Human Beings or Human Resources?

In response to an article in today's Telegraph, "It's babies, not discrimination, that's holding back women in the workplace" by Jemima Lewis


The root cause of the intractable problems relating to work and family life is a misconceived belief in the individual or nuclear family being the basic unit of society. 

They are not. They are the basic units of the artificial human ENVIRONMENT, which state and economy developed over the centuries to facilitate the self-exploitation of, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, TALENT, which by definition means virtually all members of our political, business, academic and media elites.

The natural, basic unit of a genuine society is the tribe or community, which, having been made redundant by the state and a money economy, no longer exist.

Obviously, we cannot recreate the kind of tribal society evolution adapted human behaviour and emotions to, but, given a realistic (necessarily Darwinian) understanding of ourselves and our situation, we could develop a political and socio-economic order which serves us as "human beings" rather than serving our self-exploitation us as "human resources" and markets (including the "labour market").

The following quote illustrates the author’s “profligate” way of looking at the meaning and purpose of human life, both male and female, which dominates, from left to right, right across the “progressive” political spectrum.

“Spending thousands to train and educate women, only for them to fall out of the labour market at the peak of their expertise, is a very profligate way to run a country.”

It’s centred around a perverted political and economic philosophy (responsible for current reality, and vice versa) more interested in the exploitation of “human resources” and markets than in the well-being and self-realisation of human beings, which it effectively reduces to their ability to make MONEY and/or to claim a spurious, likewise perverted, “moral high ground” for themselves (especially favoured by the Left).

Trouble is, it’s “successful” individuals, especially in the media, who define what “success” is for society at large, despite being so utterly misguided themselves.

But then, who am I to tell such “successful” people that they’re misguided . . ?

Human Beings or Resources?

What state and capital want is not human beings, but “human resources” and/or consumers, only they have to deceive us into believing otherwise.

Just as we domesticated certain animals, so too, and for the same general purpose of exploitation, we also domesticated ourselves, with state and capital training us to serve its purposes as a “human resource” (initially to work the fields and fight battles, then as canon and factory fodder, etc.), and more recently also as a “market”.

This sounds ridiculous, I know, which is partly why we have thus far failed to recognise the truth of it. There is much more to individual lives and human society, of course, but this describes the overall situation pretty well, and offers an explanation for most of our problems, some of which are existential and will put an end to us, unless we come up with solutions.

The German and Japanese states made particularly good jobs of training their “human resources”, which is why their economies have done so well (and why they made such good soldiers). The Chinese state seems to be making a pretty good job of it as well.

Our political, business and media elites look to German economic prowess and growth with envy and want us to emulate them, because they translate into more MONEY and POWER, the pursuit and exercise of which is what our natural Darwinian drive for survival, advantage and reproductive success has been perverted and reduced to, in the artificial environment of human civilisation.

What we need to do, if we want our civilisation to survive, is retrain OURSELVES as HUMAN BEINGS. It’s no good expecting the state or capital to do it for us. Or the church, which, in the service of state and capital, trained us to be good SHEEP.

What's Wrong with "Society"?

The elites of so-called developing countries are no more interested in the welfare of their own citizens than Britain’s elites were of theirs in Victorian times. They are just a "human resource" to be exploited and protected against.

The assumption that perpetual economic growth will create enough wealth to lift everyone out of poverty, without restricting the growing wealth of the elites, is pure fantasy.

What’s fundamental wrong with “society” is that it is not a genuine society at all, but an artificial environment, which state and economy facilitate the self-exploitation of.

That’s the problem we have to recognise and understand, if we want to solve it – and survive. Otherwise, our civilisation will self-destruct.