Competition is merely one of many means for growth

I often hear people say that 'Japan is a country with little land and no resources,' but living in the countryside, I find it hard to feel that way. For one thing, there is plenty of land, and the mountains are not well-maintained—in fact, they need people. Also, because it is warm and rainy, trees grow naturally. If anything, I don't think humans instinctively perceive minerals or oil as 'resources.' You wouldn't look at iron ore and think, 'Wow, how abundant.' But if you look at trees and rice paddies, you do think, 'Wow, how abundant.'

If 'Japan has nothing' means it lacks crude oil or mineral resources, then perhaps that is true, but that is only because we live in a worldview that dictates such things are necessary. However, what humans truly need as biological beings are trees and rice paddies; that is obvious, as we cannot survive on crude oil alone. Saudi Arabia actually has 'fewer resources' than Japan. They don't even have water. They use oil to desalinate seawater, so I think, 'Wow, Saudi Arabia really has no resources.'

If oil doesn't come out of the ground, and if it's a struggle to buy it, then we should just find a way to get by without buying as much of it. Investment in technology should be about increasing production efficiency and raising self-sufficiency (not just in food). Being able to live comfortably with things nearby—that is less wasteful. If you don't think that way and instead say, 'We must buy oil, and therefore we must cultivate industries to do so,' you are missing the point.

For example, Japan's food self-sufficiency rate is quite low (about 36% on a calorie basis), but since Japan is a land where plants grow, it can be done if we try. So, we should just make it possible to do so. It's not a matter of 'it would be nice if we could do it' as a result of free competition. Free competition involves parties with different conditions starting at the same line, which is inherently unequal.

Speaking of which, what is the purpose of education? It is to help children grow. Competition in tests is merely one means to that end. However, because the underlying philosophy is that tests are equal and correct, if you are bad at tests, you are deprived of opportunities for growth. I personally think it shouldn't matter if you bring a dictionary if you're bad at memorization, provided it leads to growth. Well, most education loses sight of the essence of fostering growth and is just about how to clear the game of testing, so the purpose is different to begin with.

I think this is similar to free competition in the economy. Making it your goal to win in free competition is like thinking tests are 'correct' and only studying for them. That doesn't necessarily lead to growth (usually, it doesn't), and many people (and countries) end up falling behind without growing. The goal is 'growth.' For example, if you want to grow Japan's agriculture, you should provide subsidies and set tariffs. That is like letting a child who is bad at memorization use a dictionary. I think that is equality.

You cannot compete on the same playing field as the American Midwest, where they pump up groundwater from the Great Plains to farm on a scale of thousands of hectares, in a land like Japan that has many mountainous areas and frequent natural disasters. It's like having a memorization contest with someone who has savant syndrome. Ordinary people (who don't have that level of memorization ability) are taught that it is 'equal' to compete in memorization, lose every time, get discouraged, and then be told to 'try harder.' Such equality is a self-serving definition, and as a result, it is making the world worse. Allowing individual abilities to be expressed is what makes the world better.

Food should definitely be produced nearby; increasing regional self-sufficiency is better for both security and health, as you can eat fresh produce. If reaching that 'good state' is 'growth,' then the question is how to achieve that growth. Competition is certainly one of the means to that end. By creating competition, motivation is sparked and technological innovation is encouraged. However, competition is just one means, and subsidies are also one means. The goal is to combine them effectively to grow and make the world a better place.

I've drifted from the original topic (well, that's usual), but saying Japan has no resources is just one yardstick; it's true if you use that 'test.' By another test, we have plants growing and plenty of water, so we are very 'well-off.' And since I think that is the royal road of human life, it is better to foster growth using that yardstick. The point was that there are various means for that growth, not just competition. See you tomorrow.