Skip to main content

Robert Skidelsky's 'How Much is Enough?'

I just finished ‘How Much is Enough?’ by RobertSkidelsky. I certainly do not agree with many of the explanations provided in the book and many of the suggestions made. Yet, it is a thought-provoking book, no doubt about that! Skidelsky has shown courage to develop suggestions, based on explanations, with acknowledged religious overtone. He does now thump the chest while arguing that government policy should cease to be the value-neutral or liberal or efficiency based and it should explicitly move away from mad pursuit of growth. Clearly, his explanation lacks sophistication and is more of a persuasive nature, the style which we miss in the days of semi-formal books published by Economists about everything under the sky.  But he takes on an interesting journey to establish that there is more to life, more to policy-making than some digits.
I have always though that Religion was a way, at least theoretically, to tap the consumption. Why any ancient civilization would have thought to tap off the consumption? Obvious answer is ‘the resource constraint’. But there is more to consumption control than sustainability. There is good moral argument of why any society, whether resource abundant or scarce, needs to promote values different that consumption maximization.
I understand that there is always some totalitarian agenda lurking in moral and non-liberal sounding arguments. But, we must ask that is being liberal is all about following our senses or being free to discover the basis for all our actions, even an action of denying or accepting liberal point of views.

                 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Joy

i am alone, somehow at the balance of memories and dreams, some encounters with reality practically, a room for me, a laptop, movie, food, coffee, cigarettes and loneliness to get kick out of everything.... fucking nice life! missing a mate or complete loneliness!!

Why Philosophy

We form beliefs. And, they are useful. They provide us initial set of judgments for any choice. It is human system to reduce uncertainty to set of possible and then most possible alternatives. Somehow, in courses with less creative exercises, like Philosophy or Development Studies, where most of the times bored with life souls put light on issues which are useless for working world, an argument is made about pluralist concerns. They debate about End and Means. They debate about happiness and what gives us that Happiness. They criticize pursuit of wealth. And, to exhibit that they are no less intelligent than wonder working Physicists or Engineers, they create moral dilemmas and prove how unsolvable they are, even by them. So they take this un-solvability of their ‘discipline’ as flag of intellectual victory on enemy which is never there(who will fight with this intellectual samurais, fighting for all mortals who do not understand that all their decisions are ‘monoconcentretic’ while t...

Neither of us were bounded to each other

I live my life through people around me. it is not like fish living in water. i have defined my life not in my own terms, but in the eyes of those who watched me for parts of my life. so whenever i was puzzled about my own self, I searched it through hearts and minds of people of my connection. am i not bounded to them? But then were days when I felt that why I am not defining myself in my own terms. I crashed whatever web of relations and unspoken bonds I had around myself. and then, in my search for myself, I netted one new web, more complex and fragile than what was before. Am I not bounded even then? I never feel that there will be any meaning or any joy which I get living for just myself. I tried such patterns and in the end realized that such eccentric life is not my way. I have my preferences, I like people of my own kind. I avoid those who are not in resonance. but still, I never live just for me, just through me. bind is not about molding decisions for someone els...