vanquishing of once-deadly diseases, or this last century’s advances in transportation and electronics and communications—evidence of progress! How could a wrong-thinking society achieve such feats? As it were, I will not dispute these arguments for the most part, because society has, in a certain sense, been quite productive along these lines, creating a rather convincing appearance of legitimacy. However, what must be kept in mind is not what has been done, but why and by what means it was done, for our methods and intentions comprise the true essence of our accomplishments, not how things seem or appear. Additionally, the question of permanence and sustainability must be considered, for to focus only on immediate results will likely produce a self-destructive tunnel vision, one from which it is difficult to emerge. This is best exemplified by the practice of “planned obsolescence,” which rarely includes a plan for what to do with the abundance of obsolete products, however hazardous or polluting they might be. After all, economic survival justifies destructive behavior, right?
No, when it comes to “progress,” appearances cannot be trusted, for there is a great overlap between things accomplished for the right reasons (principle and appropriateness) and the wrong (fear or a blind pursuit of pleasure). Whether one uses a toilet out of a desire for sanitation, or a desire to avoid a parent’s scolding, that toilet will still be used—the same surface appearance. The same applies to many of our modern achievements, socially as much as industrially and intellectually, because things done out of fear can masquerade as real function, and convincingly so, because of that similarity of results. In fact, fear-based incentives can be quite productive in this capacity, the way the crack of a slave-driver’s whip can build marvelous structures and craft beautiful objects, or as social punishment can bring about “socialized” behavior.
A shotgun wedding still results in a wedding, after all.
Do not underestimate the power of incentives and fear-based punishment, especially when combined with self-delusion. So psychologically strong is this cocktail, it, like our delusions, can deny itself. That is, with sufficient incentives, one can be made to believe that no incentive is at play, perhaps sincerely. This self-effacing quality can lead to yet another feedback loop of self-denial, as to be wholly disguised to the individual as much as to others. And how does this all relate to the real world? In effect, our system of incentives tends to produce “functional” adults whom are, at heart, little more than conditioned children, desperately seeking to avoid punishment or seek pleasure. Such non-adults can, in fact, even appear greatly intelligent, or be highly successful, with status, and high-paying jobs, and Ph.D.s, and very attractive spouses. But those things change nothing of the person’s actual reality: someone who has managed material accomplishment by way of brute-force incentives, not true substance. When seen as they really are, these folks would appear drastically different than the superficial image their accomplishments might suggest, something like a toddler dressed in a parent’s clothes. This concept translates directly to the material world and its illusions of “advancement” and “progress,” which, in essence, could be likened to potty-training of a higher order.
Put on as much makeup as you want; the underlying wrinkles remain.
At this point, there is an important footnote: the classic scenario of doing “the right thing for the wrong reasons.” Such incidents are not always so clear cut, for, once again, it all hinges on intention and motivation. For instance, a man can help an old lady cross the road—the “right” thing—but just to avoid being seen as “bad” or “unhelpful” (as opposed to simply helping because the woman needs help) -- the “wrong” reasons. Though, the incentive doesn’t have to be negative, oriented in punishment; just as easily, it can be positive, presenting a reward of some sort. If the man helps the old woman cross the road because it, say, aggrandizes him, granting a false sense of goodness and validity, then the situation of “right thing, wrong reasons” remains the same, now just of a different bent. Such is a common consequence of living under a paradigm of incentives and fear, where, inevitably, at least some people will be struck effectively blind to acting on principle or appropriate, practical necessity, leaving them pathologically unable to do the right thing simply because it’s what needs to be done. Such folk would be functionally handicapped, able to do only what feels good or bad or is convenient. Either way in this case, if the old lady truly needed help, the man wouldn’t help her without a selfish incentive; whether that incentive is positive or negative in nature, it doesn’t matter, for the woman would stay deprived of help.
Again, these concepts apply directly to the macrocosm of global order, where the difference between true, conscientious productivity and the false variety produced by incentives is not always so apparent. Immediately, the two can seem identical, both in appearance and even function, so that only later do the differences become apparent—sometimes far later. When the unscrupulous contractor uses asbestos insulation to save money, the asbestos will still insulate. When a useful product is sold purely for profit, without mind to sustainability or humanitarian benefit, that product remains useful. Likewise, when a whole civilization is founded under the duress of fear, pleasure, and other incentives, that civilization can function well enough to appear to run on better stuff.
So this is how a dysfunctional society can produce cars and medicines and super-fast computers: through the brute force of incentives, which can erect pyramids as easily as it can direct waste to a toilet. And, paired with a stiff chaser of self-delusion, said society could be entirely unaware of its actual, mechanical nature (perhaps until that unsustainable reality itself produces fear or displeasure, thus becoming unavoidably clear even to those on such a narrow wavelength). In short, our situation could be described as a wholesale aping of true civilization, so inclusive and widespread as to fool the eye, and just functional enough to keep from destroying itself totally—for now, at least.
Which begs the question: just how long can such a society be sustained?
That is the question, isn’t it.
Fortunately, there is an alternative to such a shortsighted way of life: operating on principle and reality, as to do the right thing for the right reasons. Then, so many possibilities become available to us, from a tangible standpoint as much as a psychological one.
There’s no way around it, folks: sound thinking requires us to acknowledge actual reality and act on principle rather than incentive. It’s a necessary component of any truly sustainable society, and cannot be effectively substituted with incentives and fear. By making such a substitution, key consequences are inevitable (though not always immediately apparent, as outlined above). Just as intention defines an act, so do collective principles and intentions define a society and its course. And, throughout, actual reality and its repercussions remain unchanged, however much we might delude ourselves to the contrary. When an enemy surrenders because of a pointed gun, does that enemy really become friendly? When the battered wife says “I love you” to escape another beating, is that really love? Likewise, when a large majority of society acts “civilized” to avoid pain or jail or disapproval, is that really civilization?
No, it is not, as convincing as it might seem. Awareness, conscientiousness, accountability, and empathy are the cornerstones of civilization, and no amount of fear or reward can fill that role in a feasible capacity. Only when incentives take a backseat to principle will any sort of real civilization be established. It might be easy to think otherwise—because it feels right, or everyone else is doing it, or it pays well—but that doesn’t change the grim reality at hand, nor the consequences which will inevitably present themselves. Those consequences might be delayed, but, like the beach and ocean where the ostrich has its head in the sand, they still exist, and must, sooner or later, be confronted.
For our world, the only question is when we’ll cease our fearful masquerade, rather than if, since this madness simply cannot be sustained. Eventually, our worldwide game of musical chairs must stop. Until then, we will
remain frightened children dressed in our parents’ clothes, and insisting, desperately, that this is not the case.
XVIII. ON TRANSACTIONS
Transactions exist beyond the cash register.
An impoverished man is begging on the street. A passerby drops a bill into the beggar’s hat. The two exchange a pointed look, each nodding in turn, their expressions shifting respectively. Afterward, each man appears a little more solid, a little more there, as if having received some vital nourishment.
A transaction has occurred, obviously. Though, money had little to do with it, for the true transaction was emotional and psychological—and, therefore, hidden, perhaps even to the participants. This multidimensional nature characterizes the vast majority of human transactions.
Much can be read into the above example, from behavioral insights and sociological dynamics, to commentaries on poverty and class struggle. However, this essay is concerned only with the subtle mental exchange underlying that hypothetical encounter. More specifically, the exchange between the beggar and his patron was one of gestures and appearances, and