Today I want to talk about a concept that, if I think about it for a moment, I end up putting into practice, but one I don’t necessarily agree with to the point of considering myself a communist.
As a young man, before I was old enough to vote, my views tended to be much more left-leaning than they are today. Although this shift came about—I’m almost certain—in response to my first paycheck.
At that time, I was faced with a challenge, even though I was very happy about taking my first step toward financial independence from my parents and about being able to cover my monthly expenses—such as water, electricity, or even the internet and my mortgage payment (which came up a few years later, when I bought a house)—with my own salary. Between these last two episodes, there was a very long gap—almost sixteen years. I started working in 2004, and I didn’t buy my own home—which I’m still paying off to the bank—until 2010.
At that point, I realized just how large a portion of my income was going toward Social Security or income taxes.
At that point, something inside me changed. I stopped believing in such an idealistic model, in which resources should be redistributed equitably among the entire population, and began to advocate for a model of social democracy, where government policies should be implemented to generate more wealth for the country, and the government should then support all citizens who are unable to earn an income that guarantees them a minimum standard of comfort, security, health, and education. And ever since then, that is how I have felt—both personally and politically.
Not long ago, a friend of mine lent me a (short) book that talks a lot about an old custom that existed in local communities, in which people shared their possessions with their neighbors rather than seeking to accumulate them, and in which there was a redistribution of those possessions, leading to a sense of fulfillment and gratitude that would emerge from the other side at a later time.
She told me about this book and its story, since she identifies much more with a model of left-wing politics and state social support—with a government that is more interventionist and protectionist—rather than one focused on stimulating job creation and wealth for the country as a common good.
I haven’t managed to finish the book yet, but I should be able to do so by tomorrow afternoon, since—as I told you—it’s short and very easy to read, even though it contains concepts and ideas that underpin a mindset requiring some time for reflection on the part of readers. The book is called "The Serviceberry: An Economy of Gifts and Abundance" and was written by Robin Wall Kimmerer. In this book, the botanist explores the idea that we should consume only what we truly need, and that if by chance we have more than we need for our well-being, sharing it with someone in the community will foster a sense of trust and a social bond that will endure and generate further exchanges and greater wealth within the community.
Today I was reading a little more about a theory that was first introduced by the economist William Ford Lloyd and then, nearly a hundred years later, revived and popularized by the economist Garret Hardin.
This theory involves the concept of a limited resource. To illustrate, let’s imagine that in a certain village community, there is a small lake with fish, and that this lake is used by about four fishermen from the village to catch fish for their daily consumption.
Let’s imagine that the lake has a certain number of fish—for example, eight—and that every day, each pair of fish is capable of producing one new fish that will fully mature in 24 hours (solely for the sake of simplifying this example).
Now, the four fishermen have one fish each at their disposal every day, and in this way, the lake’s fish population will never decline. But here’s the question: How many fish will each fisherman need?
When we adopt a mindset of getting the best possible outcome for ourselves without considering what might be left for others, there’s a natural tendency to think that if we catch more, we’ll have more—since, if we don’t consume the fish ourselves, we can sell it to someone else.
But this is where the real problem begins, according to economist Hardin and botanist Kimmerer. By seeking the best for ourselves in the short term, we are in fact contributing to a more difficult life in the future. I’ll continue with the example of the fishermen: If a fisherman catches more than one fish from the lake per day, there will immediately be fewer fish the next day, as the fish population will decline over time. This will cause the price of each fish to rise after a few months, because by then, true scarcity—driven by market forces and the laws of supply and demand—will make the fish more valuable.
That fisherman who sought immediate profit—and all the others—will face even greater difficulties in the coming months, as there will not be enough fish to meet the needs of each of the four fishermen.
I believe, however, that more rational and less impulsive consumption is indeed something our societies should strive for. We should not seek to immediately consume quantities of goods we do not need to satisfy our needs, nor should we hoard goods in a way that creates a societal need to raise the price of each of those items as a result of such action.
Short-term self-interest leads to widespread harm for the entire community in the long run.
In other words, an opportunity for an individual to benefit personally in the short term will have a detrimental effect on the general population in the long term.
In the example given, catching as many fish as possible for oneself leads to a decline in the population of fish capable of reproducing, ultimately resulting in the lake existing only as a barren water source.
Optimizing for short-term personal gain is not good for anyone, including yourself, in the long run.
Another example is beef cattle farming. The use of antibiotics may lead to obvious short-term profits for the producer and a reduction in the cost of the product for the consumer—who sees the price per kilo of meat decrease, due to the greater availability of meat at a lower production cost—but this policy also leads to the emergence of bacterial resistance in the general population, which will have a devastating effect on the general population and on the national healthcare system itself. A short-term benefit for a particular sector leads to imbalances in everything else for everyone else, including the owner of the company that is profiting from the change in production methods.
The same example can be applied to electricity generation at a coal-fired power plant. The cost per kilowatt-hour drops dramatically for the end consumer, and the production cost for the utility company also decreases. But while these short- or medium-term gains may benefit both sides of the trade balance, in the medium to long term they will suffer the severe consequences of the pollution resulting from coal mining and combustion, leading to a growing increase in pollution that will affect a large area for several generations.
Other examples can be seen, such as the purchase of bottled water, which is more convenient for the consumer and inexpensive, but the environmental cost is tremendous—and it is not taken into account in this small action we take every day, almost unconsciously.
Human civilization has already proven, in the face of past challenges, that it can bring about innovation and foster the value of forging closer social contracts, with guarantees of social stability and, eventually, economic stability as well, in the medium term.
All of this is done in the interest of seeking the common good, and not allowing impulsive actions that seek only immediate profit.
The world’s population is facing a monster unlike any it has ever seen or confronted before: pollution. It is something we must certainly face head-on and seek measures aimed at changing the direction and course humanity has been taking in recent decades.
There is much to be done, yes. But with the courage and determination we possess—and which we can inspire in those around us—we can ensure that the common good is preserved, without succumbing to political extremism, such as Soviet or Marxist models might suggest.
Image by Robertas Bartulis from Pixabay
Original text written by 
