Bill has made some good points in his message LO7958.
Here's some comments on some of his questions and
remarks:
> It could be that our American society is at the beginning
> of a Tragedy of the Commons. We measure worth of
> individuals and companies in an abstraction called
> monetary wealth.
Personal wealth does not determine the worth of an
individuals; the profitability of a company does influence its
worth. . .after all a business is in business to be profitable.
It just so happens that it can be profitable, while it
provides a rich learning environment for its employees.
In my mind, all individuals have intrinsic worth. Their
financial status is not an indicator of their worth. It does
show, I believe, how clearly some people have thought
about the accumulation and application of resources
(financial or physical); it also says something about what
that person values -- beyond wealth, such as: The ability to
organize, create and achieve goals, etc.
> And it seems that there is not enough to wealth to go
> around.
Mmm. . .I'm not sure I agree. Traditional economists
believe that the pseudo-science we call economics is about
managing scarce resources. Paul Zane Pilzer in his book
"Unlimited Wealth" makes some pretty compelling
arguments that there is no such thing as scarce resources.
His position is that technology defines what a physical
resources is, and how abundant it can become. I believe
everyone -- around the globe -- could be wealthy if they
understood the principles that govern the creation and
maintenance of personal wealth.
> In speaking to a private, church run, school teacher
> (very low pay scale) about how economical it was to buy
> well made clothing that lasted longer she commented
> that; "Some people are too poor to be economical."
> Some people can't afford to buy quality goods.
I understand this all too well: I've been _poor_ and I no the
intense struggle required to dramatically improve one's
financial position. I have nothing but compassion for the
poor; my wife and I have dedicated our lives to helping the
poor -- we've gone as far as to live in a low-income
neighborhood and work with our neighbors, showing them
how they can improve their financial conditions. Because of
this, I've tolerated a lot: Gang activities, drive by
shootings, and other intense criminal activity. Somebody's
got to help the poor, and if every time someone becomes a
little better off they move out of the neighborhood, then
there's no one left to help the people left in the low-income
neighborhoods become more financially successful.
> This woman, as a single parent raised three children,
> taught many more over her 35 year career. She
> wouldn't have chosen any other life. She considers
> herself wealthy.
I wouldn't consider her _poor_ either. . . in fact, it sounds
like she has probably made a huge difference in the lives of
many students. It is important to remember that she made
a "choice" that precluded her from earning a large salary; it
did not preclude her, however, from achieving personal
wealth.
> A week or two ago I visited the Southwestern US and
> sought out the Anasazi or Hohokam civilizations. This
> very advanced civilization existed in peace for at least
> 1200 years and then disappeared. They left some, I
> think, beautiful examples of community living
> arrangements.
There is a lot of beauty in an ancient societies; what you
saw with the Anasazi and Hohokam civilizations was an
inability to adapt to changing conditions. . .an ability that is
absolutely essential to longevity. This is a delimna faced by
many corporations. . .and the primary reason, in my
opinion, organizations don't last as long as they could.
> Are we concentrating wealth to a few and wasting the
> abilities of major portions of our society? I think so.
I don't think so. Assuming that wealth is the only valuable
thing a person can contribute to society, I might agree.
However, the ideas and philosophies of people contribute
far more to our society -- and our identity as a society --
than does wealth.
> I agree with Michael, wealth is freedom, it permits us to
> pursue interesting paths as opposed to having to work
> at un fulfilling tasks. But is wealth or the accumulation of
> it indicative of personal mastery? May I offer that
> personal mastery as defined by many philosophies and
> religions has people detaching themselves from
> dependence on wealth or the lack of wealth.
The discipline of personal mastery does not ensure wealth;
it would if the "result" the individual sought was financial
independence. Fortunately, people value a variety of
things, and therefore there is great diversity in the "results"
people seek to achieve. The acquisition of wealth, in my
mind, is not nearly as important as practicing the discipline
of personal mastery.
> I do not advocate socialism, as a way to the 'Social
> Futures' of people. I think that it just does not work. I
> think that we have to work to redefine wealth or worth of
> individuals and redefine the concept of equal
> opportunity. A person who contributes to the worth of
> other's in their community gains worth, this is a concept
> that I think is not understood or rewarded. Having equal
> opportunity without the capability to take the
> opportunity is worthless. Given the opportunity to be a
>rocket scientist but not been to rocket science school is
> no opportunity.
I don't understand equality the same way as most people
do. For instance, Bill might be more intellgent than I am; he
may be more musically talented. Does that not imply some
form of inequality? Equal opportunity, in my mind, says we
all have the opportunity to reach our fullest potential. That
does not always depend on wealth and education. If it did,
I wouldn't be on this mailing list talking about this stuff.
And, in closing, again, as far as I am concerned,
organizations exist to provide an environment where
people can realize their potential, and then spend a lifetime
achieving it. Wealth is necessary to maintain the learning
environment that facilitates that type of growth.
--Benjamin B. Compton ("Ben") | email: bcompton@novell.com Novell GroupWare Technical Engineer | fax: (801) 222-6991
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>