Jens Berges' blog part 13

Why it's better to live in a poorer society

I am a 72-year-old man from Scandinavia. I moved to Southeast Asia in 1981, and stayed here ever since.

I was successful in Scandinavia. I even drove a Porsche (bought 1980 second-hand and partially financed). I earned a good salary (which allowed me to fly to Southeast Asia in the first place).

I am a native Scandinavian, blond, 1.80 meters (5 feet 11 inches) tall.

As a teenager, and in my twenties, I always had a girlfriend in Scandinavia, and often more than one. I guess that in the late 1970s, Western European society was sexually more permissive. Not in terms of being gay, but in terms of being promiscuous.

I gave it all up to settle in Southeast Asia. Everybody in my Scandinavian environment, especially my parents, thought that I was crazy. But I never regretted it, not a bit.

More than 40 years ago, just a few years after the Vietnam war, Southeast Asia was poorer (and even better) than today.

Yes, I am convinced that poorer societies (societies of need) are more in line with human nature than rich societies (societies of affluence).

This is the case because ultimately, human happiness depends on human interaction (loving mother-child relationships, fun with friends, solidarity in neighborhoods, romantic involvements).

While all of the above examples are in themselves worth striving for, they need an "excuse" in order to arise, which means: appropriate societal conditions.

In affluent societies, with well-developed infrastructures, people no longer need each other to get by. If they don't need each other, they will not bond. In rich societies in Northeast Asia (Japan, South Korea), the trend is for people to live alone. Many people no longer want children because children are no longer needed to ensure well-being in old age. Many people also no longer want parents.

Dating is becoming more difficult, too, because getting together needs an excuse other than just wanting to try something romantic. Getting together should happen somehow accidentally.

In affluent societies, even interaction at the workplace is on a path of being phased out, as ever more employees work from home, and workweeks are getting shorter. Furthermore, attempts at workplace closeness with persons of the opposite sex nowadays easily get construed as sexual harassment.

Overall, in affluent societies, human interactions are getting depersonalized, and then, of course, people are not only alone, but also lonely.

But in poor, traditional societies, people need each other on a practical basis. Solidarity flowers when it improves the odds of getting by. Family bonds are strong because people understand that parents have to give affectionate care to their children (the more, the better), so that the children will give affectionate care to their parents when they are old.

Dating is natural, and actively pursued, not for sexual gratifications, but because romantic involvement is good for the future.

In affluent societies, ageism is inherent, and it goes much deeper than workplace discrimination.

In affluent societies, public opinion prescribes that romantic relationships, or marriages, happen between people of roughly the same age who are physically attracted to each other. If you are a good-looking young man, this suits you fine. But if you are a man at fifty, and you are attracted to women in their twenties, the zeitgeist considers you a creep.

In poor societies, this kind of ageism is largely absent. Young women commonly enter romantic relationships with economic considerations. In this case, age doesn't matter, as long as the financial prospects are good.

In poor societies, even in the 21st century, economically successful men typically have increased access to romantic involvement; poor men try their best to become economically more successful while living with a woman to whom they got married when they were young and more attractive.

In poor societies, a young woman is considered lucky if she can catch an economically successful man who can give her a comfortable life while also providing support for her family.

Contrast this with rich Western societies. Gone are the times when rich or otherwise successful guys had worry-free access to romantic involvements with younger and/or more attractive women.

For men by now, being rich or known beyond fairly low limits is a disadvantage for a lifestyle of promiscuous romantic involvements because the female part in such liaisons may see an opportunity to improve or maximize her returns by creating legal troubles. Because there are few financial gains to be made from suing poor men, they have, theoretically, more promiscuous freedom. But, on the other hand, because they are poor, they have a harder time attracting women.

I think that by and large, the inner workings of poor societies are way less schizophrenic than those of rich societies. In poor societies, economically successful men are rewarded by having more romantic opportunities. That is a reward that can give life real, biologically-sound meaning. Men who are economically not successful have a simple agenda: become economically successful, and have a shot at the same rewards.

For women in poor societies, matters are also uncomplicated. When young and attractive, they can cash in on their beauty. When no longer young and attractive, they may either switch to striving for wealth, or they may be content with being a mother of a potentially successful son or a beautiful daughter, in which case they may at least live comfortably on filial support.

In poor societies, people young or old, male or female, have a simple compass in their lives. Get richer and reap the benefits, whatever your personal preferences may be. There is a clear path to a better life, even as you get older. There is a good reason to be optimistic about the future.

In rich societies, people lack orientation. When men get rich beyond a certain level, promiscuous romantic involvements (the evolutionary measure of male success) get restricted. Furthermore, when attractiveness is linked only to youth and good looks, life is a downward spiral. One cannot add youth or prettiness as life goes on.

On the other hand, if your attractiveness score primarily depends on your wealth, you can be on an upwards trajectory until old age. But that kind of setting needs a poor society.