In the preceding two posts (Part 1 and Part 2), we began our envisioning process. Both posts serve as an introduction to this post, in which we address systemic equality and equity issues requiring our collective attention and action. To better understand the content and intent of this five-part envisioning series, I recommend reading (or scanning/skimming) both posts prior to reading this post.
In the subsequent and final envisioning post, we will complete our envisioning exercise and transition to the process of designing a potentially sustainable future. Designing a sustainable future will also require a series of five posts in exploring constructive actions we could undertake in working toward a sustainable future for all of Earth’s lifeforms and materials.
Developing a Sustainable Society of Equality and Equity for All Beings
In a cooperative, sharing-caring society, everyone — regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, race, or beliefs — receives equal opportunities and equitable support in fostering personal development. Of course, having equal rights and opportunities in society is predicated on the expectation that citizens act responsibly in all areas of life, as the widely-adopted Golden Rule prescribes. Evaluating someone’s qualities should not be based on physical characteristics such as skin color, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality, but instead it should focus on such virtues as responsibility, fairness, justice, and compassion. Qualities of special intellectual acumen and interests that stimulate creativity, curiosity, and critical thinking in people are especially valued.
For certain, the widening spread between society’s wealthy elites and marginalized and impoverished masses signifies an unjust socioeconomic system. Such a system may be defined simply as one that creates excessive inequality and caused the basic needs of humans and all other lifeforms to go unmet. I think that all beings deserve their “place in the sun”, as determined by the natural evolutionary processes responsible for their existence. Maybe we anthropocentric beings are no more deserving of existence than any other creature or thing. Essentially, we are beholden to one another and to everything, symbiotically interdependent entities made whole by the summation of everything that exists.
One of our most obvious human weaknesses seems to be our inability to set limits on our appetites for unessential material accumulating and wasting. If we have any chance of creating a resilient and sustainable presence on planet Earth, we must learn to limit our desires and wants. The need to set limits on material consumption is especially applicable for those of us living in so-called developed countries. Of course, convincing the general public to set personal and collective limits will not be an easy task. It will be particularly difficult determining a reasonably fair-minded way of limiting the wealth and power of elite individuals and groups, especially those gaining wealth at the expense of low-paid workers, which includes skillful essential workers.
Managing the Wealth Gap in Creating Greater Equality and Equity
One simple solution — practically, but not politically— would be to seek ways of narrowing the wealth inequality gap that exists between corporate CEOs and typical workers, a gap that has expanded into an enormous chasm. For example, Economic Policy Institute reports that U.S. corporate CEOs in 2022 were paid 344-times the amount of a typical worker, in stark comparison to the 21-times greater than typical workers received in 1965. Such disparity is obscenely untenable, and noticeably higher than other countries. In the UK, for instance, ninety-percent of high-ranking corporate CEOs receive pay 100-times more than the National Living Wage. Although the UK ratio is more equitable than the U.S. ratio, the gap still seems excessive. An ideal ratio is difficult to state, but I suspect it’s closer to 40.1, which means that highest earners earn 40-times the amount of the lowest earners. This 40.1 ratio stands in stark contrast to the UK’s 100.1 ratio, or the outrageous 344.1 of U.S. CEOs.
Ideally, high-income earners would consist of highly-skilled persons in all of the essential societal and ecological fields that serve the Common Good, including three natural systems that support life – the combined human sphere, biosphere, and ecosphere. As practiced in all societies, the least educated and skilled workers could receive the lowest income, defined as a living wage. In a sustainable and just society, the current rewards based on commercial profit goals would be replaced by service to the greater community.
The simplest regulatory strategy for limiting the exorbitant wealth and power of greedy individuals might be achieved through sensible government taxation policies. For example, top-income earners could be taxed at a rate of 100% (yes, 100%) for all income in excess of an adjusted cost-of-living standard rate and other financial concerns. Such a policy could go a long way toward eliminating outrageously high salaries, in effect dampening anyone’s motivation to seek disproportionate economic and political power. It seems that putting the kibosh on high-income earners could help improve equality and equity in society, in turn making life more stable, resilient, and sustainable.
Addressing the Wealth Connection via Population, Consumption, and Waste
Taxation to rein in extreme wealth accumulation could also be applied to real estate, financial investments, consumption of energy and finite natural materials, and resultant waste products. For example, sustainable housing needs could be based on officially determined guidelines that designate a per-person livable space.
It seems an average family of four persons (adults and/or children) could function quite well in a housing space of around 2,000 square feet (400-500 sq. ft. per person), This space size assumes the standard rooms – a kitchen, living-dining area, one bath-toilet, 2-3 small bedrooms, and a single-car garage. Our family of five (three children) functioned quite adequately living within similar guidelines (with two modest bathrooms). I imagine most middle-class folks of the Silent and Baby Boomer generations recall having lived quite comfortably in similar-sized homes prior to the 1980s.
It's important to mention here that the suggested dimensions for shelter apply only in a world of fewer humans, which would provide all global people with sufficient housing, since a smaller population would provide an ample supply of vacant livable shelters. Hence, the estimation of space-per-person mentioned previously.
Pending careful analyses, extensive study, and open discussions, strategic polices incentivizing citizens to adopt frugal lifestyles could be formulated. The concept would involve determining how much housing space and average consumption of energy (gas, electricity) and water each person could use based on a set fee. Meanwhile, persons choosing to live in larger homes and consume more municipal services could be charged progressively incrementally higher rates for all housing functions (real-estate taxes, energy and water consumption, etc.). Determining a workable strategy and plan could be the responsibility of elected leaders in consultation with appropriate experts.
Wrap Up
Thus far, I think you’ll agree that envisioning a suitable paradigm for a life-sustaining future is proving to be a monumental yet exciting undertaking. We’ve covered many issues associated with creating greater equality and equity for all world citizens, but perhaps you can provide some concepts and initiatives for our mutual consideration. Any ideas or suggestions are appreciated.
The final two posts in this five-post series – envisioning a sustainable socioecological future – will focus on three issues. First, in part 4 we’ll address what is needed in developing a sustainable socioeconomic system. In part 5 we’ll consider major health and wellness issues, including signs of increasing physical and psycho-emotional illness in society, especially among youthful populations. And we will also focus on educational concerns, in connection with creating life-long learning opportunities for all people at all stages of life, but particularly for youth, from pre-school through higher education.
Note: Since everyone is busy with holiday-related activities, the final two posts of our exploratory envisioning process will appear on January 8th and 15th. In the meantime, may this festive season be a special time for expressing gratitude, enjoying quality time with loved ones and friends, and undertaking thoughtful reflection, in preparation for another year of life on this wonderful planet. Peace . . .
|
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Clifton Ware, D.M., emeritus professor (voice), professional singer and author of four published books and two unpublished works, retired in 2007 from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities School of Music, where he taught for 37 years. Since retiring, as a self-described socio-ecological philosopher he has spent 15 years focusing on sustainability issues, in the process of acquiring an evidence-based, big-picture understanding of all principal societal and ecological systems, including the symbiotic interconnections and role of humans as an integral part of Nature. In 2013 he founded Citizens for Sustainability in St. Anthony Village, MN, produced Sustainability News + Views (2014-2019), a weekly newsletter featuring a variety of articles and a commentary, co-composed 13 Eco Songs with his wife, Bettye, organized Sustainability Forums, and performed eco-oriented programs and presentations for several organizations.
|
