Why doesn't the planet need successful people?

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Success is not really something to strive for.

Ecologist and writer David Orr, in one of his books, expressed the idea: “The planet does not need a large number of 'successful people'. The planet desperately needs peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers. It needs people with whom it is good to live. The planet needs people with morality who are ready to join the struggle to make the world alive and humane. And these qualities have little to do with 'success' as it is defined in our society."

Of course, you can argue as much as you like that Orr is a representative of Western culture, in which success is equated solely with money and the ability to achieve a set goal at any cost. They say that in Russia everything is different, and we are highly moral, and spiritually rich, right at the genetic level. But this is not the case.

And we will have to admit that we ourselves are already quite firmly inscribed in the Western system of values, in which the principle "faster, higher, stronger" is becoming the only credo in life.

This is neither bad nor good. The problem is that it determines our way of existence on a small and cozy, but at the same time cramped and burdened by various complexities of the Earth.

Let's think for a minute about which professions we call “successful”. Famous actors and singers of all stripes, politicians, top businessmen - all those who are endowed with power, money, or simply popularity immediately come to mind.

Try to imagine a “successful doctor”. Who is this: the one who knows how to carry out the most complex operations at a high level and saves lives, or the one who opened a private clinic, got rich clients and made a fortune? Is a “successful writer” one who has created a truly outstanding work or one who is published in millions of copies? And combinations like “successful scientist”, “successful teacher”, “successful geologist” seem like an oxymoron in this context.

This is where the paradox arises, which was originally mentioned by David Orr: it turns out that the planet does not spin at the expense of those whom we have unanimously dubbed "successful" and put on the podium. Successful people don't teach our kids in school. Successful people don't cure us for colds. Successful people don't bake bread, drive trams, or mop your office floor. But those who do this are objectively much more useful to society than the whole army of pop singers, managers (we need managers, not managers) and oligarchs.

But the most interesting thing is not even that. Most surprisingly, in modern society, "success" does not equal "happiness" under almost no circumstances. For example, “successful women” are usually called careerists, and “happy” for some reason are still called wives and mothers. "Successful men" are again considered those who know how to earn and provide themselves with material benefits, and "happy men" … In all honesty, when was the last time you heard someone called a "happy man"?

The current model of success excludes happiness and is basically unhealthy. Psychological research at the University of British Columbia found that many top executives come from a small percentage of the population prone to psychopathy. This is because such people are willing to compete with all their might for any opportunity that gives them an edge over their more level-headed counterparts.

It is clear that the psychopathic model of success must be destructive. Maybe that's why there are so many wars, bloodshed, endless economic crises in the world - we just put “successful” psychopaths over ourselves, piously believing in their normality and trying our best to become like them?

The world of such “successful” people is extremely lonely: they are surrounded only by subordinates, competitors and sometimes partners who at any moment can turn into competitors. By and large, they have nothing to value, except for their own "success" and the benefits that it gives. Therefore, destructive actions directed outward, into a hostile, competing world, are quite natural and even internally justified. They will add neither happiness, nor love, nor beauty, but they may well consolidate the "success".

After all, if you face the truth, it becomes clear that today the beautiful word "success" is often used to cover up a completely ignoble desire for financial wealth and popularity.

Perhaps it's time to rethink our concept of success? We will consider successful those who make the world a little better every day - a little, to the best of their ability, without claims to be global. I just "got up in the morning, washed myself, put myself in order - and immediately put your planet in order."

Let us value the sages, not the trained speakers; we will appreciate the actions and motives, not the words. Let's do our job well, not because it will bring some ephemeral "success", but because we like it. And if we don’t like it, we will leave and look for what we like to do it well again. We will cherish our families and be attentive to children.

And then - an amazing thing! - we ourselves will not notice how there will be much more successful people. There will be as many of them as there are happy ones, who understand that they do not live in vain. And such people will already be needed by the planet, because they will have no reason to destroy it. Finally we get to building.