Interesting post here about society and how we handle abundance, at least that's what I think it's about.

...we need civilization, culture, the distinction of noble and base, rich and poor, the superior and the inferior. Yes, there is strife, but we are made to strive, and without striving we will never reach our true potential. Socrates calls the city that Glaucon describes a “Fevered City.”

Who has the right of this, and who decides when enough is enough? Outside of extreme hunger and poverty, it seems that the judgment that one does not have enough of anything is subjective. When Kierkegaard proclaimed that ‘Truth is Subjectivity’, I believe this is the sort of case he had in mind. No one can tell you that that you do not have enough wealth, beauty, success or renown. Only you can say what is sufficient for you to live in a way that you judge fitting for yourself.

It seems to me to be a disadvantage of a society that gets beyond the basic necessities. We are not advanced enough as a species to be able to handle abundance with anything resembling responsibility. It seems nearly impossible to avoid a sense of entitlement for people, even when it is obvious it is not in our best interest.

Books I've read, those I can remember, since the last time I mentioned it...
George Lakoff - Don't Think of an Elephant
John Perkins - The Secret History of the American Empire (although I think I mentioned that one)
Kevin Phillips - Bad Money
Lawrence Wright - The Looming Tower.

I think that's it.