You use the word "abundance" four times in this thoughtful and well written post.
I get triggered by the idea of "abundance". At it's most harmless and pastoral, (for me) it conjures up a surreal vision of universal peace and plenty rarely seen outside the cover of the Watchtower. At worst, it invokes the anthropocentric hippy/techbro greed that serves as a moral justification for destroying the natural resources of the planet.
I appreciate your perspective, and I can see how "abundance" might carry those connotations. It is a word often loaded with assumptions, and I understand how it could feel disconnected from the realities of scarcity, exploitation, and environmental degradation.
In discussions like these, I aim to use "abundance" to emphasize sustainable coexistence—an ethical framework where resources are shared equitably, and the planet's limits are respected. I do not mean to imply unchecked consumption or a utopian fantasy but rather a vision where humans live in harmony with nature, minimizing harm to all beings.
That said, I value your feedback and will consider rephrasing or expanding on these ideas in the future to avoid any unintended associations. Thank you for sharing!
Guiding others to their own inner light is the way to go, I think. When we love ourselves, we are able to extend that love and kindness to others. I come from a long history of political activism, but in recent years of witnessing the divides grow greater, I think the only way to truly mend the world is a return to love.
Love what you wrote and totally agree, desiring the best for people is where the social policy should lie.
That was beautifully said. Guiding others toward self-love and kindness fosters a ripple effect of compassion. Bridging divides through love and understanding is the key to creating a harmonious and just world. Social policy rooted in care and empathy truly heals. Thank you for your comment!
I would welcome this thesis if it were true. My experience and observation is that it isn't. Oh that it were.
I don't suggest that one shouldn't follow such a principle, indeed I applaud it. Indeed, it is one that I have attempted to follow throughout most of my life, particularly since I was old enough and developed enough to be able to think for myself and overcome much of social conditioning.
I grew in a material and financially poverty ridden area at a time when single breadwinners were the norm and the expectation that they would be male. Living in a major fishing port, meant that most of the males in my areas were trawler crew and would be away regularly for two to three weeks, indeed effectively for most of their time. Families were large for the 'pill' hadn't yet been invented or become readily available and contraception, such as it could be called, was rudimentary and less than effective. Thus, the area was predominantly one of single woman with several children and little to no means of supporting them beyond what they had managed to obtain from their husbands, by fair means or foul, after the depletion of their pay by many, if not most, on drink and gambling.
However, apart from the constant runny noses and lice in the hair, we children were generally healthy because of being constantly outdoors, engaged in physical activity and fed on fish and chips, which were the cheapest staples and provided protein, vitamins and carbohydrates. There were no bathrooms or hot water in the rudimentary worker's terrace houses in which we lived, hence the constant difficulty in remaining clean, made all the more difficult because the only heating came from coal fire places and the whole city was covered with years of soot.
The great positive of this life was the abundant generosity of spirit of those women and the willingness with which they would help others. Children could play in the street with relative safety because there was always someone with an eye out for them. This was fortunate because there were no back gardens in which to play. If one was hungry and there was no food at home, there would be someone in the street willing to let you sit down and share whatever simple meal they had.
For us, Grandad Xmas would leave a knitted sock containing the wonder of an apple or orange, a few nuts, perhaps some dates and if we were really fortunate, a used toy from a local second-hand shop. If we were very fortunate, Christmas dinner would be a rabbit or chicken, roast potatoes and Yorkshire pudding with gravy. For the particularly well off there may even be pudding and custard afterwards. This 'grand' meal would be virtually our only taste of meat during the year beyond perhaps a not very occasional piece of bacon.
The benefit of this was that we didn't 'expect' and so receiving a rare treat or gift was all the more special and appreciated. We learned to help and look out for one another. We may not have realised it but we experienced real community - 'through thick and thin' as was said.
Sadly, now approaching 80 and having given or at least offered, throughout my life, I have increasingly witnessed selfishness, suspicion at anything, whether task or item, offered for free and a wide disregard even for treating others with civility and warmth, let alone thought of their circumstances and offering help.
I don't know which came first or whether they were coincidental. What I do know is that they are a reality throughout much of the modern western societies in which I've known through work, study, residence or avid reading and interest in current and world affairs.
So, as I said at the outset, I will continue to do and offer what I can to others of what little I have but I no longer expect even an acknowledgment let alone that it may bring about a replication on the part of the receiver to others. Indeed, I fully expect that it is likely to shut down any friendship or association rather than to start or maintain one. Indeed, although I refer to giving rather than loaning or borrowing, it very much brings to mind the words of Polonious in Hamlet: "Neither a lender nor a borrower be, for loan oft loses both itself and friend"
Good advice, of course, in my view though the more recent though now also distant words of Churchill are as, if not more relevant to today and ought to give much more food for thought given the current appalling state of the world: "What you get gives you a living, what you give gets you a life" ( I paraphrase, I can't remember the statement exactly but the essence is accurate.)
Thank you for sharing such a deeply personal and reflective comment. Your vivid account of life in a materially impoverished yet communally rich environment offers profound insight into the contrasts between past and present societal norms. The warmth and generosity you describe, even amid hardship, stand in stark contrast to the isolation and suspicion you now observe in much of modern society.
It is heartening to know that you continue to live by the principle of giving, even when its impact or acknowledgment feels diminished. Your reference to community values of the past highlights the transformative power of shared humanity and mutual aid—values that seem increasingly rare but remain vitally important.
Your reflections also serve as a reminder of how cultural shifts, economic changes, and social expectations influence not just material well-being but also the quality of human connections. Churchill’s sentiment, which you paraphrased beautifully, encapsulates the enduring value of generosity: that giving enriches the soul, regardless of external recognition.
While your observations about the erosion of communal spirit are sobering, your commitment to living by this principle is inspiring. It affirms that even in a world that often feels disconnected, individual acts of kindness and generosity still hold transformative potential, even if only in unseen ways. Thank you for offering such an eloquent and heartfelt perspective.
You use the word "abundance" four times in this thoughtful and well written post.
I get triggered by the idea of "abundance". At it's most harmless and pastoral, (for me) it conjures up a surreal vision of universal peace and plenty rarely seen outside the cover of the Watchtower. At worst, it invokes the anthropocentric hippy/techbro greed that serves as a moral justification for destroying the natural resources of the planet.
I appreciate your perspective, and I can see how "abundance" might carry those connotations. It is a word often loaded with assumptions, and I understand how it could feel disconnected from the realities of scarcity, exploitation, and environmental degradation.
In discussions like these, I aim to use "abundance" to emphasize sustainable coexistence—an ethical framework where resources are shared equitably, and the planet's limits are respected. I do not mean to imply unchecked consumption or a utopian fantasy but rather a vision where humans live in harmony with nature, minimizing harm to all beings.
That said, I value your feedback and will consider rephrasing or expanding on these ideas in the future to avoid any unintended associations. Thank you for sharing!
Guiding others to their own inner light is the way to go, I think. When we love ourselves, we are able to extend that love and kindness to others. I come from a long history of political activism, but in recent years of witnessing the divides grow greater, I think the only way to truly mend the world is a return to love.
Love what you wrote and totally agree, desiring the best for people is where the social policy should lie.
That was beautifully said. Guiding others toward self-love and kindness fosters a ripple effect of compassion. Bridging divides through love and understanding is the key to creating a harmonious and just world. Social policy rooted in care and empathy truly heals. Thank you for your comment!
I would welcome this thesis if it were true. My experience and observation is that it isn't. Oh that it were.
I don't suggest that one shouldn't follow such a principle, indeed I applaud it. Indeed, it is one that I have attempted to follow throughout most of my life, particularly since I was old enough and developed enough to be able to think for myself and overcome much of social conditioning.
I grew in a material and financially poverty ridden area at a time when single breadwinners were the norm and the expectation that they would be male. Living in a major fishing port, meant that most of the males in my areas were trawler crew and would be away regularly for two to three weeks, indeed effectively for most of their time. Families were large for the 'pill' hadn't yet been invented or become readily available and contraception, such as it could be called, was rudimentary and less than effective. Thus, the area was predominantly one of single woman with several children and little to no means of supporting them beyond what they had managed to obtain from their husbands, by fair means or foul, after the depletion of their pay by many, if not most, on drink and gambling.
However, apart from the constant runny noses and lice in the hair, we children were generally healthy because of being constantly outdoors, engaged in physical activity and fed on fish and chips, which were the cheapest staples and provided protein, vitamins and carbohydrates. There were no bathrooms or hot water in the rudimentary worker's terrace houses in which we lived, hence the constant difficulty in remaining clean, made all the more difficult because the only heating came from coal fire places and the whole city was covered with years of soot.
The great positive of this life was the abundant generosity of spirit of those women and the willingness with which they would help others. Children could play in the street with relative safety because there was always someone with an eye out for them. This was fortunate because there were no back gardens in which to play. If one was hungry and there was no food at home, there would be someone in the street willing to let you sit down and share whatever simple meal they had.
For us, Grandad Xmas would leave a knitted sock containing the wonder of an apple or orange, a few nuts, perhaps some dates and if we were really fortunate, a used toy from a local second-hand shop. If we were very fortunate, Christmas dinner would be a rabbit or chicken, roast potatoes and Yorkshire pudding with gravy. For the particularly well off there may even be pudding and custard afterwards. This 'grand' meal would be virtually our only taste of meat during the year beyond perhaps a not very occasional piece of bacon.
The benefit of this was that we didn't 'expect' and so receiving a rare treat or gift was all the more special and appreciated. We learned to help and look out for one another. We may not have realised it but we experienced real community - 'through thick and thin' as was said.
Sadly, now approaching 80 and having given or at least offered, throughout my life, I have increasingly witnessed selfishness, suspicion at anything, whether task or item, offered for free and a wide disregard even for treating others with civility and warmth, let alone thought of their circumstances and offering help.
I don't know which came first or whether they were coincidental. What I do know is that they are a reality throughout much of the modern western societies in which I've known through work, study, residence or avid reading and interest in current and world affairs.
So, as I said at the outset, I will continue to do and offer what I can to others of what little I have but I no longer expect even an acknowledgment let alone that it may bring about a replication on the part of the receiver to others. Indeed, I fully expect that it is likely to shut down any friendship or association rather than to start or maintain one. Indeed, although I refer to giving rather than loaning or borrowing, it very much brings to mind the words of Polonious in Hamlet: "Neither a lender nor a borrower be, for loan oft loses both itself and friend"
Good advice, of course, in my view though the more recent though now also distant words of Churchill are as, if not more relevant to today and ought to give much more food for thought given the current appalling state of the world: "What you get gives you a living, what you give gets you a life" ( I paraphrase, I can't remember the statement exactly but the essence is accurate.)
Thank you for sharing such a deeply personal and reflective comment. Your vivid account of life in a materially impoverished yet communally rich environment offers profound insight into the contrasts between past and present societal norms. The warmth and generosity you describe, even amid hardship, stand in stark contrast to the isolation and suspicion you now observe in much of modern society.
It is heartening to know that you continue to live by the principle of giving, even when its impact or acknowledgment feels diminished. Your reference to community values of the past highlights the transformative power of shared humanity and mutual aid—values that seem increasingly rare but remain vitally important.
Your reflections also serve as a reminder of how cultural shifts, economic changes, and social expectations influence not just material well-being but also the quality of human connections. Churchill’s sentiment, which you paraphrased beautifully, encapsulates the enduring value of generosity: that giving enriches the soul, regardless of external recognition.
While your observations about the erosion of communal spirit are sobering, your commitment to living by this principle is inspiring. It affirms that even in a world that often feels disconnected, individual acts of kindness and generosity still hold transformative potential, even if only in unseen ways. Thank you for offering such an eloquent and heartfelt perspective.