Right Livelihood

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by swanny, Dec 13, 2004.

  1. swanny macrumors regular


    Nov 12, 2004
    Livelihood .... the way we make our way in the world.
    What are the considerations. Would we do whatever it
    takes to provide us and our loved ones the necessities
    of life?
    What if it were illegal?
    What if it were unethical?
    What if it damaged the environment?
    What if it damaged our health?
    Are there any decent jobs that even take such things
    into consideration or are they even considerations
    or do we do whatever the boss says and whatever pays
    the bills?
    Never thought ones livelihood was such a messy issue did you?
    Yet this is the nature of civilization. Sure there is free yet legal enterprise
    and some would argue it should just be the enterprise of the free and brave
    but our actions and work has consequences and these consequences effect others and the environment and our world and eventually ourselves. It is truly a small world of sorts. So how do we sort through this mess or does the market or should the market be the sole arbitarator of what is good and right. Yet oft in its glee for profit and gain the market assigns the spoils of its enterprise to no one. Whos going to pick up the trash that the market produces or does the market decide? Well it depends. There are those that see an opportunity and go for it and that has its place but there are perhaps other considerations, holistic considerations. Some say Government is to big and that the market should rule but the market does it have a conscience?
    They say that when a society reaches a certain stage of viability then such concerns have a tendancy to surface and this is how we progressed from the farms and homesteads to the cities. Yet it seems a complex system of a lot of mumbo jumbo and red tape at times and is it really better than the market place?
    I don't know I don't have the answers and its just another one of those things to consider when deciding upon the sustainability and viability of ones career choice and such. Do we need to think about the future when it seems hard enough worrying about the day or do we just live for the day. Choices and decisions we need to make in the course of our lives. Whether its possible to meet all the crieteria and find that dream job is probably unlikely and you're probably going to be steppin on someones toes or at least at some point.
    The market and the system and sadly the church and government all seem to have there fingers in our pockets from time to time, so life and livelihood becomes a matter of becoming a "juggler" of many hats and fancy footwork and sometimes flyin on the seat of ones pants but oh were it that it weren't so.
  2. apple2991 macrumors 6502

    May 20, 2004
    A free market/enteprising attitude with senses of responsibility and conscience toward the environment is what is necessary--a balance, of sorts. Unfortunately, the people who head corporations and government don't really have that sense of responsibility because markets are so competitive, they will do anything to reduce costs. This is where the government comes in--completely mandate certain environmental protection plans and human rights plans and say, "If you can't operate business under these parameters, tough. This is what's necessary to do business and ensure the safety of our people and our world."
  3. kiwi-in-uk macrumors 6502a

    Sep 22, 2004
    Think globally.

    Affluent societies have the resources and time to think about these issues.

    Unfortunately, most countries don't seem to be affluent enough (or perhaps their wealth is too concentrated) to be able to devote much attention to them (it is difficult to think about health, environment, ethics, law when you are up to your neck in figurative alligators trying to survive).

    Conversely, as apple2991 said, in wealthy countries the market forces and the legislators/rulemakers don't seem able to agree on what consitutes a viable set of Pareto Criteria across all the issues you mention.

    end rant
  4. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
  5. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000


    Jul 4, 2004
    "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." Ghandi.

    Change is often born of disaster or other horrific events.

    While I would like to see other technologies for evergy production (Biomass, Biodiesel, wavepower, windpower etc) get the development they are due I don't think that the US is going to be the nation that does it.

    I often wonder why smaller countries like New Zealand and Australia haven't made more of an effort. Especially New Zealand with its green image, they seem content to follow what the US is doing.

    It would be a boost for those economies as energy costs would fall dramatically.

    Small steps can lead to larger change. And through setting the example and living in a cleaner, healthier environment with a lower cost of living, others will eventually take notice.
    * *
  6. kiwi-in-uk macrumors 6502a

    Sep 22, 2004
    Xtremehkr, if you are interested you might want to have a look at these sites, which describe how electricity is generated in New Zealand and Australia.

    NZ electricity generation, from here
    "About 70 per cent of New Zealand's electricity is generated from hydro power [my comment: like Hoover dam].
    The remainder is generated from geothermal energy (steam from under the ground), gas, oil and coal."

    Australian electricity generation, from here
    "In Australia 91 per cent of electricity is generated from using non renewable [my comment: fossil fuel] energy sources while only 9 per cent comes is generated from using renewable energy."

    Perhaps your comments could be true about Australia, but not New Zealand.
  7. pseudobrit macrumors 68040


    Jul 23, 2002
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    Paragraphs would be nice.

    At least he's caught on to capitalisation. ;)
  8. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    i'm putting on my skates now...
  9. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000


    Jul 4, 2004
    In that one particular aspect they may be. But NZ could also pursue alternatives to oil which is imported at great expense. Developing and patenting technology that could then be sold to other nations who are looking to replace oil which is going to get progressively more expensive.

    Why there and not here?

    Well, New Zealand does not have the same level of investment in production based on oil. I don't imagine that petrol is cheap there.

    There are also limits to how much more energy can be drawn from hydro sources, and damns effect the enviroment also. If not right now there is always the future to think about, and the ability to have a product ready when other markets start looking for it.

    It sounds like Australia could definately benefit from taking a different approach.
  10. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    "The marketplace" has no conscience, no morals. It can't; it ain't a people. Only individuals have morals, have a conscience. Only individuals can avoid damaging, whether it be other people or the environment.

    Profit does not stem from nor equal greed. There must be profit, or a business entity (individual or collective) goes broke. Even an individual must profit on his time; it's the only capital he has. That is, one must make enough money and be adequately thrifty during the productive years that the final years are self-supporting.

    Think of greed as excess; it is much like the comparison between a couple of drinks of an evening or with a meal, versus getting knee-walkin', commode-huggin' blithered. Marketplace harm, then, comes from excess. Individual's morals come from one or another of the various religions; greed is listed the Christian religion as one of the sins. I'm ignorant as to what's said about greed in other religions.

    Regardless of one's morals, particularly when one's family is involved, the need for survival means that whatever needs to be done will be done. that story is as old as mankind.

    In general, the various interest groups that involve government in the marketplace create inefficiencies in the random yet rational decision-making process. In specific, sometimes there is genuine need for governmental interference, mostly in the realm of greed.

    The best example, to me, is EPA. That is, in a broad sense the rules are nationwide and don't vary with area or state. Within this, then, papermills serve as a good example. If Texas has stricter rules about air pollution than does Louisiana, a company located in Louisiana is more profitable than one located in Texas. The "bottom line" tends to overrule the moral view that one should not pollute the air. Government, then, can create an even playing field for all paper mills, and simultaneously protect air quality.

    It doesn't always work out that way for governmental efforts, but that's the ideal...


Share This Page