HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

On growth and the virtue of ambition.

Treebeard - Lord of the Rings.

Have you ever seen a tree, in the open air, stop growing because it decided it had grown enough? No, you have not. Because trees act according to the laws of nature and of life. They “behave” in accordance with life, which could be a synonym for growth. And so, as long as tree is alive, and the circumstances allow, its branches will expand and grow as tall and wide as its nature demands. Such is the case for all living organisms with no consciousness, they do what nature demands of them. They don’t debate, deny or fight their nature and its demands. They do what they must to survive, to live. So should we.

Humans, unlike animals, have agency and free will. We can, if we want, decide to stop growing. Not physically, but mentally. Our body follows the laws of nature, it grows without our resolve and it stops when it must. Our emotional or psychological growth, however, is voluntary. We can decide when and how much our mind or soul, if you will, expands. It is up to us how much growth we are willing to tolerate. Hence, Benjamin Franklin’s saying that “most men die at twenty-five and aren’t buried until they’re 75.” People can die at 25 if they decide to stop growing, to stop living.

Unlike physical growth, which happens naturally, emotional growth requires resolve. It requires voluntary hard work and the adoption of responsibility to the best of our abilities. When we decide we have grown “enough”, we die. Perhaps not in body, but in mind and soul. Our soul dies when we stop dreaming, stop learning, stop reaching for more. Our soul dies when we stop putting ourselves “out there” and instead sit in comfort, content with who we are. And, so, to ask “how much is enough?” is utterly futile. For humans, by nature, it is never enough.

The problem with such question, which is an entire book on its own, is that it presupposes that there is in our soul a trigger that goes off when we “have” enough. Or, that at some point we should decide when enough is enough and instead chose to rest. Because humans have had to struggle, and struggle greatly, for survival for thousands and thousands of years, comfort and leisure were not wired into our DNA. Because hunter-gatherers could not accumulate “stuff” and instead had to constantly forage for survival, we were wired to chase, to struggle. Thus, the assumption that there is a sum of money after which we should settle down and enjoy, goes complete against our nature.

The book argues that wealth should be a means to an end, not an end itself. That pursuing the accumulation of wealth as an end, along with consumption, does not bring about happiness or fulfillment. It makes the argument that prosperity should be measured by fulfilling human needs, rather than by accumulation and consumption. There are two major problems with such argument; first, it assumes that accumulation is a goal; second, it ignores pursuit and struggle as a basic human need. The pursuit of a worthy goal is at the pinnacle of human needs. Most importantly, it ignores and denies the fact that fulfillment comes not from accumulation but from its pursuit, were wealth to be the goal.

It is entirely wrong to assume that a person will find fulfillment solely when a goal is achieved, the real fulfillment is to be found in the journey, which develops our character. In the case of wealth, it is not its accumulation that brings fulfillment, but rather the voluntary struggle and personal progress that ensues and brings it about. It is entirely wrong to believe there is a certain monetary number with which people will be “happy” or “fulfilled”. It is entirely wrong because it assumes that once we reach that golden number, we can settle into comfort and live happily ever after. It is completely mistaken because comfort is not wired into our DNA. Instead, as cliché as it may be, it is the journey that brings about happiness. Wealth is just a byproduct of it.

The accumulation of wealth, for those who have tried, is no easy task. Hence, so much support for socialism. It is a complex challenge that, if pursued honestly, requires an incredibly mastery of oneself. That is why it is not the “mountain we conquer, but ourselves,” as Edmund Hillary put it. While the book focuses on wealth, we can apply it on most other areas of life. Is there enough love we can give? Enough support we can provide? Enough health we can have? Enough joy we can feel? Enough we can share? No, it is never enough. Never enough not in the sense that we should be forever discontent, but precisely because it is never enough, that we should be happy and fulfilled every day that we give our all. So long as our body can tolerate it, it is never enough.

How could it ever be enough? If the meaning of life is to be found in personal growth. There is no growth in comfort, no growth in settling. Thus, when we decide something is enough, we are deciding that we have grown enough, that there is nothing more to give. That there are no more mountains to conquer, that we are all that we could be. Does that mean we should all pursue the accumulation of wealth? No. We have free will to decide our mountain. That is why Pablo Picasso created around 13,500 paintings in his life, why Johann Sebastian Bach composed around 1,100 works, why Christian Hottas has run 2,500 marathons, why Richard Branson’s Virgin group encompasses over 400 companies. They did it because the goal was the journey, that acknowledging there is “enough” would mean their pursuit was only valid so long as the goal was attained. They did it because they understood their fulfillment was in the doing, not in the achieving, which was a rather nice consequence.

The notion that there is a golden number, implies there is a golden limit to every other pursuit as well. It implies that parents should only love so much, that doctors should only cure so much, that philanthropists should only give so much, that scientists should only inquire so much. To impose a wealth limit is to suggest that every other quest should be limited as well, except it is not. Instead, the pursuit of personal growth, whether it be as a business man, as a mother, an artist, an athlete, has no limit except those we accept and impose on ourselves.

The problem with people who convince us to “settle” is that they do not understand that doing so is admitting defeat, it is limiting our potential, it is renouncing the growth that makes us human. The problem is that they don’t understand that accumulating is not the goal but merely a side effect. The right approach and advice would be that of Jim Rohn: “To become all we can be – the all. To earn all we can. Make all the friends we can. Read as many books as we can. Develop as many skills as we can. See as much as possible. Do as much as possible. Make as much fortune as possible. Give as much of it away as possible.” Why? Just because we can. And that is worth repeating, we should be all that we can be, do all we can do, just because it is in us to do so. Just because we can.

The book also suggests that we should have a balance, which is nothing more than a myth. Anyone that has ever achieved greatness did not have balance at different times and in different aspects of their life. There is a time to go all in at school, even if at the expense of social life; a time to go all in at work, even if at the expense of romantic relationships; a time to go all in with family, even if at the expense of work. It is nothing more than a myth, to believe that we can all do everything in moderation at all times. We can’t. That would imply mediocrity in all of them, and there sure is no fulfillment to be found there. We must give our all, in whichever endeavor we are pursuing at any given time, while accommodating other endeavors in a rather limited manner to rest and recover.

It is a myth that there is enough, we are not wired for it. The day we accept we have done enough, learned enough, grown enough, seen enough, is the day our soul dies. The day we accept it, because our basic needs are covered and we can just “chill”, is the day we die. Because unlike our trees, nature imposes no limit to how much we can mentally and emotionally grow. Settling for less than we could be is no lofty goal. Intellectuals and politicians who believe accumulation is the goal, and thus is evil, clearly have not accumulated riches by honest means themselves. If they did, they would understand that it is not the bank account that matters (although a nice Ferrari does not hurt ;) ), or the amount of trophies won, books written, paintings created, or any other measure of “success”. What matters is the emotional and spiritual growth that comes from it. What matters is not the conquered mountain, but the conquering of ourselves.