Debate on the philosophic question of whether we should have more or less has been going on since ages. It in fact seems to be unending.

History of social evolution clearly tells us that human have always been struggling to have more of everything that provides security and comfort. We broke loose from the animal kingdom way back in time but we carry with us the psychological make-up formed during that unimaginably long period underpinned by primal fear and visceral sense of insecurity.

Our primordial impulses work on us in a surreptitious manner which we are not aware of all the times. So our legacy of fear and sense of insecurity weighs on our mind in multiple ways. To get better of it we try to find ways that we think can make us less vulnerable in a universe which still remains largely unknown and unexplored. Since basic needs are to have food and shelter that create conditions wherein the continuity of our existence is ensured through a process of procreation. Such a fundamental instinctual drive has led to our social organisation which upholds the notion of more. More is generally believed to be a panacea; more of everything; concrete and abstract, tangible and intangible. Such an attitude is largely driven by what we call in social and moral terms greed or profit.

Greed has worked wonders as it has made us what we are at this point in time. Can you imagine that lack of greed or pure altruism would have created what we see all around us on our earth? Can one imagine for example tall buildings, towers, palaces, gardens, hospitals, ships, railways, airplanes, spaceships, telephone and telegraph, and computer in the absence of greed or profit?

Greed has a positive dimension too which is not usually highlighted in the face of ever-present moral outrage against it.

Baba Guru Nanak has forcefully expressed both sides of the situation; what greed created and moral attitude towards it: “Kings, subjects, royal officers, none will remain at all / shops, towns, bazars, by Order will fall / Stylish, strong doors, fools consider their own / Storehouses filled with treasures, in a moment will be empty / Arabian, chariots, chargers, elephant in armoury / Diamonds, households, orchards, where will they be known /Pavilions, tape-laced beds, little inns desirable /Nanak truth is the giver, recognition natural (Trans: Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar).”

Look at the beauty of the things he has describes but it doesn’t display the ugliness of the process that creates it. His stress is on moral compass. Sages and saints disdain such possessions because their appropriation by a few gives them power over many. They are not meant for all as they are enjoyed by an exclusive club of a select few. They are not shared with those who produce them in a skewed politico-economic structure that has been prevalent since ages. Two, gloss and glitter don’t show the extractive nature of labour (in the widest sense) that gone into making of these products. Three, too may resources, natural and human, are exploited for the comfort and leisure of a few resulting in inequality that breeds social resentment and political unrest.

Examples of outlandish wastage of diminishing resources are galore. An Indian businessman builds the world’s most expensive house for his small family in a city has the the largest shanty town. An American entrepreneur travels in a private jet while old people die of cold as they cannot afford heating. Sages’ scathing critique of notion of more has proved valid in our times in the face of unfettered exploitation of natural resources premised on their being unlimited. Increased scientific knowledge reveals that the very concept of infinite world is a grievous fallacy. The world we live surrounded by is finite. How can we afford infinite exploitation of the resources it has? Consequently, unlimited consumption in a limited world will lead to a calamitous situation we never faced before. Even today the disastrous consequences of this philosophy of more are there for all to see in the shape of air pollution, environmental degradation and climate change.

Rich societies like rich persons fond of more are mainly responsible for the destruction of what they love to flaunt as their grand achievements. Apocalyptic scenes of future are not an abstract possibility. Portents are scary if we keep our eyes open. As to the notion of less, it is also not tenable to a large extent. If this idea was practiced, we would have been still in the bush warding off hungry predators ready to eat us alive. Most of traditional societies trapped in the vicious cycle of superstition are tied to by the spiritual claptrap of less. This opiate also helps to keep the masses calmed down. History shows us that no single idea can sustain human society and ensure its forward movement. Our world, a mélange of different cultures, has to find a compromise between these two opposing ideas. More is dangerous in the sense that it causes destruction of the planet we live on. Less is also dangerous as it discourages us from creating and producing what is needed for developing fully safe and rounded human beings who are at peace with themselves and the natural world that sustains them. If we fully stick to less we shall end up having more and more clones of Diogenes of Anatolia. So it means neither more nor less. But the question is what could be this neither more nor less? The answer would be as difficult as the one given by a Zen master to a Japanese emperor who summoned him and asked what he had learnt about Zen in China during his studies. The master had a flute under his arm. He took it out, played a few notes and left the court without uttering a word. Finding answer to our conundrum could be that difficult. — soofi01@hotmail.com

Published in Dawn, July 25th, 2022