Renaissance
/rɪˈneɪs(ə)n(t)s,rɪˈneɪsɑːn(t)s,rɪˈneɪsɒ̃s/
noun
- the revival of European art and literature under the influence of classical models in the 14th–16th centuries.
- a revival of or renewed interest in something.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, the economy is unlikely to pivot to a healthier model any time soon, because the system has been designed to feed greed. Capitalism itself is a broken model, because it puts the focus on profit, where success is collecting as much token as possible, by any means possible, legal or illegal. Legality only comes into it when caught breaking the law. But the profit-focused model is broken because ultimately it has to consume itself, as wealth gathers in fewer and fewer hands, until there is a single owner. Of course, it isn't quite as clean cut as this with competition and failure, but this is what the model encourages. It is a "strong survive" model, but the strong aren't the ones who necessarily bring value, but those who are able to control the system.
Unchecked, it leads to a complete dictatorship.
But the dictatorship fails.
Because in order for profits to be made, value has to be transferred and the more efficient and effective this becomes, the less value is available to transfer, as consumers are no longer able to afford to consume. Unabated, capitalism eats itself into starvation, because it acquires all of the food source it needs to survive, money.
However, to keep the game going for longer, debt models were introduced so that the food source wouldn't run out. Instead, inflation could be added to whatever currency is used so that it can then be distributed to consumers through various mechanisms so they can then transfer it into the profit-seeking system, where it is then transferred again into the pockets of the wealthy, who then transfer it again into more profit-seeking activities. However, none of this has to bring actual value to humanity, instead the assumption that "money equals value" is made. Which is a strange assumption, since money itself is representative and has no value in and of itself. The only value money has is as a tracking mechanism, and what it is currently tracking, is how poorly our activities align with human wellbeing.
Which gets me into the renaissance definition.
Currently, the world is going through a transition that is driven by multiple facets of activities, with technological and political dominating the direction. Artificial intelligence and automation in general is likely going to decimate many industries and consume a large proportion of the work we currently do, while politicians keep trying to maintain the profit-seeking game for longer in order to satisfy the desires of the greedy. The "greedy" being all of us, since we largely no longer operate as a collective society for a common good, but in our own self-interest untethered to a community.
But this current transition is going to leave us with multiple problems to face, because the profit model economy of capitalism will increasingly struggle to feed itself, which will mean it will keep looking for more efficiencies. Those efficiencies come from reducing costs, which ultimately means headcount. But that reduction will mean less people will have the ability to consume goods and services, and more people will become reliant on governments in order to survive. The governments then will of course look to shore up their public finances, making cuts and increasing taxes, which then disrupts the system even further, leading to massive imbalance where the majority are struggling to keep breathing, and the minority can't keep increasing their profits to satisfy shareholders.
Something has to change.
Again, unfortunately human nature is what it is and will choose convenience over disruption, which means that we likely will not make a shift until forced. So at some point, likely when it is too late, we will try to enter into a new renaissance. The renaissance was triggered by a rediscovery of old texts and humanism, which actually fostered individualism. However, humanism was mostly about creating "well-rounded" citizens, focusing on human potential and active civil life, rather than the afterlife.
However, humanism has been rapidly replaced in the last decades by consumerism, where the individual has been influenced and leveraged by the corporation in a way that has reduced human potential and civic activity. People have become disjointed from community, and are only interested in what makes them feel good now, which is rarely what makes them better now, nor in the future. And this move has been done in order to keep the profit game going, so that wealth can be made, while human life degrades. And the debt money model facilitates more of this, so countries like the US can attract profits by printing more debt, holding back human potential.
It was mentioned in a comment from an earlier article about how the US has driven a lot of invention, which I think is more innovation. This is absolutely true. However, I think it would be useful for society to identify and evaluate what innovation is valuable for human improvement, and what is not. As I see it, while there is potential for some of the innovations to make a positive impact, most are only created in order to drive a profit improvement. Everything from technological advancement to pharmaceutical treatments are created for a bottom line maximisation, not for a human result maximisation. Every new technology fails and business, unless it turns a profit, no matter if it improves our lives or not.
Human success and commercial success should be intrinsically connected, where innovation and business activity is made to serve the purpose of creating "well-rounded" individuals who are active participants in building a healthy society. The human renaissance could be the reimagining of what is valuable, where "profit" isn't calculated in money, but in the creation of wellbeing of individuals and society as a whole. Corporations should be rewarded for finding ways of helping us reach our potential, not for finding ways to more efficiently extract money by lowering our potential. And governments (if they must exist in a similar form to today) should be forced to act toward this goal also, aligning economic incentives to human improvement outcomes.
It actually wouldn't be that hard to organise this, but what holds us back is our legacy activities and mindset. We are riddled with wounds of the past, conflicts based on old thoughts, processes and activities that hold us back from advancing and keep us doubling down on the status quo. To shift to a new model, we would have to let go of the past, which is disruptive to who we are as individuals and how we have organised ourselves as groups. It challenges us because we would have to give up on misguided beliefs that have us subscribed to a "who we are, so cannot change" approach to life.
We would have to exchange profit for wellbeing.
This doesn't just mean buying wellbeing, although economically that is what it might look like. It is about destroying the fallacy we hold so dear in our mind that money equals wellbeing. We have to take a step back from the trajectory we are on and ask ourselves what is actually important for humanity, and whether profit at any cost is going to get us there. Because ultimately, it cannot, because it leads to systemic failure. What is valuable for society might differ person to person, but I suspect there are a lot of overlaps in the way we would want to live and behave.
For a little thought experiment, imagine yourself sitting down to your favourite meal, perfectly cooked. It might be a steak, a pizza, or a rich curry. You take some on your fork and bite into it, fully tasting the flavours bursting in your mouth. It is the best you have ever had.
You are not alone. Sitting at the table watching you is a group of starving children, malnourished, skinny arms with elbows protruding, their eyes sunken, their collarbones sticking out, their rib cages exposed. And they have no food in front of them.
Does the food still taste as good and is that the kind of person you want to be?
This experiment is not about privilege and guilt, it is about recognising our nature when in the company of others. It is inconvenient, but the majority of us would not want to be in that situation, because it breaks our illusion that everything is okay, that somehow things will work out well. We don't want to acknowledge that profit at any cost creates a highly unequal world that will cause increasing amounts of suffering, because we want to hold onto our own convenience and the false belief that we are not part of the problem.
But we are. All of us.
Because we keep supporting the broken economic model being gamed by debt and efficiency practices in order to keep the illusion going. We keep avoiding the reality that if we actually want to succeed as a species, we have to put the wellbeing of humanity at the forefront, rather than trying to keep destroying pieces of humanity to keep the illusion continuing. We need to start putting humans first so that individuals are empowered to be the best version of ourselves, which is intrinsically linked to also being a positive force in society. Whether it be innovation in AI, automation, medicine, art or any other field, it should all ultimately be put under the pressure test of "is it good for us" and if not, we defund it.
But as said, human nature being what it is, rather than a renaissance of focus on human excellence being started now, we will keep playing the same old games with the inevitable result, until we are in such a painful position that we collapse into a heap. And along the road, we will keep believing the illusion we have created, where we are not responsible, that we have no power, and that the system we support is the only way.
And that is the uncomfortable reality we have to face.
We would rather believe, than be.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
