Resilient or brittle — which are we? In the age of coronavirus

11 min readApr 19, 2020

As we debate the pros and cons of staying home vs opening up the economy, I can’t help but notice that a really fundamental aspect of all of this is almost completely omitted in these debates.

Most of us and others we know have been affected economically by sheltering in place. Some of us have been impacted severely. The question then becomes: Why do we have an economic model that is so extremely brittle and non-resilient that it implodes when real life happens? And what can we do to make it more resilient?

Why does our economic model get so damaged by disasters when they happen (which they eventually will, pretty much everywhere), pandemics, foreign manipulations of currencies and trade (like the tariffs on farmers, oil sell off by Russia and Saudi Arabia, etc), our loved ones or us getting a serious illness, or even things like our loved ones dying, babies needing care, and other predictable life passages?

Why does our economy get into so much trouble when these real life things happen? It isn’t resilient to that degree, it’s brittle.

Why have we created an economy that is a brittle, fragile machine, that must be constantly fed or it is harmed? These may seem like irrelevant questions to some, because it may be hard to believe that we as individuals have the power to influence the economy. Perhaps you believe that multinational corporations are holding the planet together, and we would not be able to survive without them. And you are right, there is truth to that. We have become deeply dependent on this fragile machine for our food, water, ability to move around, our health care, etc.

There are parts of this machine that work really well. But let’s take a look at the parts that don’t, and what we as individuals might be able to do about it.

This is not an essay about capitalism vs socialism, by the way. Let’s just set both of those concepts aside for the moment, because I want to talk about something much more fundamental than economic theories from the 18th century. I want to talk about the very concept of “economy” and what we can do as individuals and communities to make the way we practice it more resilient. And many of these are practical steps that can be done on local levels by you and me, not abstract economic theories.

A theme I like to point out because sometimes things that are such a core part of our lives just are — they are not something we get outside of and examine or question: The economy is one thing in our lives that is entirely created by humankind. We all must agree to the game in order for it to be played. We all have contributed to the design of how this one works, by our participation in it.

The weather and climate continue on with or without us. Trees don’t need us to grow. Heavy rains and flooding and natural cataclysms have happened throughout history, long before humans walked the earth and would continue to happen if we were no longer there. We co-exist with these things. They work independently of our design. Though our designs can certainly influence them, they do not need us.

But the economy does need us in order to work. It is entirely created by and 100% dependent upon us and our behaviors and decisions, to operate at all. We, as a species, have entire control over how the economy operates. And as individuals, we have more control than most of us believe.

So let’s look at what our agreements have wrought. We are now in a position where we have to choose how people will die, and which ones, because our economy is designed to be brittle rather than resilient. Either people will die from a pandemic, or some may die from starvation because our economy is designed so that a large number of people on the planet live on a day to day subsistence level, where one month spent away from the machine can cause them to lose their home, or to not have necessities to maintain life, like food or medicine.

And yes, there is individual responsibility as well but I’m talking about the design of the machine itself.

Let’s be clear, in a run-away pandemic with no shelter in place, it’s very likely that people will die from starvation or other diseases, or many other factors, because of the chaos created by the pandemic hitting up against our brittle designs. But the shelter in place is also adversely affecting the poorest of us, in the cities in India and Haiti, and other locations.

Why? We could get into a discussion about the pros and cons of an economy based on heavy competition and survival of the fittest vs an economy based on cooperation, and we will do that in other essays.

But even more fundamental right now, is this: why have we created and agreed to an economic system that pretends that real life doesn’t happen?

Why have we created and agreed to an economic machine that plows onward, crushing things in its path that don’t fit, until it runs out of the fuel that feeds it — i.e. our regular and dedicated participation in and dependency on it?

If we look away for a week or a month, because there is something else that urgently needs our attention or even simply because there are pretty flowers over there, it is harmed. Its gaping black maw must be constantly fed, its hungry fires stoked every day, for us to continue to have a roof over our heads, food, and medicine.

Our self esteem is dependent upon going to work and being useful. But what is using us? What IS this machine? And perhaps even more importantly, what ISN’T it?

As to what it is: It is something that feeds the most ruthless amongst us well. It feeds others well too, but it is especially supportive of the ruthless. It is something that is dependent upon products that are poisoning us and the earth, and really aren’t needed in order to survive. Get this — the economy, this thing we all invented, needs those toxic products to survive, but we don’t, and the planet doesn’t need them either. Just this machine, this thing that we agreed to co-create, needs these poison products.

Can you think of some examples? Coca-cola comes to mind. The world would actually be better off if that company failed. Health care costs would go down, pollution would reduce, there would be that many less ads, etc. But, “Think of the people who would lose their jobs!” some will say in horror.

Yes, exactly. The entire planet and future generations would be better off, but our society will protect Coca-cola because “people will lose their jobs.” We could go down the rabbit hole of fossil fuels which do even more harm than Coca-cola. “Fossil fuels have saved lives.” Ok, there is truth to that.

But why did we create an economy that can “only survive” (and thus allow us to survive) if we harm each other and the planet? Does that make sense? We did that. We agreed to it. I’m not saying every individual agreed, but there are so many subtle points of agreement to it. It’s quite a lot to unpack but boy is it worthwhile to unpack.

We can say that we didn’t know how bad fossil fuels would pollute (as one example). Ok, let’s say for the sake of argument that we didn’t (though people have been dying of black lung disease since the 1600’s, for instance). We still co-designed a system that is so dependent upon fossil fuels to feed us, clothe us, and house us that we “have to” poison the planet in order to keep that machine going. We agreed to that, however conscious or unconscious that agreement was.

There is really good news here though too — our agreements have power. They have the power to build this massive system called the “world economy.” They also have the power to change that system. That power lies completely in our hands, and it can happen fast. The first step is to realize that the power lies entirely in our hands. We have power to co-create a much more ideal economic system than the current version.

So, what isn’t this machine? It isn’t something that is going to support the majority of us during a pandemic, or earthquake, flood, or the care and passage and honoring of a dying loved one. Why not? Because we did not design it to do so. It’s that simple, and that harsh. Because the way out of the trap of “you must endlessly feed the hungry black maw or die,” is to step back and ask these hard questions.

How can we design a resilient economic system that does support a broader range of real life passages and happenings? The first step is to conceive that it is possible to do so. And it is, because economics is one thing on this planet that humankind has complete, 100% control over. It is entirely invented by and dependent upon us. Most people don’t believe that, but I’m asking you to consider it (if you haven’t already seen the man behind the curtain and realized it is you, feeding the great Oz).

The second step is to ask yourself what is most important in your life? What do you value? What should be valued by an economic system? Child raising? The care of loved ones? Being able to respond to disasters when they happen without having one’s entire life support system crash?

To have time for creative or spiritual endeavors and each other? To have time in the garden, and the forest? Many of us buy the time and resources to have these things with money provided by the economic system. Yes, to that degree it works. But it’s brittle and fragile in many ways. And it works far better for some people than others - the ruthless, for one.

The third step is perhaps the most important. Let’s brainstorm this stuff. And let’s stay outside the box when we do. Let’s skip 18th century economic theories entirely (since we tend to spend way more time vociferously arguing about them than actually studying the outcomes of these earthwide experiments), and go much earlier, to study the most efficient, long term economic systems that existed — that valued what you value. How did they give economic value to those things, so that they were supported by their economic philosophy and patterns of design?

We can go back to Sumer, an ancient Mesopotamian culture circa 3000 BC that had a strong middle class, and freedom to move into the upper class. Every family had their own home, there was plenty of food, arts, culture, leisure time, etc, in their urban cities. They somehow managed to create this economy without fossil fuels or most of the technology we now have. There was agreement there. There was also a super fertile valley with irrigated fields. The culture only collapsed after they depleted their soils and drought dried up the irrigation. In that sense, their culture was brittle and fragile. But while it lasted (for centuries), many aspects of it worked. So, note. People can create a culture with little poverty and abundant food, without fossil fuels. There are numerous other examples.

We can look at various tribal cultures that harvested the wild jungles or savannas in ways that allowed them to work 3 hours per day, and dance and sing the rest of the time. They understood their environment well enough to have some prediction and maintain their food supply even in the face of disasters or other upheavals.

We can look at cultures that created and continued to plan such resilience in the face of droughts, floods and other disasters that they were able to survive for thousands of years, no matter what adversity was thrown at them.

I am not suggesting we give up our internet and live exactly like those cultures. What I am strongly suggesting is that we look at what they were doing right, and how that compares to our own economic system. What did they understand that we do not? What patterns did their economies and lifestyles include that ours does not?

We can also learn from cultures that failed, and no longer exist. What brittleness existed in those cultures? What points of resilience existed in the cultures that not only survived but survived with a deep, rich, fulfilling culture intact? A culture that values what you do?

Those cultures likely exist, for all of us. What parts work best? What parts could be improved?

What if we had these conversations regularly about economic systems instead of arguing about 18th century theories? My life and worldview has been deeply enriched by studying these cultures, and also by studying modern versions of those philosophies where they exist. I’ve included a short list of some of these sources below.

We can do better than the current model. Most of us would agree with that, but many of us may not know what all the options really are, outside of a couple of 18th century theories.

Let’s take the time to explore some of those. Let’s consider questioning the giant, black maw, and co-creating an economic system that is more affirming of all of life, not just the bottom line, and beating out the other guy trinket maker. Hey and that can be a fun game. It’s just not the only game.

How can we move toward the co-creation of an economic system that itself, values all of what we truly value? The first step is believing it can be done, and wanting it, and being willing to persist. That’s a hugely important step that opens up all other doors to getting there. What we can dream, we can make happen.

What is working well now? The innovation and creativity being shown by some in response to the pandemic is truly inspiring — local farmers linking more directly to consumers, restaurants finding ways to sell food safely and help their communities at the same time, people planting gardens, people helping each other in all sorts of ways. This is economic resilience.

We are a resilient species and we do tend to respond to challenges with resilience. Our economic system might not, but we do. We’re having to patch and cobble resilient responses together on the fly, but I hope that we will, rather than jumping back in with both feet to frantically feed the giant, ravenous, brittle maw, continue to take some time to consider how we can harness that hungry machine to feed our own souls and our own real lives, better.

We’ll continue to share inspiring ideas and examples of that here.

Resilient or brittle — which are we? In the age of coronavirus

Written by Koreen Brennan