Then I think about life here. People may not "work" in our modern sense of the word (meaning: exchanging labor for money), but they certainly "do work," (meaning: perform labor). Some people here work for money, some simply hunt, fish, gather, and maybe do a little work on the side to get stuff they can't get themselves or through barter. By modern standards, they're far, far below the poverty line. The reality, however, is that those things that you can buy with money (pop, candy, chips, white bread) are far less healthy than those that require no money, but more time (salmon, trout, berries, caribou, etc...). There are, of course, exceptions. Vitamin C, for example, is infinitely easier to obtain through a glass of orange juice than through native plants and animals. But overall, what you can catch is healthier than what you can buy.
Who determines what is "poor?" Do each of our kids really need their own bedrooms for life to be complete? Do we need two cars (or more) per family? Why are we considered "poor" if we get by without these things? If you work all day, catching fish, hunting, gathering berries, and by doing so feed, clothe and house your family for the year, yet make no money in the process, why are you considered poor? Aren't you just making a living the same as someone who works for cash, just cutting out the middleman? It only stops working if you factor in a continuous desire for more. If you're satisfied with a house that doesn't leak, a boat that floats well enough to fish in, and food that keeps the family growing, then you're set. But as soon as you want a fancy new car, or a bigger house than you really need, money comes into the picture. Now just working to live changes into something else. You live to work.
Don't think I'm getting all polyanna on how things work up here. There are disadvantages to any system. Right now I'm just thinking out loud...
No comments:
Post a Comment