The Golden Rule 2.0    

by Tim Cimino

 
How Much Action Is Enough to Stabilize the World? 
 
The Two Tables Model is a useful idea. But it doesn’t answer an important question: How much action and what kind of action is enough to sustain the world?

I will give you an answer that is perfect, but useless. However, we will keep adjusting it until it becomes useful.

First, let’s look at the ideal situation. If the environment were in balance, and if everyone put back into the environment exactly as much as they took out—recycling, tree planting, using renewable energy, and so forth—the environment would stay in balance. Other examples: A healthy democracy would only require that the citizens learn about the issues, vote and also do some advocacy. If the economy were healthy, it would be enough for people to work and pay taxes. If the world were in good shape, all that people need to do is undo whatever environmental, economic, political and social damage they cause. So, the perfect answer is “Return to each of these life-support systems exactly as much as you take.” Let’s call this statement the “perfect-but-useless” form of the Golden Rule 2.0.

But, of course, these life-support systems aren’t healthy and in balance. So, the first adjustment is for people to put back more than they take, to compensate for the imbalances. This “extra” done in compensation will gradually return the systems to balance. 

Next, notice that young children, the infirm and disabled, and the very elderly can’t do their share. They can’t put back as much they take. So the second adjustment is for those who can take action to do more positive action, to “carry” those who can’t do environmental, political, community or economic actions. The young, the old, the infirm, the mentally ill and the “morally ill” (those who refuse to do their share) make up roughly half the population. This means that those who can act ought to do twice as much action. (Much of the extra action compensates for the time you were a child, and for the time you will be elderly, or ill, or in crisis. Only some of the extra effort is to carry the others.) 

Twice as much effort sounds like a lot, but it will be doable because of the ongoing support of superprograms and the superprogram strategies of first building skills, more spare time and money.

Another reason to put in extra effort is because real systems are not perfectly efficient. Just as car engines and jet engines are not perfectly efficient because energy is lost in the form of heat, governments and economies are not perfectly efficient. Some power is lost in the form of bureaucracy.

Another strategy is to focus on political change first, since much of our taxes are misspent. If they were better spent, we would have to spend less out of our pockets through donations to charities.

Incidentally, while most people understand political actions and environmental actions, they sometimes misunderstand what I mean by economic actions. While actions like getting a job and paying down your debt affect the economy, economic actions include things like socially responsible shopping and socially responsible investing. They shift the power balance among businesses, to favor the ones that live by the Golden Rule 2.0 themselves.

Another adjustment is realism. For instance, if you drive a car, it would be impossible to take the mixture of gases that come out of the exhaust pipe and undo each chemical reaction. Later, cleaner engines may be created, but realistically, right now we can undo the damage of the major gases, for instance by compensating for the carbon dioxide produced by planting trees.
 
Dare to Live the Final State of Affairs

Another adjustment has to do with a problem in measurement. In three life-support systems—relationships, psyche and in the ethical/spiritual realm—the idea of measuring and putting back what you take becomes a matter of judgment and cannot be precisely measured. For instance, you can’t measure your mental state the way you can track your bank account balance. In these three areas, an alternate rule of thumb is to “Dare to live the final state of affairs.” 

These words come from Fr. Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest who was speaking about personal relationships. For instance, he would say that if you want the other person in a relationship to be more open, you must be more open—first. If you want more generosity, you must be more generous. In other words, keep daring to take steps in the direction of a balanced, harmonious state. Rohr’s words can be applied not only to personal relationships, but also to one’s mind, and to all the other systems. So, to sum up, the Golden Rule 2.0 is a new rule for humanity: Put back into each of the eight systems more than you take out, and dare to live closer to the balanced state.

Since the original Golden Rule is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” the new Golden Rule is the spirit of the original, but it announces a higher standard.  

Now someone might say to me, “Since the original Golden Rule implies doing environmental and political actions too, Eddie, you haven’t really done anything new.” But I would disagree: Most people think of the Golden Rule primarily in terms of personal interactions and personal relationships. By explicitly referring to eight life-support systems of the Two Tables, I am expanding most people’s active understanding of the Golden Rule. 

Here is why this expansion is now needed in human history. Two thousand years ago, or even two hundred years ago, most interactions were personal. People related face to face. All business interactions were personal. Even passing others on the byways on horseback or in buggies was almost personal. People personally knew most of the people who lived around them. So the original version of the Golden Rule covered most interactions.

In this century, most interaction is impersonal. We talk to strangers on the phone. We usually don’t watch live entertainers, we watch them on TV or DVD. If we drive, it is past thousands of people each day. We deal with few people directly, but we can deal directly with the life-support systems that keep people alive. We deal with government, the environment, and many people in need indirectly through paying taxes, pollution, and charities respectively. The Golden Rule 2.0 is an upgrade over the original Golden Rule; it’s a new definition of what constitutes fairness. It’s needed now, because our vital life-support systems are becoming more imbalanced and incapable of keeping us alive. The old definition is no longer adequate.

Around 1988, I created an assessment that covers the eight life-support systems. It’s now called the Ecological Lifestyle Assessment. Over the years, most people of the people who took it and who believed that they lived according to the Golden Rule were surprised or shocked by how far they fell short of the Golden Rule 2.0. Most came to realize that any volunteer work they did really didn’t make up for what they took from the stability of other life-support systems. If you take the assessment and find out that you fall short too, you shouldn’t feel guilty for taking more than you give. Instead, you should realize that if it took years to develop you current lifestyle habits, you should allow yourself years to change these habits—for instance, by changing one or two habits every four months. You should give yourself permission to make reasonable stretches over time. Following the Golden Rule 2.0 is harder that following the original since you have to monitor your impact on each of our life-support systems. But it will be worth it, because when more people begin to follow the 2.0 upgrade of the Golden Rule, much suffering and loss of life will be prevented. In addition, we will have greater peace, health and security. 

The most common objection to the Golden Rule 2.0 comes from people who do a lot of good in one area and want to be excused from having to act in the other areas. They actually have a point. For example, am I really saying that it would be efficient for a heart surgeon to take time to learn all about socially responsible investments; or that it would be the best use of time for a key political activist to do her own recycling? I do think that everyone should take responsibility, but do it intelligently. For instance, the surgeon could pay someone to do the socially responsible investing. The activist could “swap” good deeds—taking on some of someone else’s political activism if that person does their recycling. Of course, some actions are not transferable. For instance, no one can work on your health and personal relationships for you. 

Another objection to the Golden Rule 2.0 is that it burdens people with a hundred more “shoulds” or commandments. Here again, common sense is needed. If you took ten or twenty years as you grew up to learn certain lifestyle habits, give yourself a few years to change these habits. If you make a Life Pact about every four months, and make just one or two major changes during each Life Pact, you would accomplish a tremendous amount in three or four years. 

One more idea will help you understand how not to be overwhelmed by the requirements of the Golden Rule 2.0:

Imagine that you are in a boat on a lake, and the boat has a slow leak. One way to stay afloat is to keep bailing water; the other way is to plug the leak. Bailing water doesn't change the structure of the boat, but plugging the leak does. Each of the eight life-support systems is similar to the boat. For instance, if a personal relationship of yours is having major problems, you can try temporary fixes (e.g., buying a present to make up for a fight, or going on a vacation) but temporary fixes don't change the structure of the relationship. 

A better approach is to find a permanent strategy, by figuring out what's wrong, and by either learning a needed skill, such as active listening or conflict resolution, or by instituting a regular process, such as weekly setting aside quality time to be together. All other life-support systems are similar: You can make temporary fixes, or permanent structural changes. Often both kinds of changes are needed. But, it’s important to recognize that structural changes are usually an essential part of a permanent solution. [1] 

The Golden Rule 2.0 encourages us to put back at least as much as we take from each life-support system, but is that enough? I would recommend that people strive to put in more than they take out, because in real systems there are “frictional” losses and structural inefficiencies. “Enough” also depends on what others are doing or not doing. Until more precise estimates can be made, I suggest 10% extra as a way of recognizing that real systems are not 100% efficient. 

When some people balk at this record keeping, I like to point out that when people care about something, they keep track of it. We tend to keep track of the money in our accounts, the gas in our gas tanks, and the food in our pantry. That’s because it’s important to us to have enough; and it creates significant problems and embarrassment if we run out. I claim that maintaining our common life-support systems is at least as important as the other record keeping that we do. 

Many related questions can be raised: Shouldn’t all organizations also follow the Golden Rule 2.0? What about the people who can’t or won’t do their share? What about government; aren’t we paying taxes to have these things done? I think that the answers to questions like these are a blend of fairness with realism: Yes, organizations should also follow the Golden Rule 2.0. Yes, some people can’t or won’t do their share, and so adjustments must be made. Yes, we pay taxes for government to do some of these things, but if we don’t vote or do advocacy, our tax money will probably be misspent. 

Even with these and other adjustments, the Golden Rule 2.0 is still a valid and much-needed upgrade of the original Golden Rule. We can visualize the tables collapsing, or we can visualize strengthening the table legs so that the foundation for our lives is firm, secure and beautiful.



Here are two stories that illustrate aspects of the Golden Rule 2.0. They both illustrate common reactions to the idea, and also possible consequences of ignoring the Golden Rule 2.0.


The Dam  

Once upon a time, there was a huge dam built by the ancients. On the stream below the dam lived a village of people. The dam was old and occasionally pieces of it, rocks and timber, would be washed down. Long ago, when the village was first established, the elders decided that all of the villagers were responsible for the upkeep of the dam. It became common practice for each able-bodied person to climb the hill once a day, bringing up a boulder or limb to place back on the dam. 


However, as the village grew, people found many good reasons not to make the walk up the hill. The merchants of the town each pointed out the necessity of providing bread, fabric, tools or whatever they happened to be selling. One youth, a student, felt his time was better spent on education. His dream was to rebuild the dam. A village girl fell in love with him and married him. She stopped her walks, because it was her nuptial year, a time to concentrate on building a home and her relationship with her husband. By the end of the year, however, she was pregnant and so could not make the strenuous walks. 

In the village, however, was one old man who continued to carry his share of logs and stones daily. Seeing him, a man with a crippled leg called out to him, “I cannot carry my share, would you carry it for me?” “Gladly,” the old man replied. And a few others were touched by this, and renewed their walks up the hill. 

But not enough, for soon the dam was looking noticeably worse. Finally, a village meeting was called for all the people to attend. The old man who made the trips daily confronted the others, saying, “We should put back one stone and plank for each one that falls, otherwise the dam will fall in and many will die.” 

They agreed, yet all of them gave good reasons why they should not make the trip. The village doctor spoke. “Surely my work is more important than carrying stones up a hill.” 

The old man said to him, “With your wealth, arrange for someone to carry your share.” 

The woman who had been pregnant brought in her new baby girl and spoke laughingly, “Surely I cannot make walks up the hill, for now I must take care of my child.” 

The old man replied, “Until she can carry your share, you can carry her share.” 

This provoked her, “Who are you to tell me what I should do?” 

He replied, “I’m not telling you what you should do, but there are consequences if you don’t.” 

A religious man spoke up, “Well put, old man, but I attend to spiritual matters. These take priority over the material world.” 

The old man looked him in the eye and spoke, “Anyone who claims exemption or special privilege is merely claiming the right to burden others unfairly.” But a villager not known for his industry cried out, “Away with this man, for someday we all must die!” The next day the dam broke. 

A thirty-foot-high wall of water hit the village. The old man, who was carrying a log up the hill, was the first to get caught in the flood. Because the daily walks carrying wood had built up the strength in his arms, he was able to hold onto the log until it became wedged in the top branches of a tree, and this saved him. 

Except for the old man, all of the particular people mentioned in this story were drowned. At one point, a basket carrying the infant girl rushed by the old man. He lunged for it, but could not reach it before it was swept downstream. All he could do was hold onto the tree until the waters subsided. As he climbed down from the tree he found the body of the religious man. The religious man had been caught and drowned upside-down in the lower branches of the same tree that saved the old man. 

A few of the villagers who didn’t carry their share of logs and stones escaped alive, while some of the villagers who followed the old man’s example and carried their share drowned. 


Anvils  

On the planet Thera you either died from old age or an anvil fell on you. As far back as people could remember, things would be fine one moment, then suddenly an anvil would drop out of the blue sky and crush one or more people. 

Richer people could build houses with roofs that were somewhat anvil resistant. That way, most of the time they could hold off the anvils a little longer, but they might be in their car or walking down the street and—BOOM!—an anvil would fall on them. Or a particularly big anvil would fall on their house and crush it in anyway. 

Not all deaths by anvil were instantaneous. Some people seemed to get slower and slower and heavier and heavier until they died. When the doctors opened them up to see what was wrong, their scalpels would inevitably ping on something metallic. Then they would glance at each other knowingly and say in an authoritative and conclusive tone, “Body Anvils.” 

Sometimes people would run amuck and kill others and then themselves. When the doctors opened up the bodies of their victims they would find small bullet-sized anvils. When they would open up the brains of the people who went bonkers, again their scalpels would ping on something metallic and the doctors would again propound authoritatively “Anvilum Craniosis” or, as it was more commonly called, “anvils on the brain.” 

Not all anvils killed people. Some killed relationships. A couple who had been together for years would be walking down the street when suddenly an anvil would fall right between them. Then they would turn to one another, blink, and say in shock, “Who are you?” So that was life on Thera. For most of the history of the planet, the falling anvils were totally unpredictable. Sometimes a giant-sized anvil would fall and crush dozens or hundreds of people at once, but it was more common for a much smaller anvil to hit a single person. 

Then came the birth of Science and Probability. Scientifically-minded people started to notice patterns. For instance, if you didn’t take care of your health, you were likely to develop body anvils. Or if there was a lot of pollution and chemicals in a certain place, that place attracted more anvils than other places. Or when powerful and greedy people took all the wealth out of a country, anvils would fall on the children there. 

You can imagine the controversy this caused. People who made things happen on the planet were getting angry at the scientists for making people uneasy about anvils. Anvils had always been a fact of life, but the scientists were leading people to believe that the way some of the rich and powerful did things caused anvils. These people were mad because the scientists were giving wealth and power a bad name. So very quickly they learned to ask, “Are you certain about this?” The scientist could only respond, “No, but it’s probably true.” Then the people who made things happen would scoff and say, “Probably?! What’s that mean?” And the scientists would go back to their labs beaten, with their tails between their legs. (Oh, I forgot to mention that people on Thera tended to have tails.) 

Then one day came the grand discovery from the lab: metal filings! A higher concentration of metal filings was found in the blood stream of people who later developed body anvils. Metal filings were also found in the lungs of those who smoked, and those who were constantly around people who smoked. Metal filings were found coming out of factory smokestacks and the tailpipes of cars. Metal filings were even found coming out of some banks and secret government meetings. 

Even more impressive, however, was the fact that metal filings were found up in the atmosphere in huge concentrations right before anvils dropped from the sky! In a famous press conference televised around the planet, an atmospheric scientist told the millions of viewers the reason that anvils had been dropping all this time. He said, “The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind, metal filings are blowing in the wind.” 

He went on to tell the public his theory: When people acted in certain ways that were generally known not to be very good, they generated tiny slivers of metal that went up into the air. Some slivers stayed in the vicinity and would clump together in the shape of an anvil and fall near or on the person who created them. Other metal filings would float away and clump together and fall on people far away who did nothing to create the slivers. The scientist predicted a rapid increase in the number and size of anvils as the population grew, and as people did more of those things that generated metal slivers. He even added that there was a growing possibility that a huge anvil would slam into Thera herself. The good news, though, was that there were activities that people could do to draw the metal back out of the air. 

The scientist was just about to give examples of those activities when suddenly he was interrupted by a well-dressed man in the audience who stood up and said very angrily, “I know that people create metal filings, and that some people create their own anvils. But as for anvils from the sky, you don’t really know where they come from. It’s just a theory you have.” 

“Now this is an astonishing thing!” the scientist replied. “You know that peoples’ actions create the metal filings. You know that each year millions of tons of metal dust go up in the air from various sources. And you know that ever since the world began, anvils have been dropping from the sky. Yet you are still unwilling to accept that it is you who cause the anvils to fall!” 

“You are just an atmospheric scientist!” the man retorted. “How dare you make a theory about economic anvils, body anvils, relationship anvils, psychological anvils, and political anvils! I have a feeling that the people who make things happen are going to stop funding your irresponsible anvil research!” With that, the well-dressed man stormed out of the room. 

That’s pretty much the state of things on Thera right now. Some people were willing to draw the conclusion that the metal slivers they generated somehow caused anvils somewhere in the world. They began to modify their behavior. Others pointed out how much was not known about the weather, the jet stream, and atmospheric conditions in anvil clouds. Still others refused to change their behavior until they were furnished with undeniable proof that metal filings caused anvils. 

How about you? What do you think about anvils? 

I guess the conclusion to this story is still up in the air. 


___________________

[1] This boat analogy explains some systems theory in simple language. Temporary changes (in this case, baling) are called “first order changes.” Structural changes (in this case, plugging leaks) are called “second order changes.” And all the preparation and planning for any change that doesn’t happen is a “zero order change.”—zero order since ultimately nothing really happens.  


Top            (c) World Peace One, 2009