England's Population Density

 Motivated by concerns over immigration I drew a graph of the size of each plot if the land of England was divided equally between the people. 50 means a plot 50mx50m. Until 2009 each person in UK had more than 50m x 50m each. A family of four then 100m x 100m. But in the last 5 years it has dropped off a cliff to below 44m x 44m. That is a loss of 17% of our plot and this is due solely to immigration, as the population is not growing, and in fact should be dropping soon due to the aging demographics.

Now it has been made clear that the reason for this policy is Capitalism. A falling population is a disaster for Capitalists as it shifts power to workers who find themselves in demand. They can pick and chose where they work and what they get paid, and it increases competition between employers. The whole point of Capitalism is to maintain power in the hands of the owners (who are the same as the rich) and then disenfranchise the mass of employees from their country. This is basic economics, first really noted during the Black Death plagues when falling populations meant that workers suddenly found themselves with all the power. The rich were giving away their wealth just to employ people.

But its a fraud because immigration not only leads to lower wages for the mass, but it leads to higher prices as competition for land increases. Given the huge debt bubble built against housing collateral high house prices is another symptom of the flawed economics we have in the West. The mass are being robbed in every direction to maintain the wealth and status of the rich. That appears to be the main function of every human society from Celtic times, through Roman occupation and any Imperial Dictatorship to the present: society functions to protect the status of the elite. But this is all just standard Capitalist economics.

Probably more interesting is the linearity of the graph above. It has a gradient of -0.3382x which means that each year on average the population increases so that we lose 34cm from each side of our plot, or 0.1m^2 = (0.3m * 0.3m).

Now mass immigration like we see recently is a new phenomenon and the fact that population growth is usually slow is part explained by the simple fact that food comes from the land and we need around 150m * 150m to grow enough food traditionally to live. This is complete self-sufficiency without importing fertilisers. So after about 1725 England could no longer support its population (and this assumes every sq m was being farmed which it was not). But then the Industrial Revolution hit and fossil fuels became a source of energy for mass production. The world had to wait until 1909 for artificial fertilisers.

So given the essential connection between land and population it looks like this constant of 0.3382 may relate to some efficiency measure that has been steadily increasing over the centuries. Each year a slightly larger population can be supported by agriculture in England. Or perhaps it refers to overall productivity increasing so that imports have steadily increased raising the food availability. Or perhaps it relates to increasing equity so that food is becomes more evenly distributed reducing food stress on the poor and raising populations. Or perhaps there is some innate social dynamic here that people only steadily allow new people into the country. 

Anyway simply an interesting observation as yet unexplained.

===

Raw Data
(note that earlier populations are for England and Wales, while the last 200 years of just England)

Year Pop England Plot side per person

1500 2600000 223.8466164

1600 4110000 178.0394718

1700 5000000 161.4180907

1800 10500000 111.389065

1850 16800000 88.06078799

1901 32612000 63.2045715

1931 39988000 57.07847568

1971 46411700 52.98140487

2000 49230000 51.44252654

2008 51820000 50.14048192

2009 52200000 49.9576449

2010 52640000 49.74841721

2018 55980000 48.24149533

2019 67100000 44.06319131

2022 67508936 43.929532

Nature and Money

Seeing the recent win for Chris Packham against libellous claims made by the Country Squire Magazine you can see the obvious perversion of Nature by the Capitalist establishment.

At root Country Squire Magazine, its writers, editors and readers represent the capitalisation of Nature. The ownership of land, and the fake stewardship that such owners think they have. The last laugh is always on these people as they get buried in their own land for the worms and the soil to absorb them and reveal what irrelevant contributions to the land they really make.

Its always worth remembering that Nature was doing just fine for a billion years before mankind even emerged. How much less relevant is a land owner, or a reader of Country Squire Magazine.

No these people have nothing to do with Nature. They have everything to do with Capitalism, inequality, exclusion, exploitation, extortion, profit and other such dirty words.

It's the greatest shame when Nature gets caught up in Capitalism, and the planet is developing scars from this relationship that are going to take a very long time to heal.

Closing down Country Squire Magazine and re-educating its readers would barely make much difference so great is the probolem.

But one thing I have learned from speaking to such people: they are the very last people who should be owning land. Land should be Nationally owned and the land stewards should be properly trained so they can be a service to the nation, rather then self-serving, self-opinionated, tweed wearing fakes. 

The Lotus

It's a widely noted irony that the beautiful lily and lotus grow from the murky muddy bottoms of ponds. How can beauty and that sweet fragrance come from what is not beautiful and foul smelling?

So we discover that beauty is an illusion that emerges even when its substance is mud. Of course that works in reverse, when the lily decays and falls back into the mud we see that the mud is really made from what is beautiful. Lesson: things are short lived and rapidly become other things. There is no permanent substance or essence (or "what it is"), and what is desirable is always impermanent and not a fixed entity.

But the analogy is also used to encourage spiritual growth. We are born as muddy sinners and we strive to purify and flower as fragrant loti to become a blessing to the world.

How can a new born child be a muddy sinner? In modern thought we call it genetics, that the child may have a genetic predisposition to certain behaviour and illnesses. With good nurture these genes can be encouraged not to express, but its not a certain equation. Many people struggle with things that they are born with, or perhaps things they unwisely developed in themselves through mistakes and misjudgement. Take smoking addiction. Some people are more likely to become addicted than others, bit not everyone with an addictive personality will take up smoking, and even those who do smoke can turn their back on it with practice. Until we are wise we make mistakes, and lifting ourselves from the mud can be a long journey.

So it looks like we need to change and improve ourselves. Following from previous posts, is this not Adam Smith: that our lives are opportunities for improvement?

In the short term yes, but in the long term what is the goal of improvement? Do we really become "better?" and if we do "what is becoming better?"

The ultimate achievement of spiritual improvement is to realise that we never actually moved. All that growth and development was from the perspective of a false mortal self. But when we realise that this is a false mortal self then there is nothing to improve any more. Escaping that self is the final act of improvement, when we realise there was nothing to improve!

The problem initially with improvement is it can make us worse. If we get an award we can grow haughty and objectionable as a person, it can actually send us back into the mud.

A study of Western meditators revealed that in many cases meditation actually strengthens the ego. Look at me I have done lots of meditation, I am a good practitioner, I have made mental achievements, I am superior. Back into the mud we go!

Lifting ourselves out of the mud can itself be a sin. One solution is to lift other people out of the mud instead of ourselves. The Bodhisattva path. This aids realisation that its not all about "me" and is an important step in getting out of the mud. But we are still bound by the notion of individuals who need growth and progress. Initially there is the stage, where bound to the idea of individuals and growth and progress, we may resent other people being helped because we realise that we are ignoring our self. The Africans say "do not mend a man's eyes otherwise he will be covet your wife." If we ever have the idea of a "self" either in ourselves or in another then we are still anchored into the mud. Diamond Sutra is all about abandoning the idea of helping individuals: when we "help" no one is doing anything to anyone: it must always be done without even regard to what it is. "helping" is not helping, it just just doing the right thing. There is no debt.

And so the growth of a lotus is actually a very subtle thing!

The Western World is pure Sisyphine insanity. A chat with ChatGPT about Adam Smith.

The Western World is pure insanity. Its like a bunch a school kids formed a club (around about 1776) and made up some ideas and then killed anyone who disagreed with them. So you have the land clearance and murder of as many as 30 million American Indians, then you have endless global wars culminating in WW1 and WW2 and now against Russia WW3. The West will not stop until ever part of the globe is governed by this ideology.

But what is it?

On the front page of the Daily Mail Weekend, Alan Carr declaring that "My new goal in life? To find love again."

Now this headline assumes we know what the hell he is going on about. What are "life goals" what is "love"?

As previously blogger this gets onto page in its most famous version in the writings of Adam Smith and his "Wealth of Nations" (1776). 

So I went onto ChatGPT  to thrash this issue out and below you see the complete nonsense of the West and how we are all brought up in an ideolog that is completely circular, unjustified and dogmatic.

We thought with the overthrow of the Church we were free from magical mediaeval oppressive dogma, but it has just giot worse. People now spend their whole lives from birth to death "progressing" and "improving" until they die and the worms get them. At no point do people get off the travellator and just look around and think you know what I'm happy where I am. And I'm happy where I am is what people thought anyway long before Adam Smith.

A chat with ChatGPT on improvement and progress.

User

why does Adam Smith focus on improvement?

ChatGPT

Adam Smith, a renowned economist and philosopher, is known for his influential work, "The Wealth of Nations." In this seminal work, Smith emphasizes the significance of improvement in economic systems and societies. There are several reasons why Smith emphasizes improvement:

Economic Growth: Adam Smith believed that improvement and progress were vital for achieving economic growth. He argued that through continuous improvement in productivity, efficiency, and innovation, nations could increase their wealth and overall standard of living. Smith recognized that economic growth brought numerous benefits, such as higher wages, increased employment opportunities, and improved living conditions for the population.

Division of Labor: Smith extensively discussed the concept of division of labor, emphasizing its role in driving improvement. According to Smith, when workers specialize in specific tasks, they become more skilled and efficient, leading to increased productivity. This increased productivity results in greater output and economic advancement. Smith recognized that improvement in the division of labor was crucial for economic development.

Market Mechanism: Adam Smith advocated for a free market system, where individuals pursue their self-interest through voluntary exchange. He believed that this system encouraged improvement by promoting competition and innovation. In a free market, businesses are motivated to improve their products, reduce costs, and provide better services to attract customers. This continuous drive for improvement benefits both producers and consumers, leading to overall economic progress.

Wealth Accumulation: Smith viewed improvement as a means of accumulating wealth. He argued that nations could enhance their wealth by investing in productive activities, such as infrastructure development, education, and technological advancements. By continually striving for improvement, societies could generate more wealth, which could be reinvested for further progress and prosperity.

Social Welfare: While Smith recognized the importance of individual self-interest and economic improvement, he also highlighted the role of improvement in enhancing social welfare.

User

But are humans not already wealthy in themselves? I mean to be a human is already more wealth than we can ever achieve through labour.

ChatGPT

It is true that being human inherently brings certain advantages and qualities that can be considered valuable. Human life has inherent dignity and worth, encompassing aspects such as consciousness, emotions, relationships, and the capacity for personal growth and fulfillment. These aspects of human existence are indeed priceless and cannot be quantified solely in economic terms.

However, when Adam Smith discusses wealth and improvement, he primarily focuses on material wealth and economic well-being. Smith's perspective is rooted in the context of economic systems and the allocation of resources. He emphasizes the importance of improving economic conditions to enhance living standards and promote societal progress.

Smith recognized that material wealth and economic improvement contribute to providing individuals with the means to meet their basic needs, access education and healthcare, and pursue opportunities for personal development. In his view, improvement in economic conditions and the accumulation of wealth were critical for fostering prosperity, supporting social welfare programs, and creating a foundation for a better quality of life.

It is important to acknowledge that while material wealth and economic improvement can bring benefits and opportunities, they are not the sole determinants of human well-being. Factors such as health, relationships, personal fulfillment, and a sense of purpose are also essential aspects of a meaningful and fulfilling life. Thus, a holistic understanding of wealth encompasses both material and non-material dimensions.

User

So Adam Smith focusing only on material wealth may mean that he reduces holistic wealth?

ChatGPT

Adam Smith's focus on material wealth in his economic analysis does not necessarily imply a reduction of holistic wealth. It is important to remember that Smith was primarily an economist and his work, particularly "The Wealth of Nations," aimed to examine and understand the principles and mechanisms that drive economic systems.

Smith's emphasis on material wealth and economic improvement was rooted in his belief that economic prosperity and the efficient allocation of resources could lead to overall societal progress and well-being. He recognized that material wealth, when properly harnessed and distributed, could provide individuals with the means to pursue education, healthcare, leisure, and other non-material aspects that contribute to a good life.

While Smith's focus on material wealth may appear narrow when considered in isolation, it is crucial to recognize that he acknowledged the importance of non-material aspects of life. In his other major work, "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," Smith explored the moral and social dimensions of human existence. He emphasized the significance of empathy, morality, and social connections in fostering human flourishing.

Therefore, it is more accurate to view Adam Smith's perspective as a framework for understanding the economic aspects of societal development. While his analysis may primarily revolve around material wealth, it is not intended to dismiss or diminish the importance of non-material aspects of human well-being. Holistic wealth encompasses both material and non-material dimensions, and understanding and addressing them in tandem is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of human prosperity.

User

The opening axiom of Adam Smith is that we do not already have enough. Clearly by the 18th Century when Adam Smith was writing we had enough: we had Adam Smith for example. Was not Adam Smith himself enough, or was Adam Smith somehow defective and in need of improvement and his value needed to increase?   

ChatGPT

Adam Smith's opening axiom in "The Wealth of Nations" is not a statement suggesting that individuals are inherently lacking or insufficient. Instead, it reflects the understanding that human wants and needs are insatiable, meaning that people desire and strive for more than they currently possess. This observation aligns with the fundamental principles of economics, which explore how societies allocate scarce resources to fulfill unlimited wants and needs.

When Smith states that "the annual labor of every nation is the fund that supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life," he is referring to the role of labor and productive activity in generating wealth and satisfying human wants. He argues that economic improvement and the accumulation of wealth can enhance the overall standard of living and provide individuals with a greater range of goods and services.

The statement does not imply that individuals or societies are inherently deficient or flawed. Instead, it recognizes the innate human drive for progress, innovation, and the pursuit of a better life. Adam Smith himself was not suggesting that he, as an individual, was inadequate or in need of improvement. Rather, he was analyzing economic systems and exploring how societies can generate and distribute wealth to improve the well-being of their members.

It is essential to distinguish between the concepts of material wealth and personal value or worth. Adam Smith's focus on improvement and wealth does not diminish the value of individuals as human beings but rather aims to examine the mechanisms by which societies can enhance economic conditions and provide opportunities for personal and societal betterment.

User

If human wants and needs are insatiable then why bother to satiate them. Its an Sisyphine task and leads to a wasted life. 

ChatGPT

The concept that human wants and needs are insatiable does not imply that attempting to fulfill them is futile or leads to a wasted life. While it is true that our desires may be limitless, the pursuit of fulfilling our wants and needs is an essential aspect of human motivation and progress. Here are a few points to consider:

Satisfaction and Well-Being: The pursuit of fulfilling our wants and needs can lead to a sense of satisfaction, accomplishment, and overall well-being. Setting goals, working towards them, and achieving them can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment in life. The process of striving for improvement and personal growth can bring joy and a sense of fulfillment, even if complete satisfaction is never permanently achieved.

Innovation and Progress: The desire to fulfill our wants and needs has been a driving force behind human innovation and progress throughout history. The pursuit of satisfying our desires has led to advancements in technology, medicine, arts, and various fields, improving the quality of life for many. It is through this pursuit that societies have achieved significant breakthroughs and advancements.

Personal Development: The journey of pursuing our wants and needs can lead to personal development and self-discovery. It allows individuals to explore their passions, talents, and interests, leading to personal growth and a deeper understanding of oneself. The process of striving for improvement can shape character, build resilience, and foster a sense of purpose.

Balance and Prioritization: While the pursuit of fulfilling wants and needs is important, it is equally important to find a balance and prioritize what truly matters to us. Recognizing that some desires may be transient or not essential to our well-being can help us focus our efforts on fulfilling the most meaningful and valuable aspects of our lives. It is crucial to cultivate self-awareness and make choices that align with our values and long-term happiness.

Ultimately, the pursuit of fulfilling our wants and needs is a deeply personal choice, and different individuals may have different perspectives on what brings meaning and fulfillment in life. It is important to find a balance that resonates with your own values and aspirations, taking into account both material and non-material aspects of well-being.

User

So our greatest need is a need for " human motivation and progress." Its not the needs and wants that drive us but a need for motivation and progress itself?

ChatGPT

While individual motivations and drivers can vary, the need for motivation and progress can be considered a fundamental aspect of human nature. Humans have a natural inclination to seek growth, improvement, and advancement in various aspects of life. This innate drive for progress can be seen in our pursuit of knowledge, personal development, career goals, creative endeavors, and contributions to society.

Motivation and progress serve as catalysts for personal fulfillment, a sense of purpose, and the achievement of goals. They provide a framework for individuals to strive for self-improvement, pursue meaningful experiences, and make a positive impact on their lives and the lives of others.

Our needs and wants act as triggers that stimulate motivation and progress. When we identify desires, goals, or areas for improvement, we are motivated to take action and make progress toward fulfilling those desires. This process involves setting goals, developing plans, overcoming obstacles, and continually working towards achieving desired outcomes.

It is important to note that motivations can vary among individuals. While some may be driven by personal ambition, others may be motivated by the desire to contribute to the well-being of their community or to pursue creative or intellectual endeavors. The specific motivations can be influenced by various factors, including personal values, cultural influences, societal expectations, and individual experiences.

In summary, the need for motivation and progress can be seen as a driving force that underlies our pursuit of fulfilling needs and wants. It provides a framework for personal growth, self-fulfillment, and the attainment of meaningful goals, contributing to a sense of purpose and well-being.

User

But you said that "needs and wants" were insatiable and meeting them was the purpose of life. Now you say the "need for motivation and progress can be considered a fundamental aspect of human nature." So its not the needs and wants say to get a bigger house that matters, but just the need for activity and movement itself. You are saying humans are Sisyphus and are not happy at rest and must keep moving and progressing, even though there is no obtainable goal in sight.

ChatGPT

I apologize if my previous responses conveyed a sense of contradiction. Let me clarify the relationship between needs, wants, motivation, and progress.

Human needs and wants encompass a wide range of desires, including both material and non-material aspects. These needs and wants can indeed be insatiable in the sense that there is no definitive end point where all desires are permanently fulfilled. However, the pursuit of meeting those needs and wants is an inherent aspect of human nature and can contribute to personal growth and fulfillment.

While the pursuit of specific desires, such as acquiring a bigger house, may be driven by personal preferences, societal expectations, or cultural influences, the broader need for motivation and progress goes beyond any specific goal or outcome. It is the need for personal growth, self-improvement, and the continuous development of skills, knowledge, and experiences.

The analogy to Sisyphus and the unobtainable goal is not an accurate representation of the concept being discussed here. The need for motivation and progress is not about a perpetual cycle of futile efforts or chasing unattainable goals. Instead, it reflects the inherent drive within individuals to seek personal growth, expand their horizons, and find meaning in their actions and achievements.

While it is true that humans often find fulfillment in engaging in activities, pursuing goals, and making progress, it does not mean that rest or contentment is unimportant or undesirable. Rest, relaxation, and finding balance are also essential aspects of human well-being. The pursuit of progress does not negate the value of enjoying the present moment or finding contentment in one's current circumstances.

In summary, the need for motivation and progress reflects the innate human drive for personal growth and self-improvement. It is not solely about the pursuit of specific desires, but rather about the continuous journey of learning, development, and self-actualization. It is a dynamic process that varies for each individual and can bring a sense of purpose, fulfillment, and well-being.

===

Managed to continue conversation...

I apologize if my previous responses may have caused confusion. Allow me to clarify:

Human needs and wants can indeed be insatiable in the sense that our desires are often limitless and constantly evolving. We continuously seek to fulfill various needs and wants throughout our lives, which can range from basic physiological needs to more complex psychological and social needs.

While the pursuit of meeting needs and wants is an important aspect of human life, it is not the sole purpose of life. The need for motivation and progress can be considered a fundamental aspect of human nature, but it is not in contradiction to the pursuit of fulfilling needs and wants. Instead, it complements and drives our efforts to meet those needs and wants.

The need for motivation and progress refers to the innate drive for personal growth, self-improvement, and the pursuit of meaningful goals. It encompasses the desire to continually learn, develop skills, make progress in our endeavors, and experience a sense of fulfillment and purpose.

It is important to note that the concept of progress does not necessarily imply a constant pursuit of unattainable goals or a state of perpetual restlessness. Progress can be viewed as a process of growth and improvement, where individuals set and pursue meaningful goals that align with their values, interests, and aspirations.

While it is true that humans often seek challenges, engagement, and forward movement in their lives, finding contentment and balance is equally important. Rest, reflection, and appreciation of the present moment are essential for overall well-being.

Ultimately, the purpose and meaning of life are subjective and can vary for each individual. It is up to each person to find their own balance between the pursuit of goals, the satisfaction of needs and wants, and the appreciation of the present moment.

User

How is the pursuit of goals compatible with rest and appreciation? Aren't they opposites?

ChatGPT

The pursuit of goals and rest/appreciation are not necessarily opposites but rather complementary aspects of a balanced and fulfilling life. While they may appear to be in tension, they can coexist and support each other in different ways. Here's how they can be compatible:

Rest and Rejuvenation: Taking time for rest, relaxation, and rejuvenation is crucial for overall well-being. It allows us to recharge our energy, reduce stress, and maintain physical and mental health. Rest can provide a sense of calm and help us regain focus and clarity. It prepares us for renewed engagement and productivity in pursuing our goals.

Reflection and Evaluation: Periods of rest and downtime provide an opportunity for reflection and evaluation. By stepping back from the pursuit of goals, we can assess our progress, reassess priorities, and gain perspective on our journey. Reflection allows us to refine our goals, make adjustments, and ensure they align with our values and aspirations.

Appreciation and Gratitude: Taking time to appreciate and be grateful for the present moment and the achievements we have made so far is essential. It allows us to acknowledge our accomplishments, recognize the positive aspects of our lives, and cultivate a sense of contentment. Appreciation can enhance our overall satisfaction and motivation in pursuing future goals.

Balance and Harmony: Striking a balance between goal pursuit and rest/appreciation is key to maintaining overall well-being. Engaging in productive activities and working towards goals can bring a sense of purpose and fulfillment, while rest and appreciation provide the necessary balance and prevent burnout. It is through this balance that we can experience greater satisfaction and sustainable progress.

Ultimately, the compatibility between the pursuit of goals and rest/appreciation lies in the ability to integrate both into our lives in a harmonious manner. It involves recognizing the importance of each and making conscious choices to allocate time and energy to both aspects. By finding a balance that works for us individually, we can cultivate a fulfilling and meaningful life that encompasses both purposeful action and moments of rest and appreciation.

User

We are a long way from Adam Smith's economics now. It seems that growth is not so important after all. You admit at least that growth is only half the coin. So what is the economics of rests and appreciation?

ChatGPT

The field of economics traditionally focuses on the study of production, consumption, and the allocation of resources to fulfill human wants and needs. While economic theories often prioritize growth and material wealth, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of well-being, rest, and appreciation in economic discussions.

In recent years, the field of economics has expanded to include the study of well-being and happiness economics. This branch of economics examines the factors that contribute to individual and societal well-being beyond purely economic measures. It acknowledges that economic growth alone does not guarantee happiness or overall well-being.

The economics of rest and appreciation can be explored within this broader framework of well-being economics. It involves understanding the role of leisure, relaxation, and non-material aspects of life in fostering happiness, contentment, and overall satisfaction. Here are some key considerations within this perspective:

Leisure and Time Use: Economists study the allocation and value of leisure time in individuals' lives. This includes analyzing how people choose to spend their free time, the benefits derived from leisure activities, and the trade-offs individuals make between work and leisure.

Quality of Life: Economics can examine the factors that contribute to an improved quality of life beyond material wealth. This includes factors such as access to healthcare, education, social support networks, environmental sustainability, and cultural experiences. Understanding and promoting these aspects can contribute to overall well-being and a more comprehensive understanding of economic progress.

Subjective Well-Being: Subjective well-being research within economics explores individuals' self-reported happiness, life satisfaction, and overall well-being. It investigates the factors that influence subjective well-being, such as social relationships, mental health, and personal values, in addition to economic factors.

Policy Implications: The economics of rest and appreciation can inform policy decisions by recognizing the importance of creating an environment that supports work-life balance, leisure opportunities, and cultural appreciation. It can guide policymakers in considering the broader well-being impacts of economic policies and designing interventions that promote individual and societal flourishing.

It is worth noting that the field of economics is dynamic, and there is ongoing debate and exploration of these topics. The incorporation of non-material aspects, such as rest and appreciation, into economic thinking reflects a broader recognition of the multidimensional nature of human well-being and the need to go beyond purely economic measures in assessing societal progress.

User

But rest and appreciation do not increase material Wealth. If we focus only on material wealth then we will exclude rest and appreciation.

ChatGPT

You are correct that rest and appreciation, in and of themselves, do not directly contribute to material wealth. Rest refers to periods of relaxation and rejuvenation, while appreciation involves acknowledging and valuing non-material aspects of life. These aspects may not be easily quantifiable or directly tied to economic output.

However, it is important to recognize that the pursuit of material wealth alone does not guarantee overall well-being or a fulfilling life. A narrow focus on material wealth without considering other dimensions of human experience can lead to imbalances and potential negative consequences such as stress, burnout, and strained social relationships.

Economic thinking has evolved to acknowledge the importance of non-material aspects of life and the broader concept of well-being. This recognition reflects a more holistic understanding of human flourishing. While traditional economic analysis may emphasize material wealth, there is an increasing recognition of the need to incorporate non-material dimensions into economic frameworks.

In recent years, alternative economic indicators and metrics have been developed to capture a more comprehensive view of well-being, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and the Human Development... [I cancelled output to put the point strongly]

User

You are wrong. Rest and appreciation are not opportunities to take a break from growth. They are a complete alternative to growth. In many ways it is growth that supports rest and appreciation. We work only so that we can rest and appreciate our lives.

ChatGPT

I apologize if my previous responses did not adequately convey the perspective you are emphasizing. I understand that rest and appreciation can be viewed as alternative experiences or states of being in contrast to the pursuit of continuous growth. Rest and appreciation can indeed be seen as essential aspects of a fulfilling life, offering opportunities for reflection, rejuvenation, and enjoying the present moment.

While growth and progress are often associated with economic and material aspects of life, it is important to recognize that personal and societal well-being encompass a broader range of dimensions. Rest and appreciation are valuable components of well-being that contribute to a balanced and meaningful existence.

Work and economic activities can provide the means to support rest and opportunities for appreciation. By engaging in productive work, individuals can earn a living, access resources, and create conditions that enable rest and the pursuit of activities that bring joy, satisfaction, and a sense of fulfillment.

Furthermore, the pursuit of growth and progress can be driven by the desire to create conditions that allow for more opportunities for rest and appreciation. For example, advancements in technology and efficiency can help reduce work hours and create more leisure time for individuals. Economic growth can provide resources and infrastructure that support cultural experiences, access to nature, and other forms of appreciation.

In this broader context, growth and rest/appreciation are not necessarily opposing forces but can be seen as interconnected and mutually supportive. It is about finding a balance and recognizing that a fulfilling life involves not only striving for growth and progress but also making time for rest, reflection, and appreciation of the non-material aspects that bring joy and meaning to our lives.

User

Is there not a fundamental problem here. To progress we must fundamentally not appreciate what we have. If we were satisfied with what we had, why would we progress. So is not progress simply the inability to rest and appreciate?

ChatGPT

The relationship between progress and rest/appreciation can be nuanced and complex. While progress often implies a desire for change and improvement, it does not necessarily mean that one cannot appreciate or find contentment in the present moment.

It is true that the pursuit of progress may involve a certain level of dissatisfaction or a recognition that there is room for improvement. This recognition can drive individuals and societies to strive for advancements in various domains, such as technology, science, arts, or social structures.

However, it is possible to simultaneously appreciate what one has achieved or experienced while still desiring progress. Appreciation does not necessarily imply complacency or a lack of ambition. It can coexist with the desire for growth and improvement.

In fact, the ability to rest and appreciate can enhance the process of progress. Taking moments for reflection and gratitude allows individuals to recognize their achievements, recharge their energy, and gain perspective. It can provide motivation and ... [stopped here]

===

So ChatGPT is not really getting the point it thinks that bigger, faster and future is better. It does not seem to give primacy to here, now or past. It is so paradigmatic that ChatGPT does not seem to have any training outside this which is amazing! I will have to investigate further what it thinks about this when have more time, but the insanity of the West is clear to see.

===

Addendum. So looking at that it is no wonder that human happiness is falling and the planet is being destroyed.

Relativity. Motion and Meditation

There is a lot of spinning in circles here, but like a fly trying to get out of the bottle that is to be expected.

So as a pre-teenager I established that the world was relative and an illusion. But did I make a mistake!

So my first dictum was "All things are relative."

The meaning here was a moment of insight from Einstein's Relativity theory. I had read a popular commentator say of motion that "you cannot hammer a nail into the space-time continuum to act as an absolute reference point." When we measure motion we always do so between two things.

Inadvertently I had stumbled across Buddha's "Dependent Arising" (Pratītyasamutpāda) but in the form of a New Scientist article on Physics.

What an extraordinary thing in fact that the most basic of things like motion turns out to be impossible to grasp in absolute terms. We think we are stationary sitting watching the TV. There is no exertion, we are relaxed and everything in the room "appears" not to be moving. That has got to be the experience of stationary. But 2000 years of investigation has shown us this is far from the "true" situation. That appearance of stationary is not "true" in any absolute way. We are in fact on the surface of the planet that is rotating once a "day"* (by definition) and the planet orbiting the Sun once a year (by definition) and so on. We have "red shift" to determine the motion of far away things relative to us but it is all relative. We have no way to know whether something is stationary, or more importantly this idea of "stationary" is only ever relative, it has no absolute solid meaning. We must get used to existing in the "emptiness" of realising that our state of motion exists "between" things but not "in" things!! I have no absolute state of motion, it is always relative. Now this is the very essence of Buddha's teaching!! Nothing exists "in" itself. All things exist relative to other things. There is no "in itself."

What does this mean outside the context of measurement? In the physical world it is that everything is created and does not last forever. It means everything comes from metaphorical "parents", nothing comes from itself. Everything is made and cannot exist by itself. It will decay, spoil and disintegrate eventually. So not only can nothing make itself, but it cannot sustain itself either! There goes the entire American Dream in a one catastrophic earthquake. To survive we must interact with our environment and it must interact with us. The very nature of "survival" exists in this interaction. There is no "me" surviving and there is no "you" helping/hindering me. "Surviving" is always a mutual process. If I support you and you support me then "we" survive. If you do not survive then ultimately neither do I.

And in the mind, relativity is finding that the idea of "self contained things" no longer has any relevance. The world turns out to be composed from inter-related things, that come and go.

Now I took "All Things are Relative" as a maxim. But it leads to some problems in thought. If everything is relative then everything is an illusion. It is an illusion in that it has no fixed "body" of its own, and is only a temporary appearance relevant in this situation only. Like with motion we can appear to be stationary in a moving train with the blinds pulled, but this is only an illusory "appearance" we know perfectly well we are moving relative to the world outside. The appearance is not absolute, and many contradictory appearances like stationary (with the blinds pulled) and moving (looking outside) at the same time, can apply to the same situation. And this encourages nihilism. We can start to think Matrix style that its all an hallucination and its worthless.

Uh Ho! Mistake.

How do we get from "illusion" to "worthless"?

What is going on here is "attachment." Compared to "solid permanent fixed eternal reality" then we find the temporary illusion worthless. But is there a solid reality? We just investigated that there is not. So "against" what is it worthless? It just is what it is now!

So we see the deep workings of our "attached" and "grasping" mind. When it grasps something it holds it as a measure against other things which it considers less worthwhile. Obviously when it find something more worthwhile it then grasps at that. So ironically the grasping mind is actually living in a  relative world itself! To make a statement that something is "worthless" is to be relative and not absolute.

The irony here is that accepting the relative world for what it is, no longer comparing it with other things and just accepting that it is fundamentally relative becomes an absolute! Looking out the window we just accept the movement, looking in the carriage we just accept the stationary. When we stop grasping we see the nature of absolute! Dangerous thing to say, cos with any mention of solid reality or absolute we immediately grasp for it.

And so it is in meditation too. We start meditation in the relative world. Buddha says "know that I am breathing in." Obviously breathing in comes next to breathing out. We split the world into relative pairs. He also does long and short. This is relative existence. Things not being themselves as themselves, but being in relation to other things. It is also called "conditional" world which means the same, that nothing is intrinsic but exists within conditions. In English "conditions" is a rich word that captures both the if/then of its existence but also has the meaning of environment too. If the fish has no water it decays, is the same as a dry environment will not support the fish. Nature is all about conditions and relativity as much as physics.

But an interesting thing happens in meditation which in previous posts was called (1) the Named/Thought World and (2) the Present. The Named/Thought world is the relative/conditional world, and we start meditation here. But the practice is to cut things off from the environment and conditions. We take our breath (or whatever object we are watching) and we focus on it so that we begin to ignore all the other things. We become less and less relative and more and more absolute. And this comes with a dropping of language and thoughts, and eventually even consciousness as we enter Jhana. The Absolute does exist but it in unlike anything we can imagine or think about. It can only be accessed outside the relative world.

Not "outside" the relative world is just another relative statement. Inside/Outside. We don't really mean "outside", what we mean is the letting go for grasping for relative meaning and existence. The discreteness and "somethingness" or "solidity" that comes we placing something "here" and something else "there." This is "this" and that is "that" we love, literally LOVE to say. Love so much we find it almost impossible not to do it.

So there is meditation where we train ourselves to forget about "that" "over there". Its not important. Right now only this matters. And its hard to do. We have worries, and memories, and tasks to do, and duties, and expectations, and desires and longings and ... but they are ALL OVER THERE. For now just this matters, and so we bring the mind back to the breath (or whatever we concentrate on) and we watch it as steadily, acutely and undistracted as we can. Like a laser beam we bring our focus to a point on that object. Seeing just it as it is, without reference to anything else. What was "my breath", or the "in" breath" or the "short" breath becomes just this breath. In previous posts it becomes the source, there is nothing else. Going into that source we begin to find the absolute. 

So I was wrong in a way to insist on "ALL THINGS ARE RELATIVE" in that in unskilful hands this might sound like nihilism. But in skilful hands it points out that the ABSOLUTE is not relative. You don't have: "this is the absolute truth and that is not." This is dialectics, it is relative and conditional. Truth is dialectical. It recognises that truth emerges in a time and place. But there is an absolute that lies behind it all, and we should remember that the world is as FULL as it is EMPTY. Once we experience the ABSOLUTE then the world become perfect and unconditional. We see how the imperfect relative world is just a paper thin wrapping of the "present" (both meanings) real world. But unless we have accessed the ABSOLUTE this statement of "paper thin" or  "illusion" looks nihilistic, flat and depressing. The problem is that compared to the infinite light of the ABSOLUTE the relative world is indeed dull and lifeless. But if you tell someone who only knows the relative, conditional world that their world is dull, empty and lifeless it is depressing and psychologically harming. Indeed the psychological damage that can be caused by trying to rip someone away from attachments to the relative is counter productive. Bitterness, hatred, anger, depression, self-destruction and all kinds of terrible mental states can be created embedding the person ever deeper into the relative!! There is a part of me that thinks if you push hard enough there will come a breaking point where the relative world is so awful we are forced to let go of it. But this can manifest as things like suicide or murder as we try to physically destroy the suffering. Attachment can be so strong that we would rather die than let go! And under the influence of suffering we are the least likely to see how attachment is causing all this suffering and confusion.

Its almost like attachment is a demonic puzzle that only unlocks when we stop trying to unlock it, but those battling to unlock it just get ever deeper caught, ever more frustrated and ever more blinded to what is happening to them. To unlock the puzzle we must walk away, which seems crazy when we are holding onto things we firmly think are going to save us. How quite logically we ask can I gain anything by letting go? And the more desperate we are the more we grasp out for things. I believe sinking sand is exactly like this. The more we struggle the more we get sucked under. The only way to survive is to lie on our back and stop struggling: how counter intuitive this must seem amongst all the fear, panic, anger and greed.

So we begin with meditation and simply trying to hold a single object firmly in our attention, letting go of everything else. Its a really really good start to be able to let go of everything else!  

===

* "Day" this is another relative term. How long is a day? It is defined as the time taken for the Earth to rotate. Although it has been the time between sunrise and sunset which clearly changes throughout the year. In Japan I understand that this definition was held firmly so that time itself was stretched during the year with time travelling slower in the summer to passage of the day constant. This has the advantage of solving the "daylight saving" problem and everyone gets up at the same time each day of the year. But this all illustrates that time itself must be measured "against" something. There is no absolute indication of time. Indeed this is the very nature of Measurement itself. By definition a measurement is where we compare two things, and the idea of Standard Units comes from everyone socially agreeing to use the same units or at least have an exchange system between units. So the US uses the ancient Pound while the rest of the world uses the French Kilogram. But we all understand that 1Kg = 2.2lb. Once Kg was defined by a standard reference block but today Kg is now defined in terms of Planck's constant, which can be measured. But we can't use this measurement to get something's mass. This must still be done relatively.

Motion is an illusion

Here's a good meditation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fg0qy9L12_g

So motion believe it or not is something we add to the world. It isn't there before we see it. 

Where did we Go Wrong in the west?

Original post here: https://riswey.blogspot.com/2009/09/all-wealth-is-relative.html

So the argument that we can always be more wealthy or less wealthy is developed in this blog into a refutation of the idea of Absolute Progress. Mankind can struggle all the days of its life to improve things and actually while things have improved compared with yesterday they are still worse when compared with tomorrow. What you have depends 100% on what you compare it with. Indeed to feel rich we need do nothing else than think about people poorer than us. How much simpler is this than slaving the best years of our life seeking income and pay rises!

Now the Hippie will say "Turn On, Tune In and Drop Out" but we need be careful. This argument here is not really changing anything, it is just taking a false wind out of our sails.

(ironically in the picture is a company using wind to transport cargo in a Zero Carbon way, a useful wind, but actually not useful if the cargo isn't really needed)

The key issue here is that obsessed with wealth creation, and not understanding that it is an illusion, we waste time and resources.

If the planet is facing crisis it is simply because of this ill conceived race for resource consumption in the name of "getting wealthy."

This Scotsman Adam Smith is the writer of the most famous work on wealth creation "The Wealth of Nations" (1776) which is an analysis of the Industrial Revolution in the UK and published the year of the US Independence I suspect (without evidence) as part of the Ideological foundations of the US. The influential English philosopher John Locke was certainly central to this Ideological movement and Adam Smith was certainly writing in support of it.

So what does Smith say about wealth itself:

"the annual produce of the land and labour of the society". This "produce" is, at its simplest, a good or service which satisfies human needs, and wants of utility. [Book 1, Chapter 3]

So it's desire based. And on desire Smith says:

"the natural desire of every individual is to improve his own condition" [Book 4, Chapter 5]

So we have immediate flaws in his theory. He is referring to a "natural" component of mankind, by which he means an axiom or founding truth. So "improvement" is a founding axiom of Adam Smith. This means he does not supply a reason for "improvement", it is assumed at the outset. It is "natural" and needs no further justification. Really?

So we know he got this idea from Christianity with its emphasis on improvement to cast aside Sin and restore our relationship with God. Although Jesus offers us immediately redemption and forgiveness, rather than slaving to "earn" redemption. However the idea of Good Works and paying off the debt of Sin is inherited by Christianity from much older systems. In the East the idea of "practice" and gradual purification goes back before history.

So the West's Ideology begins with this very unjustified idea of improvement, growth or Progress towards absolution.

And yet as shown here, at least in the context of wealth, it is a myth. Progress with no goal is aimless. Compared with tomorrow we will always be poor, and compared with yesterday we will always be rich.

Progress does not actually create any wealth at all!

Or at least there is no wealth creation as long as the process is open ended. If however we can posit an End Point, then we have something to aim for and we can say how far along the path we have gone. Now if Smith is right about Natural Desires then we can just list the Natural Desires and then set about meeting them. And after we have done this then the job of improvement and progress is finished.

In the East while the process of Enlightenment can seem goalless, we do have the unequivocal words of Buddha saying of his realisation that "there was nothing left to do." 

But Natural Desires for Smith are without end!  Written into the ideology is that they are just "improvement", a relative measure.

And obviously this is false. No human wants to look back on a life of endless and pointless toil with no "real" achievements. Yes we made that a bit bigger or a bit faster but the goal still not attained. What a life wasted!

Yet for some reason the West has been fascinated by this open ended struggle to find a non existing holy grail. We are going no-where and the path there is pointless.

It has been about 300 years we have been doing this and every so often people become disaffected with Capitalism (as it is now called). The Ideologues spend billions pushing the key ideas around the world, whether through Hollywood films, or through NEWS, or through Busy-ness Colleges or in the final resort sanctions against countries that do not accept these ideas and eventually bombing until they do.

But its all a myth! Amazing to think!

What is the real Natural Desire is the desire for Peace and Satisfaction. And this can only be gained by being at ease WHERE YOU ARE. Valuing WHERE YOU ARE and not wanting to be anyone or anywhere else. This is the actual NATURAL DESIRE*. And that means seeing the Value in what Capitalists call poverty.

If we stop for even 1 second and look at the sky. The Sun by itself is already more than we could ever dream of. A daily bringer of light and warmth. A miraculous entity that comes to us every day. What more could we ever want! And if that was not enough how about our eyes that enable us to see it! With no doubt at all there is nothing more miraculous and extraordinary than what we already have!

Adam Smith is not a completely cold pusher of faceless industrial progress. He has much to say about emotions and Love too. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) he writes:

 

"Man naturally desires, not only to be loved, but to be lovely; or to be that thing which is the natural and proper object of love. He naturally dreads, not only to be hated, but to be hateful; or to be that thing which is the natural and proper object of hatred. He desires, not only praise, but praiseworthiness; or to be that thing which, though it should be praised by nobody, is, however, the natural and proper object of praise. He dreads, not only blame, but blameworthiness; or to be that thing which, though it should be blamed by nobody, is, however, the natural and proper object of blame." [ibid. Ch 2]

"What so great happiness as to be beloved, and to know that we deserve to be beloved? What so great misery as to be hated, and to know that we deserve to be hated?" [ibid. Ch 1]

And yet at the heart of this lies an appreciation of the value of what we have and what we are. This rather flies in the face of his belief in "improvement." How can we be fully lovely if we have yet to be Improved?!

Like so much of Adam Smith it is all misunderstood and the West has for whatever reasons sailed off in completely the wrong direction.

As the planet faced irreparable damage under the crazy unlovable belief system of Capitalism it is worth reflecting on the fact that we have it all wrong, and it is time to go back to the start of the Industrial Age and rethink what we originally had in mind because it is nothing like what we have now.

Also worth nothing that Adam Smith clearly didn't read his Christianity properly because being Loved is what God offers us already before we even get our boots on to go to work**. And being forgiven is a part of that infinite Love. If the "Natural Desire" is for Love then we already always had that!

What a disastrous philosophy!

* So what proof can we supply that the true Natural Desire is peace and satisfaction rather than indefinite improvement. Well one problem with the idea of "indefinite improvement" is the question of how you can improve it? We can use SRH here. Adam Smith's intention with "indefinite improvement" is to declare some unchanging truth. Did Adam Smith write "Wealth of Nations" as the first page of an infinite book which would improve indefinitely? What would happen to this idea of "improve indefinitely" if it really did improve indefinitely? It rather says that at some stage it would cease to be "improve indefinitely" and would become something better. Now this is rather Kantian Moral Imperative. What is better than "improve indefinitely"? Surely it is "best." And what is the key nature of "Best." It can't be improved or bettered. Now that is interesting if we realise that the only thing that can't be "bettered" is the "best". It means that the only thing that can't change is already the best. Now this almost overlaps with the key alternative to Adam Smith, which is the realisation that the world is already Best and there is nothing to do.

“Sitting quietly, doing nothing, Spring comes, and the grass grows, by itself.” [Matsuo Bashō, Japan 1644]

It's a very inclusive idea. If the universe isn't already perfect then how can we make it perfect, given that we and all our resources and tools are from the universe? If we or our tools are not already perfect then what chance of doing anything perfect to improve things. This is a massive subject, but enough to draw attention to a better idea from Adam Smith's "indefinite improvement".

Perhaps worth putting a note on Buddhist theory here. So the key observation is Dukkha or dissatisfaction. Faced with this we are forced into action to seek satisfaction. But whatever we do and whatever peace we find is always broken by new Dukkha eventually and we are forced into action again. This is Adam Smith's "indefinite improvement." Its not really a desire or goal its an unfortunate fact that mankind will never be happy. Except Buddha realises something. Dissatisfaction always turns up, it is created. And his question was why does it happen? Rather than just trying to bat it out of the park, Buddha looks at Dukkha and asks how it happens. And his answer was not what Adam Smith would expect. It's the belief in a Self that gives Dukkha a target. Drop this belief and Dukkha ends. That is not an "indefinite improvement" that is the extinction of suffering, permanently.  

** for those without belief in God this maps onto the nature of the NOW. As Robert Pirsig tries to describe in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle maintenance the inception of awareness right NOW predates all our thoughts about it. By the time we are thinking about things (like Near and Far in recent posts) its already happened. When we say that God loves us, it is because we are birthed brand new in every moment. The only thing that disguises this constant creation is our desires and evil which cloud our thinking and drag us deep down into the creation process. For those deeply attached to themselves and the world they will not notice the process of being born anew in every instant. And being born from What? It is at this point that we get into quite extraordinary places. 

===

And actually the UK spawned a whole raft of pointless philosophies into what was called the European Enlightenment. The founding father of all this Anglo (and soon to become Anglo-American) nonsense is John Locke (1632 – 1704). Like with Adam Smith and his unfounded "improvement" John Locke's whole philosophy fails because of its reductionist belief in discrete physical entities. He would have done well to read his immediate predecessor John Donne (1571 - 1631)

No man is an island entire of itself; every man 

is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; 

if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe 

is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as 

well as any manner of thy friends or of thine 

own were; any man's death diminishes me, 

because I am involved in mankind. 

And therefore never send to know for whom 

the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. 

[MEDITATION XVII]

But instead Locke was the first to define the self through a "continuity of consciousness". What a horned rabbit is this! We are to define a discrete entity like "self" in terms of joining up of something like consciousness which doesn't come in parts anyway. I mean who has ever lived in a past consciousness or a future consciousness? We live ONLY in this consciousness NOW. If there was a Past or a Future these are just vague memories or anticipations that we sometimes become conscious off, we never actually live there.

Donne not famous as the founding father of American Ideology notes from the outset that the "self" is not self-contained anyway and belongs to a part of the main. For Donne there is no need to stamp an imaginary entity upon a mythological stream of consciousness. Far more advanced already, but seemingly lost to Locke and his followers. And from that mis-seeing things in the dusk of the European Enlightenment we now have the full darkness of the modern 21st Century world.