It’s a secret not only because most folks don’t know about it, but also because they don’t want to know about it.
Surely you’ve heard about the “law of attraction.” It has appeared in many guises since at least the middle of the 19th century, when the movement known as New Thought first swept America.
If you buy into the 2006 movie The Secret that most recently popularized positivity, the law of attraction has been known and safeguarded throughout history by towering figures like Plato, Shakespeare, Newton and Lincoln.
Frankly, I hope you don’t buy into The Secret and its dubious claims; both the film and the book have been widely criticized for promoting materialism, victim blaming, and a political passivity that ignores or dismisses the deep flaws in the system.
The suggestion is that if you’re poor or otherwise beset with misfortune, it’s basically your fault. If this loopy logic sounds familiar, that’s because it’s frequently espoused by Christian conservatives.
Which raises the question of why the law of attraction has been embraced by so many New Age liberals. Granted, the prescription has shifted from thinking positive to cultivating a “mentality of abundance,” and the focus is often extended beyond money to include meaningful work and loving relationships.
Still, judging from the number of books and expensive seminars on the subject, the “think and grow rich” notion remains alive and well, especially among those who are already quite wealthy by global standards.
According to the Census Bureau, median income in the U.S. is about $30,000 per person. This might sound fairly modest until we consider that half the world lives on less than $2.50/day (about $900/year), while a quarter live in “deep poverty” on less than half of that.
The usual response to this disparity is to advocate raising the standard of living for people in poorer countries, and rightly so. But few folks in the so-called developed world would be willing to consider lowering their own standard of living.
In fact, the resounding chorus of capital sings incessantly of economic growth, while most us either absentmindedly hum along or single-mindedly chant the mantra of “more money.”
The question rarely asked by moguls and manifestors alike is: How much is enough?
Thanks to the author and activist David Ulansey, we can calculate an actual dollar amount by dividing the Gross World Product (about $80 trillion in 2011) by the number of people on earth (seven billion) to arrive at a figure of roughly $12,000 per year per capita.
Since this GWP figure is already adjusted for purchasing power, $12,000 marks a particular standard of living in the U.S. and its equivalent in other countries; not what that amount would buy elsewhere.
Based on an equal distribution of wealth, $12,000 per year is the amount to which each human being is entitled—meaning that a higher income involves taking more than one’s fair share.
Ulansey is more blunt, stating that “any more than that represents institutionalized and socially sanctioned armed robbery.”
The kicker is that this amount is already unsustainably high for planet earth, which has been in resource overshoot since 1986. Since then, humanity has been living off of its ecological credit card, taking about 130% more than can be replaced, essentially borrowing if not stealing from future generations.
Accounting for this overshoot as well as the increasing global population, the figure in question should be more like $6,000 per year. This is the acceptable level both ethically and ecologically, given that the more money you make, the more resources you consume.
Collectively, we Americans use about one third of the world’s resources, yet comprise only about 6% of the global population.
Thus, most Americans, rather than increasing their means, need to decrease them—in many cases dramatically so. This is the secret law of attrition.
It’s a secret not only because most folks don’t know about it—but also because they don’t want to know about it.
By and large, we have become so attached to our material comforts that we can scarcely imagine living without them. Little do we realize that our possessions have come to possess us, and that our houses are like so many prisons built upon foundations of scarcity and fear.
Although based on compassion, the law of attrition is not about making some difficult and noble sacrifice but about extending the concept of wealth beyond the material realm into the natural, social, artistic and spiritual realms.
It’s about shifting from quantity to quality—and from making a living to making a life—along with the time to enjoy it.
It’s about actually embodying the maxim that less is more, and about finally learning the lesson of the world’s wisdom traditions that the key to happiness—the true secret, if you will—lies not in getting but in giving; not in having but in sharing; not in holding on but in letting go.
Like elephant enlightened society on Facebook.
Assistant Ed: Josie Huang/Ed: Bryonie Wise
hot on elephant
Elephant Journal’s Holiday Gift Guide 636 shares A letter to the Anger that refuses to Leave Me. 631 shares Waylon’s favorite Ethical Gifts. 13 shares Learn Social Media, Writing, Editing & Journalism Ethics with elephantjournal.com. 4 shares Dear Pretty Young Woman Flirting with my Husband. 3,269 shares The Real Reason so many Long-term Relationships Fail Sexually. 1,102 share Year of the Fire Rooster 2017: What to Expect. 1,022 share Why a Year of No Dating was the Best Thing I ever did for Myself. 8,439 shares These Tweets (and Retweets) actually Happened. 1,392 share If you Want Him, you must Claim Him. 781 shares