There is probably only one positive thing which can be said about the threat of foot-and-mouth hanging over this country: it has punctured some of the obnoxious arrogance which accompanied the Celtic Tiger.
The only pity is that it takes something like this to remind us how fragile an economy is, and how interdependent we all are. It is an odd thing about human nature. Logically, when there is more money to go around would seem the ideal time to share the benefits of a thriving economy.
Sadly, the opposite seems true. Self-righteousness creeps in. People say that anyone who wanted a job could be working, or even that there is no real poverty in Ireland any more. The miserable 1980s, when all that most young adults had to look forward to was emigration, were in many ways more egalitarian. Funny, isn't it, how when redistribution of wealth is something which will take money from your own pocket or profits, the ranks of armchair socialists rapidly decrease?
Recently, right-wing economic policies have been in the ascendant, with our low-tax regime being touted as the reason for our successful economy. The problems we have now, we are told, are the pressures caused by prosperity. Traffic snarl-ups and outrageous house prices merely illustrate the degree of our success.
Proponents of such views loftily proclaim that without adequate reward for the wealth creators, there will be no wealth to redistribute. Like all truisms, this has an element of truth. The only problem is that "adequate" has entirely different meanings for those who have wealth and those who have not.
There is another way of reading this situation - that our policy priorities have meant that we do not have anything like the amount of redistribution of wealth which is required so that people can lead dignified lives. Only the very wealthy are insulated from the negative effects of low public spending.
We have a new phenomenon in Ireland - those who on paper are doing much better, but who do not feel better off, because suddenly, a three-bedroom house requires a Lotto win to finance it. And, of course, we have a very old phenomenon indeed - those who do not benefit at all, for whom the Celtic Tiger is a very sick joke, as they battle the same kind of poverty they always did.
That is why analyses such as the one published by the Combat Poverty Agency this week, titled Rich and Poor - Perspectives on Tackling Inequality in Ireland, are so important. The book makes the point bluntly that while poverty has declined in absolute terms, income inequality is on the rise.
Does this matter, if most people are better off? Yes it does, because income inequality determines access to and the degree of benefit from a whole spectrum of services, including health, education and housing. In real terms, this means that if you are poor, your health is more likely to suffer and you have longer waiting times for treatment - a double whammy.
Similarly, your children are far less likely to benefit from education, and therefore a cycle of disadvantage is carried on to the next generation.
The book is not one long whinge. There is acknowledgement of the progress which has been made, but one question is repeatedly asked. If we do not restructure now in order to lessen inequality, what hope is there of it happening if there is a downturn in the economy?
Peadar Kirby makes an interesting point in the book, that we actually know very little about what the citizens of this country would choose, given a real choice. Would they support economic policies which aim to distribute incomes and wealth more evenly? There was some evidence before the last Budget that people would have supported targeted increases in public spending rather than the degree of tax cuts which we received.
Perhaps our political elites, which no longer just comprise the political parties, but trade unions and employers also, have underestimated the degree of generosity among ordinary citizens. Perhaps, given the opportunity, people might care about the kind of society they live in even more than having a few extra bob in the paypacket.
The book is likely to stir controversy and debate, and that is no bad thing. The authors have chosen to concentrate on the implications of public policy and public spending and how these might be reformed in order to increase equality. These are vital concerns, but there are others not adverted to in any great depth.
Any society is a complex mechanism involving individuals, families, communities, voluntary organisations, businesses, markets and the State. Even if public services were adequately picking up those the economic boom was busy pushing to the margins, the health and strength of these other areas remain vital.
This is not to imply that the authors are concerned only with economic or material indicators of wellbeing. They reiterate that it is not so much lack of material goods which is crucial but how that lack translates into people's ability to function in society.
Yet it is important to remember that many of those who would seem to be benefiting most from Ireland's strong economic performance are suffering in other ways. The successful often find that they are being asked to sacrifice a home life in order to succeed at work.
This may seem relatively trivial when contrasted with the grim struggle for survival of the poorest. Yet it is another expression of a question asked in the book - what is growth for? Or, to put it another way, what is work for, what is a greater income for?
Understandably, because social inclusion remains so elusive for so many, none of the authors looks beyond the achievement of it. Those of us who are socially included, are our lives so rich, our relationships so exemplary, is our happiness so obvious, that we represent the summit of human aspiration?
Or might it well be asked of us: "Is this all there is?" And if so, what more than social inclusion is needed for a fully human life?
bobrien@irish-times.ie