In May 2017 I was interviewed by Alan Kohler, one of Australia’s most experienced and appreciated business commentators. Topic is the importance of investing in resilience and faith in the future when times are uncertain.
As a Dutchman, visiting Australia and other Western countries regularly, it strikes me how we are all taken by the same fear and discontent. Only a few decades ago, after the fall of communism, we celebrated our First World victory with uncut triumphalism. Today, it easily feels as if we are on the losing end of history and living in a world that isn’t ‘ours’ anymore.
Not a misplaced sentiment, as until recently the world was ‘ours’ indeed. For centuries we did not hesitate to exercise our military and economic power to acquire the best deals and most lucrative businesses. The result was an unprecedented wealth and a job security we happily got used to. But things are changing. New powers are reshuffling the cards dramatically, national affairs are being overruled by global affairs, old certainties are becoming uncertain, and even democracy, this flagship of the West, is facing growing competition from authoritarian regimes.
We live in stormy times, no doubt. And this is the inevitable question in a storm: will our body or our spirit take over? Do we allow ourselves to slip into the survival mode of an animal? Or do we have the resilience to stick to the ways of a reasonable and compassionate human being?
If the latter: who will lead? And if less and less people listen to pastors, priests and politicians: who will fill the gap? You and me, perhaps?
Allow me to describe three features of the storm that is hitting us, and a few ways to take an inspiring stand in it.
Three features of the storm
For the first time in 5000 years, the whole world needs to work together to get the whole planet in order. Issues like climate change, cyber threats, terrorism, trafficking, slavery, pandemics or nuclear threats can only be solved if countries closely cooperate. This contains also some good news: reality demands that we overcome our differences. The current trend, however, is in the opposite direction towards nationalism, protectionism and xenophobia. And the only leaders who can actually fix the planet are the ones elected to defend the self-interest of their country. A group of legitimate egoists is supposed to seek the greater good. No reason (yet) to prepare for the apocalypse, but no reason for blind optimism either.
For the first time in 500 years, the West needs to share its power and wealth with the rest. Precisely when the world is reorganising itself on an unprecedented scale, the West is losing its grip on it. A most inconvenient coincidence. Western citizens call upon their leaders to restore the securities of the past. But the politicians are in an impossible position: on the one hand they are held accountable for the well-being of their nation, on the other hand this well-being is more and more dependent on issues they do not control (like climate change or the world economy). Some flex their rhetorical muscles: just close the curtains and pretend the rest of the world doesn’t count. But the issues turn out to be more obstinate than any country put first.
For the first time in 50 years, Westerners need a Grand Narrative to be resilient again. For decades we could afford abandoning all the religious and ideological perspectives that used to give us hope and consolation. For decades, the old Narratives could not offer us something better than we already had. But now, as our grip on things is loosening, we realise that we have very little to gain and so much to lose. Feelings of insecurity kick in, requiring a new resilience. And resilience is precisely what we lack in the West. Even though we are still quite able to be happy when things go well, we are the first to get anxious and depressed when things go wrong.
In the past, many would take comfort and courage from the hope for a communist revolution, others would focus on heavenly happiness in the afterlife, and still others would await the Messianic age on earth. Whatever Narrative people embraced, it gave them a joint strength to bite the bullet. In our time only one gospel dominates: “If it’s going to be, it’s up to me.” A great pep talk to get us out of bed. But it leaves us empty-handed when we cannot control our life any more. The current storm confronts us precisely with the latter. Many issues have grown too big to be solved by a single human or even a single nation. If we don’t invest in some resilience, our mental and emotional empty-handedness may turn out to be very costly (if not dangerous) for Western societies and beyond.
Seven inspiring stands
What inspires in stormy times? Not a lot of talking, but people living what they believe in. What makes their lives inspiring? Seven stands, I would say.
- Stay calm. Inspiring people have the strength to control their fear and discontent. They don’t panic or give up in a storm, but keep looking for creative and lasting solutions.
- Stay compassionate. Inspiring people are stronger than their biological self-defence mechanisms. Rather than spending all their energy on saving themselves, they have the strength to look around in a storm and care for the ones who are hit the most.
- Stay hopeful. In whatever secular or religious form, inspiring people don’t lose the ability to have faith in the future. They keep communicating in their words and actions that this world is worth investing in.
- Stay visionary. Inspiring people withstand short-sighted answers to fear and discontent. They seek the well-being of the entire planet and all nations, rather than pursuing a protection and expansion plan for their tribe only.
- Stay stubborn. Inspiring people withstand social pressure and stick to what they believe in and who they believe in. Consistency and loyalty turns them into beacons of hope and direction for others.
- Stay human. Inspiring people bridge the social gaps in society by being human among humans, regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or gender.
- Stay joyful. Inspiring people keep celebrating the good things in life. They don’t deny what is wrong, but hold on to a sense of gratitude for anyone or anything that points them to the gift of life. Fear and discontent are contagious, but inspiring people know: so is joy. Whatever the moods and whims of a nervous society, inspiring people continue to build a spirited counter-movement of hope- and compassion carriers that can take us through the storm. Who is in?
On 5 August 2015 I was interviewed by ABC Radio in Australia about the world becoming not less but more religious, making it important for people in secular societies to raise their ‘religious literacy’ in order to understand the rest.
Western-style democracy, emphasizing individual freedoms and rights, is under global pressure and facing decline even in the West. Here are five reasons why.
1. China gets away with an authoritarian approach
Some banks are “too big to fail”, some countries are “too big to franchise”. There is no way Western democracies can shape China in their own image. It is also clear by now that they are not willing to sacrifice political and economic relations with China in exchange for upholding a Western view on democracy and human rights. So, get used to a world where superpowers can be openly undemocratic (according to Western standards) and get away with it. And don’t forget how inspiring it can be for other regimes, and how much it can add legitimacy to their own authoritarian ambitions, to see China ‘win’ with an authoritarian approach.
(Russia is a different and more complicated story, due to its strong army and weak economy. Its military strength demands caution in the West; its economic weakness gives leverage to the West.)
2. Western-style democracy does not seem the ultimate solution any longer
Western-style democracy is a tough seed to sow: in most countries where it was recently introduced, it failed. Democracy is a vulnerable system as it requires discussions among equals and does not stop the election of undemocratic people and parties. Whatever its value, recent history has made it much easier for opponents to dismiss it as a universal solution. In October 2014, an influential journal of the Chinese Communist Party (Qiushi) made the following statement with reference to the enduring violence and turmoil in countries like Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Libya:
The West always brags that its own democracy is a ‘universal value’ and denies there is any other form of democracy… Western democracy has innate internal flaws and certainly is not a ‘universal value'; its blind copying can only lead to disaster.
The days are over when the West could suffice with simply supposing the superior nature and universal resolving power of its democracy.
3. Secular societies lack the resilience to withstand their need for security
More freedom means less security, more security means less freedom. A well-known dilemma in democracies, leading to the question: what will democracies need more in the coming years, security or freedom? The answer is clearly security, for two reasons: 1) the growing amount of threats within and around democracies, making citizens feel more vulnerable, 2) a lack of resilience in democracies to accept risks.
Ad 2) The Democracy Index of The Economist Intelligence Unit shows that the most democratic countries also happen to be the most secular countries in the world. This combination seems to have a price: the less people can surrender to Someone or Something that controls the universe – a God (Jews, Muslims, Christians), Spirit or Life Force (Taoists, Buddhists, New Agers), Social Order (Confucianists, Socialists) – the more difficult it becomes to accept adversities and risks in life. Friends and family can compensate to some extent, but solitude is a major problem in secular societies and only some problems can be fixed by others. So, what we see in secular societies is a lack of resilience: people can be the happiest in the world when their life is in order, but easily get anxious or depressed when things get out of hand. There is little tolerance for anything that threatens the good life. Combine this with the growing threats in the world and we may see a growing willingness in precisely the most democratic countries, to sacrifice freedoms in exchange for more security.
Big question: where will this process end? How much loss of freedom does it take before people start to accept insecurities in exchange for freedom?
4. World issues cannot be solved in a tolerant way
Pandemics, climate change, cyber crime, international crime, global terrorism, nuclear risks – the dangers these issues contain can only be tackled if all countries cooperate. Leave one out, and hackers, criminal organizations and terrorists will pick that country as their hiding place. And so, the more urgent these issues become, the less countries will be patient with those that obstruct the process. World issues, by their nature, don’t care about the sovereignty of states, and so will powerful states when facing a clear and present danger. Authoritarianism will take over, a less democratic world order appear.
5. Democracies cannot be defended in a democratic way
Another notorious dilemma: democratic tolerance can only be defended in an intolerant way. We simply cannot differ about the democratic space to differ. Democratic rules ensure freedom, but only if everyone submits to them. This raises the question: do democracies need to be more intolerant in the coming years, to ensure a fee and open society? The current rise of oppressive groups, in and around democracies, clearly points towards a yes. And so, expect to see more ‘inevitable intolerance’ coming from democracies as a matter of self preservation. Democratic governments will have to be specific about the rules of an open and free society, and they will have to enforce these rules where needed. A process as unavoidable as it is tricky, because of the continuous risk that democracies become too specific about the rules and a source of oppression in their fight for freedom.
No urban achievements without agricultural achievements. On 14 December 2012 we saw how this was true for the Egyptians and Maya. Now let’s take a look at the Greek, the Romans, the Asians and the Northern Europeans.
Greece has never been blessed with a lot of fertile soil. In Ancient times, less than 20% of the land could be used for farming. So, as soon as the Greek had figured out how to follow the Phoenicians in building reliable ships (around 800 BC), they started sailing the Black and Mediterranean Sea, establishing some 500 colonies in fertile areas. This marked the beginning of a flourishing civilization with city states building a powerful culture on food that was shipped from other places.
Like the ancient cities of Greece, there would not have a been a big and powerful Rome without a steady stream of food supplies from other parts of Europe. According to the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus, North Africa supplied Rome eight months of the year, Egypt the other four.
So, feel free to build your metropole anywhere you like, just make sure you have some friends that are able and willing to feed you on a daily basis.
In Asia we see a pretty clear pattern: cultivate rice and empires arise. Behind the power and cultural achievements of the Gupta dynasty in India (320-535), the Tang dynasty in China (618-907) and the Silla dynasty in Korea (668-935) lies a massive investment in new rice fields. The same can be said about the powerful states of Java and Sumatra in the same period.
It wasn’t much fun being a farmer in Northern Europe before the heavy plough arrived in the Middle Ages. Until then, ploughs couldn’t plough deep enough to turn over the heavy clay soil. But the heavy plough made it possible, and around 1000 AD the land between the Loire and the Elbe had become a patchwork of grain fields. And as clay soil was more fertile than the lighter soil types of Southern Europe, this caused a major power shift from the south to the north. Professor Thomas Barnebeck Andersen of the University of Southern Denmark:
The heavy plough turned European agriculture and economy on its head. Suddenly the fields with the heavy, fatty and moist clay soils became those that gave the greatest yields.
The economy in these places improved and this sparked the growth of big cities with more people and more trade. The heavy plough started an upward spiral in new areas.
My point may be clear: no urban achievements without agricultural achievements.
No urban achievements without agricultural achievements (13 May 2012). Let’s take a closer look at the civilizations of the Egyptians, Maya, Greek, Romans, Asians and Europeans, and see how they managed to feed their many cities.
Few peoples on earth could so easily build a stable and prosperous life as the ancient Egyptians. Imagine this river Nile, flowing calmly through the deserts of Egypt, flooding its shores every year in a fairly predictable way. If you need to travel north, float along. If you need to travel south, take a sailing ship and the trade wind will push you along. Every time the river floods, in August and September, it waters the shores and leaves behind fertile soil (silt) from the Ethiopian Highlands.The only thing you might want to do is lead the water into basins so that it can stay a bit longer than it would have naturally stayed, allowing the earth to become fully saturated for later planting. You might also want to use these basins to lead the water away from cities and gardens. After the flood, in October, you can then start planting your grains, vegetables and fruits.
This is what the Egyptians did. And it is quite an ironic fact that Egypt is nowadays the world’s biggest wheat importer, for with the abundance of wheat they produced in the last 5,000 years, they not only built an impressive civilization themselves, they also played an important role in enabling later civilizations to feed their urbanites. Rome, for example, could only prosper with a lot of wheat from Egypt (21 December 2012).
Fame starts with a lot of food in history. And few kings in history could so easily control and take advantage of their people’s food production as the pharaohs (starting with Menes around 3100 BC). Imagine all your subjects living in villages and cities on the shores of one river, producing an abundant amount of wheat and using the one Nile to exchange goods and build a rich culture. The only thing you need to do as pharaoh, is to control that one river and make sure that part of the food and goods is heading your way every now and then. Fast desserts form a natural protection against invasions of massive armies, so you don’t need to spend a lot of your income on maintaining an army of soldiers. What will you do with your wealth? How about feeding an army of workers to build a pyramid?
The Maya are also known for their awe-inspiring pyramids, but unlike the Egyptians they had to cope with tough environmental conditions by developing ingenious methods to grow crops in jungle and wetland areas. The Maya civilization first emerged sometime before 1000 BC and reached its peak in the “Classic Period”, between 250 and 900 AD. In this last period, millions of people lived in cities with tens of thousands of urbanites on the Yucatán Peninsula in current Mexico and Guatemala, making it one the most densely populated areas in the world. There are no rivers in this area, so how on earth did they feed the urbanites?
Many of the cities in Yucatán were built around cenotes, being their only permanent source of water. A cenote is a deep natural pit, or sinkhole, that exposes groundwater underneath. The sacred cenote of Chichén Itzá was by far the most important one. The rain god Chaac was thought to live at the bottom of it. Many humans were sacrificed to appease him, especially young males, presumably because they represented strength and power. Where the Maya couldn’t rely on cenotes, they built cisterns to catch and store rainwater.
Then there was the impressive way the Maya managed to produce a healthy diet of different crops in the midst of jungles and swamps. In his book “1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus” (2005, p. 197), Charles C. Mann describes the milpa agriculture of the Maya as follows:
A milpa is a field, usually but not always recently cleared, in which farmers plant a dozen crops at once including maize, avocados, multiple varieties of squash and bean, melon, tomatoes, chilis, sweet potato, jícama, amaranth, and mucana. (..) Milpa crops are nutritionally and environmentally complementary. Maize lacks the amino acids lysine and tryptophan, with which the body needs to make proteins and niacin (..). Beans have both lysine and tryptophan. (..) Squashes, for their part, provide an array of vitamins; avocados, fats. The milpa, in the estimation of H. Garrison Wilkes, a maize researcher at the University of Massachusetts in Boston, “is one of the most successful human inventions ever created“.
Corn (or maize) was the most important and sacred crop of all. For every detail of planting, sowing, and harvesting there was a ritual. These rituals not only turned farming into a highly social and spiritual event, they also ensured that the cultivation of corn was done at the right moment and in the right way, from generation to generation.
Equally revered by the Maya was a drink worth more than gold: chocolate. It took no less than 3000 years after its first discovery by the Indians, before it started to seduce and comfort the rest of the world.
Once, we were all hunters and gatherers. Then we started developing agriculture and domesticating animals. Some of us turned into pastoral nomads, moving livestock between pastures. Others turned into farmers, cultivating fields. Then the urbanites appeared, doing everything but producing food (13 May 2012).
Those who ended up in cities had to organize themselves in new ways, as the old ways of running society didn’t suffice any longer. Innovations occurred with a profound impact on people’s spirituality. Here are two of these revolutionary changes in society:
Conflict control – from nomadic blood ties to urban law enforcement
As all the members of a nomad group belonged to the same tribe, it was in their common interest to end internal conflicts as soon as possible. Any revenge or escalation of violence within the group would only diminish their own survival chances. Most issues could therefore be resolved quite peacefully. The traditional Indian approach was to discuss the issue until consensus was achieved.
In sharp contrast to this stood the city with its many different tribes. When these tribes clashed, blood ties could no longer inhibit the escalation of violence. In order to resolve urban conflicts, a third party was needed, one with the authority to adjudicate and with a monopoly on violence. The judge appeared, and to avoid controversial verdicts that would only provoke new conflicts, laws were carved in stone. Whoever violated these laws would face another urban invention: law enforcers.
All very understandable, even unavoidable, these urban innovations. But the fact remained that the communal self regulation of tribes was replaced by laws and law enforcers. Relational solutions had to make way for legal solutions. And it wasn’t always obvious that laws and rulers served the interests of the entire community. Endless fights occurred between those who thought it right to enforce the law and those who thought it right to break the law. New forms of spirituality were needed to enhance the arrival of righteous laws and law-abiding citizens. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of democracy, would finally convince sufficient citizens to combine the necessity of laws and rulers with the good of communal self regulation.
Solidarity – from family duty to religious and legal duty
Some quotations from Stephen Sachs about leadership and solidarity in traditional Indian tribes:
Leaders (who have mistakenly been called “chiefs”) functioned primarily as facilitators, consensus builders, and announcers of decisions. In general, they had little or no decision making power of their own, though usually they had influence. They were chosen for positions of leadership on the basis of their high moral character and ability to represent the people and lead in the long term interests of the community as a whole. (..) Culturally, people believed in, and related on the basis of, mutual respect, identifying with the band or tribe as an extended family, in which members supported each other in their individual endeavors to the extent that they did not contradict the common good, while they collaborated out of mutual interest and a strong sense of shared consensus. (..) At the same time, economically, as well as socially, the structure of living caused people to need each other’s support, while economic power was at least not so concentrated as to upset egalitarian relations, and was most often broadly dispersed in economies based upon reciprocity (..). Thus, by developing cooperation and a sense of unity through honoring diversity on the basis of mutual respect, these communities usually maintained a very high quality of life.
What a contrast between this servant leadership, solidarity and mutual respect among the members of nomadic tribes, and the oppression and exploitation that seems almost inextricably connected to the rise of urban societies. But let’s not rush towards moral qualifications. Let’s first recall that cities became the habitat of many different tribes. As these tribes were focused first of all on their own survival, conflicts would usually end with winners and losers – meaning that one family would turn into a dynasty of rulers and the others would have to settle with being subjects or slaves. New forms of spirituality were needed to rediscover and redefine the value of brotherhood, of equality, solidarity and mutual respect beyond ethnic borders. And it still took many more centuries before one powerful idea, the idea of human rights, provided a legal basis for egalitarian relations and community-based leadership.
We city-dwellers can easily marvel at the social and natural harmony of nomadic tribes. Romantic Hollywood productions like “Dances with Wolves” (1990) and “The New World” (2005) make us sometimes yearn for that which we lost in the city and never fully found again. Urban life has put us on a long journey towards a new understanding and embrace of brotherhood and solidarity. And yes, we did make progress, thanks to the idea of democracy and human rights. But it seems the search isn’t over. Precisely in the most democratic societies, loneliness and individualism have become major issues. It seems we need more than democracy and human rights to fully enjoy brotherhood again.
Let’s start with taking a look at the traditional features of a city:
- Cities have a temple (religious centre).
- Cities have a palace (administrative centre).
- Cities have a market (trade centre) and industry
- Cities have barracks (military centre) and walls
- Cities have granaries (food centre) and water supply.
If you have any aspiration of building a city like this, the first thing you’ll have to deal with is feeding the urbanites. For as you know, it is quite typical for city-dwellers that they usually don’t produce their own food. So if you want a lot of them in one place, make sure there are other people who can produce a lot of food on their behalf. Then collect this food surplus, store it, and distribute it among the urbanites.
At this point, a couple of questions need to be answered:
- Who can produce a lot of food, much more than they need for themselves?
- Who produces food that doesn’t rot but can be stored for a longer time?
- Why would these people be willing to give you their extra food?
- How will you collect this food and distribute it among the urbanites?
In the first civilizations, these questions were answered in the following way:
Ad 1. Hunters and gatherers didn’t collect enough food to feed a city or even a village. It was only after the arrival of agriculture that people started producing so much food that they could also feed a substantial amount of other families. The first centres of agriculture appeared in the Middle East, China, New Guinea, Ethiopia, West Africa and in North, Middle and South America.
Ad 2. The Papuans in New Guinea didn’t need the rest of the world to develop agriculture. But the food they produced (sugar-cane, carrots, banana’s) couldn’t be stored for a very long time. This made the rise of cities impossible. Wheat can be stored very well and became the basis for new civilizations in the Middle East, China, Ethiopia and West-Africa. The America’s were blessed with cassava, corn, potatoes and beans. These storable crops laid the foundation for civilizations like that of the Inca in South America and the Maya in Middle America. Rice gave rise to a lot of civilizations in southern Asia. But that took a bit longer as it takes quite an effort to establish “wet-rice cultivation” (requiring a constant supply of water).
Ad 3. It didn’t take long before farmers saw the benefit of exchanging their extra food for all kinds of goods or services. So, there was trading way before the arrival of the first civilizations. Already in the 10th century BC the first walled cities, like Jericho and Damascus, appeared. It took, however, until 3500 BC before cities became so big and complex that they became known as the first civilizations. The difference was that one particular group had moved into the centre of society and gained the authority to collect food and spend it on activities that was believed to serve the common good. Which group? Priests. Which activities? Rituals to please the gods. Why was this a common good? Because the lives of farmers and settlers turned out to be much more vulnerable than the lives of hunters and gatherers. Farmers could lose their harvest due to hail, insects, drought, floods or looting. People could also fall victim to ugly diseases their domesticated animals were carrying. As the farmers and settlers couldn’t control these factors, they turned to those who claimed to know the will of the gods and how to gain their protection. The power of priests increased. At first they performed simple sacrificial rituals at the fields, but gradually these rituals turned into refined and complicated ceremonies in one particular place. Statues and temples were raised for the gods, with ritual meals and dances several times a day. In order to make all of this possible, the priests collected food from the farmers and stored it in granaries. The food was used for sacrificial purposes and to feed all the priests, craftsmen, cooks, dancers, tailors, administrators etc. who were involved. As the food production increased and improved, more and more people settled around the temple, all spending their time on other things than producing food.
Ad 4. Close to the religious centre and granaries appeared an administrative centre, focussing on collection and distribution of food. It soon developed into the centre of social and political power. Priests did not only pull the string because of their astrological knowledge, helping them to discern the will of the gods. They also knew when to sow and when to harvest because of their astronomical knowledge. They literally had a powerful sense of time. Through a number of rituals, accompanied by myths, they set the rhythm of agriculture and made sure the consumption of the food was spread over the year.
As the city grew, more and more products were also traded outside of the temple context. Markets started flourishing. And the more the temple, granary, palace and market became concentration points of valuable goods, the more the settlement had to be defended against looters and criminals. Soldiers were needed, trained in barracks, and thick walls had to be build around the houses and public buildings. From then on, it would only be a matter of time before the priest-king would be replaced by a general-king.
This is how many complex urban societies developed in history, carrying the 5 well-known features cities have had since the very first civilization.
Five options are at your disposal:
- You will work less as you don’t need that amount of food.
- You will eat more as you have more to eat.
- You will have more kids as you can feed more kids.
- You will feed the hungry as you have something to share.
- You will trade your food for all kinds of goods or services.
Please take a moment to decide which option appeals the most to you.
Now let’s consider each option.
1. You will work less as you don’t need that amount of food.
Well done, you know how to be satisfied! Others may think you are lazy, but they probably belong to the group that thinks life can always be improved. You know how to temper your ambitions and needs. At some point you are able to say what some others can’t say: enough is enough; it is good as it is!
2. You will eat more as you have more to eat.
So you are one of those who will eat chips until the bag is empty? Others may call it excessive behaviour, and you will probably have to watch your weight, but at least you have come to know the joy of abundance. You know how to postpone your worries and seize the moment of physically experiencing and celebrating that there is more than you need.
3. You will have more kids as you can feed more kids.
Great, you are a family person and have a lot of love to give. Your desire is to build and sustain a family that is characterized by life long commitment and care. And you know that families have always been the core units of society. So, more food and sufficient love also means: being able to nourish and equip more kids who can make a positive contribution to society.
4. You will feed the hungry as you have something to share.
Let’s celebrate your solidarity with the poor! You have more than you need and so you want to share it with those who have less than they need. You are also a family person, but your focus is on the ‘extended family’, including every one you are, or feel, related to. Your solidarity can be local and global, with humans and with nature. Wherever your solidarity is expressed, it is living proof of your ability to prioritize the well-being of others.
5. You will trade your food for all kinds of goods or services
Congratulations, you are the one standing at the cradle of civilization. If we mean by civilization a complex urban society, and if urban society is characterized by people who are fed by others to deliver certain goods or services, then you are the one making it possible. By trading food you are giving others the opportunity to specialize in making clothes, bread, pottery, houses, administrative tasks, military tasks, etc. And the more time these people can focus on their speciality, the more they can improve their skills and tools and eventually the quality of life. That is probably what you had in mind from the start: feeding others so that they can improve your life or the life of people you care about.
So there you have it: five ways of dealing with your own overproduction. Pick your favorite one. Don’t worry about civilization if you prefer one of the first four options. It is quite commendable to choose the option of 1) being satisfied with what you have, 2) enjoying abundance, 3) expanding family life, and last but not least: 4) sharing your resources with the poor! Only remember that if you limit yourself to one of these four options, the overproduction will not be spent on creating time for people to develop skills and tools to overcome difficulties and improve the quality of life. So, if you chose to help the poor, you may not be able to improve your way of helping the poor. And if you chose to be satisfied, you better stay satisfied!
Obviously, you can spend your extra food in more than one way. But choices have to be made, and they have been made in history and are still being made today. Satisfaction can keep people away from making progress, and seeking progress can keep people away from being satisfied. Being busy with making progress can go at the cost of helping the most vulnerable in society, but being busy with helping the vulnerable can also go at the cost of making progress. Those are the tough choices, of individuals and entire societies. And needless to say: what counts for extra food, also counts for extra money…
By the way, there is a 6th option I didn’t discuss, one that is actually quite popular in modern societies: if you produce more food than you need, you can also waste it.
Civilization is a video installation created in 2008 by CRUSH and artist/director Marco Brambilla for the elevators of Standard Hotel in NYC. It’s comprised of over 400 video clips and it takes elevator passengers on a trip from hell to heaven as they go up or from heaven to hell as they go down. It took a team of around 8 people roughly 6 months to complete this video installation. Pictures of the installation and Q&A with Brambilla and Crush are posted here: glossyinc.com/civilization.html.