in which a lack of perspective on the rest of the world surfaces. What good can come from having gold tapware? What is the actual benefit of owning seventeen cars? It’s not security, it’s just plain greed. This mental state, the greed that masquerades as a need for security, is a plague that infects all cultures at some level, and is something that needs to be addressed at a societal level; Informing those who have the greed infection are not willing hear that it’s a problem, and continue on as though it’s a virtue.
Sam Harris, in his controversial book “The Moral Landscape” says:
In this instance Harris is talking of religion, and with particular reference toward Islam. But the same could be said for governments and individuals. The perspective that is missing here is one of empathy at a human level. We stop seeing people as individuals when their numbers amass at a figure as low as twenty people, so how can numbers in the millions be even quantifiable in the mind of someone making decisions about these millions?
What I propose is not socialism in the popular sense, but a redistribution of wealth is needed in order for this to happen. Those top 20 billionaires, the ones that own the media, the mining and the fossil fuels, will die very rich people, and pass their legacy on to their progeny. And so the cycle continues, while the gap between the rich and the poor widens by the day. There is no way these people can possibly use their amassed wealth, but they will never redistribute it either.
Governments have the power to tax the very rich and powerful, but are too scared to do this because they have actually allowed the corporations to have so much sway on a free-market system that they can actually hold a country or government in an impasse, an unworkable situation where no further progress is possible because of corporations’ refusals to come to the table over emissions trading, free-trade agreements, or any other number of issues that may affect the fiscal workings of the country or countries.
This movement, of discovering and moving toward the base of human well-being cannot come from governments, it cannot come from corporations, and it cannot come from religious institutions, for none of these establishments hold our basic well-being as something to work toward. Governments, corporations and religious institutions simply want our subservience, thereby allowing them to thrive and exist. This movement must come from a groundswell, from a grassroots level within society, which includes each and every one of us.
In 1981, a group of social scientists gathered together to create the World Values Survey. This is described as:
Some of the key criteria this survey has identified include:
- How beliefs play a key economic role in economic development;
- The levels of gender equality and the effects this has on government;
- The extent to which various governments are effective within their populace.
While this is by no means an exhaustive list, and I have no idea how seriously the WVS is taken by those in serious study of human well-being, these criteria are just some of the measures by which we can begin to gauge the success of a society, and the level of well-being within that society. People tend to have a better sense of well-being when they feel they have a certain amount of control over their situations, and societies that value gender equality, democracy, bodily autonomy, freedom of speech and freedom of religion, show a marked improvement in the well-being that the people of this society feel.
I ask you, regardless of your religious, social or political views, what are the most important things to you in your daily life?
Physical safety and security must rank up there somewhere near the top. The well-being of your family and friends would also make a showing. Access to food, water, health, clean air, shelter, all are of paramount importance. When you see someone without this, you feel sorry for them, which just goes to show what a broad foundation our well-being actually inhabits.
We depend upon one another for well-being, and the better the well-being of those around us, the better ours will tend to be.