Corruption

Something bad happens. Let’s call it X. And let’s also assume that X is a random event that happens to a great number of people.

I discover or invent or otherwise create something that keeps X from occurring. Call that Y. Y prevents X from occurring. I start a business to mass-produce Y. But my livelihood depends, really, not on the production of Y, but on the existence of X.

Now, a question. Why on earth would I ever want X, that something bad, to ever go away?

If it did, if Y was successful to the degree that X completely went out of existence, how then would I make my livelihood?

Let’s take this scenario a step further. If Y eradicates X, and my income depends on X, wouldn’t it be better if I spent my R&D to develop or discover or otherwise create something else that doesn’t quite eliminate X, but rather, alleviates it’s effects or temporarily makes it go away? The result is that it makes X less bad, but keeps X in existence, so my livelihood remains in existence. Call this second discovery or invention or creation Z.

X is something bad that happens to a lot of people. Y causes X to disappear. But Z causes X to be not as bad as it is in its original form.

Wouldn’t it make economic and financial sense to shift from mass-producing Y to mass-producing Z?

Is this ethical? More concretely, is this right or wrong?

Emphasis on Z at the expense of Y to deal with X. This seems to be the standard operating model for 20th and 21st century America. Well, let’s not bash this great country of ours (and I mean that sincerely) too much. It’s the working model for the majority of our global capitalistic society as a whole. I can see how hundreds of books can be written on the previous paragraph alone and I suppose more than a few have. But it really bothers me.

X, Y, and Z can be lots of things. A small example: just recently my kitchen was overrun with teeny little ants. You’d never see more than ten or twenty at a time, but they were always there, on the countertops, near the sink, on the walls. My wife would open a cabinet and see the ants scurry, noting that it was like the watching the running of the bulls at Pamplona. Nothing we tried got rid of them. So we called an exterminator.

Here, our ant infestation is X.

What did the exterminators do? Put us on a program where they’d come out quarterly to spray around the foundation of the house to keep the little guys away and we’d pay them quarterly to do this. Now I’m no expert on insects or insecticides, but to me this sounds like a perfect Z. If a one-time spray eliminated the ants (Y), how would the exterminator make any money?

What about other X’s? What about the X of disease? Cancer, heart disease, you name it. What are the Y’s and Z’s for disease? I have a lot to say on this topic in a future post.

How about the X of, oh, let’s say auto repair? Or our oil- and gasoline-based economy? Or computer technology? Or crime, or poverty, or Iraq, or … well, you get the picture. How much of our bloated government bureaucracy is a result of this Z thinking? It can get downright depressing. And that brings to mind the X of psychotherapy. Oh dear.

I suppose the best strategy would be to take matters into our own hands as much as possible, and switch to individual-based Y thinking.

More later …