The concept of an "end date" for societal development is odd to picture. Though Keynes was writing at a time when technology was nothing compared to what it is today, it is still difficult to fathom how he thought we would eventually just stop developing new technology. There always seems to be a next step, a new moon to fly to. Innovation is an expensive investment, but it is what keeps us asking questions, moving forward. In a dynamic world, why would a population choose to become stagnant?
Defining the endpoint is also tricky. In discussion section, we struggled to understand what the theorists meant — is it the moment in which every member of the society has exactly the same possessions, the same income, the same occupation? This Stepford world does not seem ideal. How can a construct exist that defines when everyone would be happiest? Keynes wrote that "there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without a dread."
From my vantage point, this could not be farther from the truth. The values placed on work and leisure are cultural, even individual, constructs. It is impossible to delineate what would make an entire country happy, prosperous and complete. Gallup recently conducted a survey, measuring all 50 states on a "well-being" index. The variables that feed into such a measure do include basic access to necessities and a "work environment," but other aspects of living — healthy behavior, emotional health and life evaluation — are also considered. Is Hawaii the happiest state because there is no innovation, or because everyone has the same possessions?
Happiness, from my perspective, is achieved when individuals have the ability to choose. Some will choose to live without innovation, some will choose to work 15 hours a week, while others will choose to work 60 hours a week. What is vital though is that it was a choice. If we are to imagine that, like Keynes and Mill said, society will eventually level out, I believe that can only occur when all individuals have the ability to choose the work, the life, the environment that will individually, make them happiest.
hey emmy, enjoyed reading this. you pick out choice as key. mill, as you know, argues that continuing growth is not needed for choice (or for "individuality"). wonder what you think about that.... tomasi
ReplyDeleteTo me, it's a vicious circle — the more society grows and evolves, the more choices that become available to individuals. The occupational and lifestyle choices that Americans make today would have been unimaginable 100 years ago — the exponential growth in technology, among other things, has changed the way we live and the choices we can and do make.
ReplyDeleteSociety will continue to grow if free choice is the deciding variable because people will always opt for forward movement. No population, in its entirety, will ever be content to sit still and pick from the available pool of options if one of the options is to dive into the unknown and seek the future. Innovation is expensive, but we bear the burden because we are hopeful of possibilities.