"Life isn't fair." But it can be.

Possibly the most infuriating phrase I've ever heard—the most ridiculously stupid, dismissive argument in the world—is "life isn't fair." I've heard it all my life, from when I was a four-year-old wanting a Barbie doll, to now, when I suggest a fairer socioeconomic system. No, life is not fair; but there is absolutely no point whatsoever in saying that phrase. In fact, I don't believe I've ever said it seriously to another person since I was a child, reiterating my parents' poor excuse for wisdom.*

Of course I'm not suggesting that wanting a Barbie is in any way similar to wanting a fairer socioeconomic system. My point is simply that the phrase gets nowhere. You see, I think life should be fair, and can be much fairer than it is today.

If I wanted a Barbie, and my parents said no, I would say "that's not fair." The question in their minds, at that point, should not have been "does it matter if it's fair?" because it does matter if it's fair; but rather, "is she correct...is it really not fair to deprive her of a Barbie?" Given the situation—the fact that my parents couldn't afford to keep buying me Barbies, and the fact that they didn't want me to be influenced by such a disgustingly misogynistic toy in the first place—I would say that it was entirely fair to deprive me of a Barbie. In suggesting that they were being unfair, I was posing an ethical question about what fairness was. By saying that life was not fair (instead of saying that my request wasn't fair), they were suggesting that my need for a Barbie was legitimate, and that in a perfectly fair world I would receive such a toy.

Now, to be serious. Regardless of whether wanting a Barbie is fair, being deprived of a Barbie is not something that could have a severe negative impact on my life. But because we grow up hearing, "life isn't fair" from our parents, and we legitimise the phrase by repeating it over and over again until we feel we own it, we start to apply the philosophy to some very serious situations. For example, people who work three full-time jobs and barely have enough money for food. Apparently, some time in our lives, we decided that starvation is the equivalent to being deprived of a toy. Or at least, it is the equivalent as far as we care. Nowhere did we question the evolution of this phrase from simple childhood banter to politics; from plastic merchandise to food and shelter.

I remember arguing (online, of course) with a conservative person about welfare and socialism. He whined about people taking away (and I quote): "...MY hard-earned money, that I deserve every penny of..." (emphasis his). When I suggested that there may be people who need some of his money more than he, he said, "life isn't fair." Ignoring (hard though it may be) his insane hypocrisy, and simply focusing on his last statement, we see that he was entirely okay with allowing things to continue the way they were, where people starved. Yes, he thought that somehow, the people who were starving weren't working as hard as he was, or didn't deserve every penny that he did. But in addition, he thought that it was okay for people to starve. Regardless. And this is the problem we have to deal with to create a fair society.

We must get rid of the idea that some people aren't deserving of life and the basic things that would sustain their life, regardless of whether they're working or not. By simply being a living, breathing human being, they deserve to live and to survive.

I have written other times, and will write again, about how actually when a human is faced with starvation, they are incapable of being lazy. But that is not my point at this time. My point is that even if people can be lazy, we cannot be psychopaths and let them die. If it is within our power to keep them alive, then we cannot claim that it's all up to them, it's their "choice."

Yes, life can be much fairer. But we must be willing to make it fairer, instead of leaving it the way it is now, with a dismissive shrug and a stupid cliché. Because that is true, dangerous laziness.

*I love my parents dearly, and I think they'll agree nowadays that the "life's not fair" cliché is really unhelpful.

External Costs

Unfortunately, the American economic system doesn’t value nature. Because it is capitalistic, material value is only considered, and it is rated by cost. Since it is so hard to determine the value of nature, it has been rendered valueless, which is certainly not the same is priceless. Many have tried to figure out what the value of nature would be.

Many things must be taken into account—for example, a tree would not just be the cost of its wood, but all the creatures it affects and the environment it affects have to be considered. I created an equation that I think includes all the important aspects of a tree.

A tree is made of partially water and also wood. Its roots prevent soil erosion and it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, which protects us from global warming. It also puts oxygen into the atmosphere, which helps us breathe. It is also the home to many creatures.

So, the value of a tree would be the value of the water it holds (H2O) + the value of the land it protects (L) + how much it would cost to fix soil erosion (S) + the value of how much oxygen it puts into the atmosphere (O2) + the value of each creature that depends on it (C). So, Tree (T) = H2O + L + S + CO2 + O2 + C.
But, wait! We must figure out the value of each creature that a tree houses. Creature (C) = value of the amount of land it saves from overpopulation of its prey (L) + value of energy it produces (P) + value of each creature it keeps alive by being its prey (C).

Therefore, C = L + P + C; therefore C is infinite; therefore the value of a tree is infinite. I’m not even going into how valuable land is, because of how many creatures it keeps alive.

It is impossible to accurately determine the value of a tree, or any life for that matter. In this economy, maybe for now, it is important to at least value nature at something. But it should be pretty damn expensive.

Note: this generalization does not cover all economists, but still a large majority

The world today has become so detached, so "specialized," that human beings think we can categorize our knowledge into bits and pieces and not see connections between different disciplines. Environmentalists are aware of how much we separate ourselves from the non-human environment. But how can we connect with nature when we can't even connect with each other? We all live in a vacuum. Nothing one person does could possibly affect another human being.

Take economics, for example. Just like psychologists, sociologists, and political scientists, economists believe that there exists within their field empirical facts, scientific evidence, the "real world". But economics is a "soft science"--it has no empirical facts. And it is a social science--it relates directly to the human world, human interactions, and human relationships. People who use PoliSci and economics as their dogma may see otherwise. "Politics is about interactions between states and other things related to the government," and "economics is about goods and services, trade and policy."

But what are governments and states made up of? Human beings. What is the purpose of policy? To influence and affect human beings (usually to improve their livelihood, or at least it's supposed to be). Economics is a human invention; purely psychological. We invented money, trade, the ideas of inflation and Gross Domestic Product. A country's economy will grow or have negative growth partly because of whether or not investors (people or organizations of people) have faith in them.

This is why economists must constantly keep in mind how each theory, perspective, and policy implemented affects people. To call someone a "bleeding-heart liberal" for being concerned not just about how an economy is perceived to grow, but also how people are being affected by that economy, is grossly short-sighted. To say that economists (or people in an economics class) must not talk about people, but only about policy, is a contradiction. What is the purpose of policy? To help or influence a government or governing body. And what is the purpose of influencing a government? To help or influence the people ruled by that government.

Why was Adam Smith concerned about bringing Great Britain out of feudalism, into a system where supposedly anyone could make money? To get rid of slavery and the serfdom, so that people could be free to influence their own lives. Why was Karl Marx concerned about labor conditions? Because of how the people were treated. I could go on and on.

To argue that the purpose of economics is not to affect the people, but to affect the growth of a country, is ridiculously abstract. It turns into the country helping its economy for the country's sake, and then there is no purpose. For, what is the purpose of a country if not for people?

"The Long Run"

Economists claim not to be myopic, but to look into the future when they make their decisions. If privatizing the water supply of the city of Cochabomba, Bolivia, destroyed people's lives and demanded a quarter to a half of their monthly income, well, the point isn't so much how those people were affected "then." The point is, privatization would help Bolivia's economy "in the long run," maybe years from that point (when half the residents of Cochabomba are dead), and economic growth always helps the people didn't you know? It's automatic. The wealth of a country is never just owned by the already wealthy. No, there's a Reaganomic "trickle-down effect" as you can see worked so well in Bolivia before, during the privatization of other industries. Or in the former Soviet Union. Just ask anyone who lives in Serbia or the Czech Republic. They'll tell you, "I'm so financially well-off now; gosh I'm happy. The health care here is much better now and there are less poor people on the streets." While no one likes living in a pseudo-tyrannical dictatorship, the former USSR did sacrifice a lot to become a capitalistic "democracy." The cost-benefit analysis doesn't have as obvious an outcome as one might presume. And the rabid anti-communism is now just reminiscent of the McCarthy Era.

Strangely enough, these "far-sighted" economists have trouble getting other long-term effects of policy into their heads: environmental effects, human well-being. Petroleum is an unsustainable resource; anyone with half a brain will admit that. But ask an economist why it's a good idea to keep our dependence on oil without investing much further into sustainable energy resources? "Well, oil's not gonna run out for a long time." "Oh, we're investing enough into sustainable resources, so that by the time a world oil crisis hits, we'll have enough alternative energy sources to sustain us." The former comment reveals true hypocrisy if that economist believes the "in the long run" theories. And there is no way in hell an economist can say the latter if they've actually checked current trends and economic predictions. But no, they're still not short-sighted or anything.

I'd say these economists have what I like to call "selective myopia." You look into the future only if it serves your own interests. And boy, do economists care about self-interest! After all, there is no such thing as true altruism, is there?

The truth is, while examining policy, you have to keep your head on straight. Don't let it get abstract enough that it's just a bunch of numbers to you, and there is no humanity involved.

If all scientists were like economists, they wouldn't even bother with the "inefficiencies" of animal-testing. They'd go straight to experimenting on humans.