Numbers are irrelevant.
The only thing that makes them useful is when the information they provide is used to make decisions. Data-driven decision making, they call it. But, the problem has is that the decisions made are to affect the monetary numbers, to make more wealth, when wealth itself is also irrelevant. Just more numbers. The only metric that actually matters is;
Human wellbeing.
But there is no single metric for wellbeing. However, one (or several grouped together) could be created that covered our physical, mental, emotional and social wellbeing that would be representative enough to build upon. Because, our wellbeing as a species is the only thing that matters.
Because, in order for us to have a high quality of wellbeing, everything has to align. We can't have wellbeing if there are massive gaps in opportunity due to wealth. We can't have wellbeing if the environment is collapsing. We can't have wellbeing without strong communities. We can't have wellbeing if our experience throughout our life is constant struggle and discontentment.
When we are healthy as a species, the entire world has to also be healthy, because we cannot be if it is not. This means that if we want to actually fix the environmental conditions and survive as a species, we have to improve ourselves and the environment. If we kill ourselves as a species, the environment will be fine regardless. It is just us that need it to be within a set of specific parameters in order to survive.
It doesn't matter how much money a country makes, if the wellbeing of people is declining, it is a failing state. If the environment is getting worse, it is a failing state. In order for humanity to survive, things have to keep improving otherwise it is just a slow leak until extinction.
I actually don't think it is too hard to do what needs to be done to create a pretty decent life for everyone on earth, but it would take a massive shift in the way we use our resources and spend our time. We would have to shift away from resource competition and into resource impact maximisation, with continual improvement the target. Constantly developing the things that matter to improve wellbeing for humanity, which means solving the energy supply issues with a clean, renewable option. Because once that is done, repairing the environment is massively simplified.
The reason we don't do this though is that there is a small amount of people who benefit financially by keeping things heading on the same path it has been. And this path leads to war, famine, environmental collapse and human wellbeing cratering. The size of the population isn't even a problem to cater for, if we align ourselves with improvement processes and understand that a good life can only truly be had, when everyone else has a good life also.
No, it isn't going to happen and we are far more likely to send ourselves into extinction than change so we can all thrive, but it is also worth considering that all the problems facing humanity today, are created by us. We have destroyed what it means to have a good life, by shifting reality into a set of meaningless numbers that we delude ourselves into thinking matter.
If there was a metric on wellbeing with a scale from 1 to 10, what should the average be, and what is it now at a global level? If we were to rate the quality of the environment, our access to opportunity, our exposure to pollutants and the strength of our families, communities, and personal health - where are we? Should there be so much variation? Should a large number of people constantly struggle just to survive while a small number have so much?
Look at the numbers.
Where are we improving as a species?
Taraz [ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
- Comment on the topics of the article, and add your perspectives and experiences.
- Read and discuss with others who comment and build your personal network
- Engage well with me and others and put in effort
And you may be rewarded.
