Something I've been reflecting on over the last week as I've been working through Kingsnorth's book has been the way wealth, excess, and the pursuit of gratification has become aspirational in modern society. There was a time in pre-modern societies where avarice was considered a sin—when those who profited off the financial exploitation of others were shamed. This isn't to say it didn't exist, but it was not celebrated in the way it is today.
One of the myths that capitalism relies on is the way excess (prosperity) is presented as the grand goal for all. Rather than put limitations around wealth, we talk about it as something that anyone can attain with just a little hard work or the right timing of the market. This myth operates at both a local and a global level, driving the idea that the world will be a better place when everyone lives like the richest nations. But not only is this not possible, it begs the moral question of if this is even something we should aspire towards. A question that Kingsnorth notes was being asked by the British economist, E.F. Schumacher in the 1970s:
"The foundations of peace cannot be laid by universal prosperity, in the modern sense because such prosperity, if attainable at all, is attainable only by cultivating such drives of human nature as greed and envy, which destroy intelligence, happiness, serenity, and thereby the peacefulness of man."
The thing that makes ethics so tricky in our age is that we are trying to work out individual moral choices against the backdrop of a capitalist system that has made virtues of what was once considered vice. Lifestyles of excess are presented as normal and the pursuit of more is seen as the sign of a good life. What I think Kingsnorth is so rightly pointing out is that this has not always been the case; and we may need to be more critical in asking what this has cost us.