For as long as humans have been around they have been dealing to both abundance and scarcity. There are things around that there are more of than the group can use and there are some things where there is less than they would like to use. These two situations require not simply different approaches. They require different attitudes, expectations and mental dispositions to interact with most optimally. These are not surface level changes. They are deep changes in mindset that can only take place over many years.
Of course it is possible to take a compromised approach where you are not optimized for either but have flexibility for both. But this approach is always going to be at a disadvantage versus a specialist dealing with their specialty. So the stable outcome will be for a human group to contain a variety of specialization levels among its members. A few being more generalized and OK with dealing with either abundance or scarcity. Others specialized to be excellent at dealing with one or the other.
I think it would be impossible to get rid of these specializations entirely. If everyone is unspecialized or specialized in abundance then, as long as there is even one scarce thing in the environment, there will be a tremendous advantage to any person who specialized in scarcity. And this is really good for a society. A mix of different specializations allows a group to make maximum use of their resources and allows them to be flexible in the face of many different types of challenges.
I anticipate a couple of questions. First, if this is really a thing why haven't people noticed this before? Second, even if this is a thing, is this actually useful to understand? Well, I think people have noticed this. It’s just that we usually call this liberal and conservative dispositions. As we look back through history we feel like we can instinctively label various movements as liberal or conservative despite being totally unconnected with today’s political parties. But at the same time it’s hard to define what this meta-liberal or meta-conservative core really consists of. I think this is actually the dispositions that arise from an underlying abundance or scarcity specializations.
This means that we in the west are making a basic mistake about how we approach politics. We are looking at things as if one side or another must be wrong. Now it’s true that we have to pick a singular policy or set of policies that has the set of trade offs we most prefer. But we go further, thinking that whatever disposition those other guys have that makes them think a different policy is better is stupid, wrong, and maybe even evil. Where actually any society needs individuals with both types of disposition and they need to be included in one basic fabric of society.
So I’m starting a series on this blog about abundance versus scarcity and related concepts. I really value questions, feedback and challenges to my ideas
I think it would be impossible to get rid of these specializations entirely. If everyone is unspecialized or specialized in abundance then, as long as there is even one scarce thing in the environment, there will be a tremendous advantage to any person who specialized in scarcity. And this is really good for a society. A mix of different specializations allows a group to make maximum use of their resources and allows them to be flexible in the face of many different types of challenges.
I anticipate a couple of questions. First, if this is really a thing why haven't people noticed this before? Second, even if this is a thing, is this actually useful to understand? Well, I think people have noticed this. It’s just that we usually call this liberal and conservative dispositions. As we look back through history we feel like we can instinctively label various movements as liberal or conservative despite being totally unconnected with today’s political parties. But at the same time it’s hard to define what this meta-liberal or meta-conservative core really consists of. I think this is actually the dispositions that arise from an underlying abundance or scarcity specializations.
This means that we in the west are making a basic mistake about how we approach politics. We are looking at things as if one side or another must be wrong. Now it’s true that we have to pick a singular policy or set of policies that has the set of trade offs we most prefer. But we go further, thinking that whatever disposition those other guys have that makes them think a different policy is better is stupid, wrong, and maybe even evil. Where actually any society needs individuals with both types of disposition and they need to be included in one basic fabric of society.
So I’m starting a series on this blog about abundance versus scarcity and related concepts. I really value questions, feedback and challenges to my ideas
