View Full Version : Baltimorei
Now ... I think about the black community, generally speaking. In so many places, this community is still in recovery from the violent rending of families during and directly after the period of slavery. The original slaves were tribal, their entire societal wisdom stretching back, perhaps, to the beginning of people, was based on that sense of innate belonging to a group. Suddenly over a generation or two, no group, no family, no sense of roots other than guessing what it might have been like. Male role models, fathers, elders are in short supply, still. Mothers in the poor communities tend to be young, inexperienced and often alone. I think this makes black children terribly vulnerable to the sense that they have to earn a place in a group; it's a birthright they do not receive. Add to this the ubiquitous western pressure to be part of a group of Owners of Something, and then add in the poverty that makes that ownership nearly impossible.
And I think, if you don't wind up with gangs, you wind up with people who are desperately empty. They don't have a sense of clan, and they can't buy a sense of commercial acceptability. This emptiness is where they begin, the "foundation" on which they attempt to create a sense of worth and belonging.
I think you're absolutely correct in identifying the effect but your cause seems incomplete. From about 1900 to around 1950 the black community had a higher percentage of complete families and higher employment rates than whites. The destruction of the family (or tribe if you will) in the post slavery era began with government mandated efforts to improve their plight, beginning with stricter minimum wage laws and the implementation of social programs ostensibly designed to level playing fields while actually doing just the opposite.
A reading of the collected works of economist Walter E. Williams would give everyone a better understanding of the cause, and the cure, for many of the social problems of the poor and dis-advantaged. Unfortunately, Dr. Williams is a black Libertarian, so most people have never heard of him, which is a pity.
I think it is human nature to desire simple explanations and solutions to very complex problems. I'm no different. Sheriff Joe is a bully? Get out the vote and kick him out. African Americans are disadvantaged? Bring back a little affirmative action. Etc. Albert Einstein is credited with saying something along the lines of, "we can't solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them". You don't have to be Einstein to realize that's true. It's also said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. If that's true our collective conscious is insane.
I couldn't agree more with kib's notion of belonging to a tribe/clan/group of some kind. DD2, my youngest, is almost 20. She and several of her compatriots have formed a very tight knit group. I don't think they ever stopped to analyze the whats or whys of their actions; it seems to come instinctively. They stay connected through social media and have developed a welcoming and accepting base in locations all over the country. The world, really. I'm hopeful that they are providing a glimpse of the future. Granted they are all young and idealistic, but at one time so was I. I just hope they can do a better job of maintaining that than I did.
Thanks Catherine. Guess that was more like, "my two dollars". >8)
LDAHL ... Human beings need a sense of belonging from the moment they're born. When you're born to people who aren't part of a cohesive group, then you're not either, and I think a web of people that's truly functional can take hundreds of years of continuity to create. Maybe longer. I sometimes wonder if the rending of African tribes by slavery and western colonization isn't the primary factor for the state of many African nations today. Rwanda? Sudan? Those aren't families, or tribes. They're political regions and they're as torn-apart, tribally speaking, as any American slum.
To clarify, I'm not saying this sense of acceptance and protection and place-for-life when you're 20 ,50, 90 is a given if you're white, either. I'm not saying it has to be traditional mommy-daddy families. And I'm not saying it's enough. We also need affiliations based on personal interests and our definition of self. I don't think the world was a better place when we were straitjacketed into conforming without choice. But that initial hive acceptance is huge.
Alan, that's interesting. Could you give some examples of Williams' ideas of the cause of the deterioration? Was it Vietnam sucking away an entire demographic, the young black man? Was it that the upheaval of the 60's pushed those successful black communities beyond their ability to participate? Have more, do more, be equal ... it sounds so freeing and so good and so right ... but what good is it in the face of a larger rejection, a rejection of the black "family" in a sea of white ones? Encouraging, even pressuring people to be something they weren't really allowed to be, in a societal sense ... I can see that pressure and the rage that would come with it being incredibly destructive to formerly successful groups. Affirmative action should have been a bridge, not a permanent solution, but it really didn't work, did it.
Gregg, great! Hopefully your daughter's group will grow to include people of all ages, as they age. The continuity and the sense of place for life ... I think that's essential. Role models, also essential.
I think perhaps the best part of this country's history has been the process of breaking out of the tribal mindset as various waves of immigrants arrived and learned to think of themselves as Americans rather than Puritans, Irishmen, Southerners or anything else. I think you can feed the sense of belonging and mutual support through family or any number of voluntary associations, rather than some sort of identity you're born with and can't escape. We are a nation of mongrels, and should take pride in that.
While we haven't reached the Hutu and Tutsi stage yet, we're already seeing the destructive nature of identity politics here as we sort ourselves into increasingly granular categories and push various grievances.
Was the tribal existence static? It seems there are plenty of examples of tribes intermarrying, merging to share resources and skills or fight common enemies, factions splitting off to form new tribes, etc. Is America really so different from that? While its true there are probably more backgrounds represented here than anywhere else in history I don't think the melting pot is a new invention.
DD2's tribe is interesting. Their common threads are ecological (primarily organic farming), technological (social media as the primary means to communicate and disseminate information) and anti-consumerism (they don't want to 'own' much). Music is also a significant part of their lifestyle. They don't seem to be overly conscious of age, race, religion or all the other markers my generation uses. They do try to find people with skills they want to learn or talents that benefit the group. For example, I've been an organic gardener for years so routinely get a few questions a day on Twitter from someone in her group. And like anyone else they seek out individuals with a common sense of purpose.
They've developed road maps for their web of contacts as they move around. We've hosted a few of this group at our house. DD actually knew some of them and others were part of the group, but had not met her live and in person. It reminds me a lot of the 60s, but there are differences as well. For one thing they use social media to keep tabs on each other. At any given time they know where their friends are and constantly pass contact info around. That's how we end up being hosts. Like the hippies of old they recognize injustices, but instead of protesting they are simply choosing not to participate in them. Its pretty innocent and idealistic, but still an interesting idea of how to live. I'll be curious to see how it plays out.
I think perhaps the best part of this country's history has been the process of breaking out of the tribal mindset as various waves of immigrants arrived and learned to think of themselves as Americans rather than Puritans, Irishmen, Southerners or anything else. I think you can feed the sense of belonging and mutual support through family or any number of voluntary associations, rather than some sort of identity you're born with and can't escape. We are a nation of mongrels, and should take pride in that.
While we haven't reached the Hutu and Tutsi stage yet, we're already seeing the destructive nature of identity politics here as we sort ourselves into increasingly granular categories and push various grievances. To some extent I definitely agree with you. As I said, I don't think an "identity straitjacket" is a good thing at all. But I believe that a sense of group acceptance - a small group, maybe 30-100 people at most, a group of familiar faces - is essential to the formation of character of a fresh, defenseless little human. You have to know the faces. Once a group is so big that it's no longer about individual people but about some larger identity, it's not necessarily a good thing ... at any rate, it's not the thing that makes a baby a secure and sane individual. I also think that knowing there is a trodden path ahead of you - an identity, if you will - is stabilizing, even if you should choose a different path entirely.
In my perfect world, there would be tribal understanding that in our evolving world, a baby might grow up to be anyone. Might be a gymnast, might be a lawyer, might be a stay at home Dad, might be gay, might be just another ordinary schmoe. I would vote for acceptance of their chosen identity, their individuality, as well as acceptance and welcoming of their unformed new presence.
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-15, 12:21pm
What kind of tribe are white people born into? A two parent family? Well ok (although that's not always true for whites, and the rate of divorce is high enough that it might not stay true). But if there are stats saying most white people are born into two parent families ok. Or is that just most middle class or wealthy whites? Are most blacks not? Only poor inner city blacks?
Is the tribe supposed to be an extended family? I don't think most whites have extended families nearby. People don't generally live near extended family in this country and often the poor do live near them much more than the middle class I think.
Is being a member of a tribe just mean noone will look down on you at the supermarket or tease you at school because of your race (only likely the case if the school is mostly not your race) or wonder about hiring you for a job because of your race? Or that more people on television look like you? Ok maybe whites might have this more than minorities. It's difficult to call this a sense of belonging, it's more like an absence than a presence, not being ostracized.
It seems to me if one was looking for people who actually are part of larger community, maybe immigrants, Mexicans, maybe Asians etc.. But whites? That's so weird to even think so. Unless we just mean that many are part of two parent families or that those who run society are more often whites (but it doesn't mean any given white knows any such powerful people).
To some extent I definitely agree with you. As I said, I don't think an "identity straitjacket" is a good thing at all. But I believe that a sense of group acceptance - a small group, maybe 30-100 people at most, a group of familiar faces - is essential to the formation of character of a fresh, defenseless little human. You have to know the faces. Once a group is so big that it's no longer about individual people but about some larger identity, it's not necessarily a good thing ... at any rate, it's not the thing that makes a baby a secure and sane individual. I also think that knowing there is a trodden path ahead of you - an identity, if you will - is stabilizing, even if you should choose a different path entirely.
We used to have more of that, but it came at the expense of stigmatizing divorce and illegitimate births. It was also partly enforced by the lack of any material support outside the extended family. When your children were your retirement plan, you had an incentive to protect your investment.
I certainly agree with you that children do better in intact, extended families with a self-imposed sense of duty to the members. But as the traditional values that helped keep family groupings together fade, I don't know how you can legally or culturally impose the sense of obligation necessary. How many experiments in communal living survive the first generation?
ApatheticNoMore
5-13-15, 12:47pm
I don't think you tend to have extended families where people move for jobs or for other economic opportunities (sometimes it's a matter of necessity - no more jobs in the hometown, sometimes just because the economic grass is greener). Some choose not to (and some cultures, even some poor white culture, might less than white american middle class culture), but the lure is there.
catherine
5-13-15, 12:51pm
Here is Daniel Quinn's (Ishmael) definition of what he calls "New Tribalism":
New tribalists believe that the tribal model, though not absolutely "perfect," has obviously stood the test of time as the most successful social organization for humans, in alignment with natural selection (just as well as the hive model for bees, the pod model for whales, and the pack model for wolves). According to new tribalists, the tribe fulfills both an emotionally and organizationally stabilizing role in human life, and the dissolution of tribalism with the spread of globalized civilization has come to threaten the very survival of the human species. New tribalists do not necessarily seek to mimic indigenous peoples, but merely to admit the success of indigenous living, and to use some of the basic underlying tenets of that lifestyle for organizing modern tribes, with fundamental principles gleaned from ethnology and anthropological fieldwork.
Alan, that's interesting. Could you give some examples of Williams' ideas of the cause of the deterioration? Sure, Legislating Black Unemployment (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st112.pdf)will give you an idea of what effect Minimum Wage requirements have on minority participation in entry level jobs. If you're interested in an economists thoughts on how government interference, social justice programs and liberalism in general have worked in concert to destroy minority families, see his collected works here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/publications.html
Yeah, let me tell you about Poky. A small town way up north in the middle o' nowhere. Founded, ca 1900. By 1971, reached it's max population. Is 25% smaller now, than then. Its' youth moved everywhere for opportunities; but mostly to the rocky mountain states. But, the town is not a crime-ridden ghetto, with abandoned buildings. I don't care what the political correctness police say, the reason is that it's the people. The people are not a bunch of violent dummies, see? No rioting, none of that. Except for the guy(R. C. Hansen) who grew up to become a serial killer.
Sure, Legislating Black Unemployment (http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st112.pdf)will give you an idea of what effect Minimum Wage requirements have on minority participation in entry level jobs. If you're interested in an economists thoughts on how government interference, social justice programs and liberalism in general have worked in concert to destroy minority families, see his collected works here: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/publications.html
Lets also not forget the effects of the practice of redlining certain neighborhoods, or more recently targeting minorities for subprime mortgages, so that minorities will have a significantly more difficult time accruing wealth in the form of housing, a major stabilizing force in society.
Lets also not forget the effects of the practice of redlining certain neighborhoods, or more recently targeting minorities for subprime mortgages, so that minorities will have a significantly more difficult time accruing wealth in the form of housing, a major stabilizing force in society.
If it's wrong to refuse to make loans in minority neighborhoods through redlining, but also wrong to issue loans to people with poor credit in those same neighborhoods, you're not allowing much moral space for lenders to operate in.
If it's wrong to refuse to make loans in minority neighborhoods through redlining, but also wrong to issue loans to people with poor credit in those same neighborhoods, you're not allowing much moral space for lenders to operate in.
I think you defined it right there - "people with poor credit". Redlining does not take that into account, just where they live.
And often redlining does not cause a loan refusal - it just makes it much more expensive.
If it's wrong to refuse to make loans in minority neighborhoods through redlining, but also wrong to issue loans to people with poor credit in those same neighborhoods, you're not allowing much moral space for lenders to operate in.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/01/pf/banking/subprime/
http://www.citylab.com/housing/2013/08/blacks-really-were-targeted-bogus-loans-during-housing-boom/6559/
From the second article: "When they were approved, blacks and Latinos were 2.4 times more likely to receive a subprime loan than white applicants. The higher up the income ladder you compare white applicants and minorities, the wider this subprime disparity grows."
Or maybe it was just part of a longstanding pattern of discriminating against minorities.
...so that minorities will have a significantly more difficult time accruing wealth in the form of housing, a major stabilizing force in society.
I have a little experience working with people who are trying to build quality housing at a low cost to allow lower wage earners entry to home ownership. It can be extremely difficult, not because of finances (its relatively simple to find the materials at a reasonable cost), but because of regulation. Municipalities use building codes, zoning restrictions and any manner of other regulatory obstacles to control what they always seem to categorize as "low income housing". Its really just a strong arm expression of NIMBY imposed by city councils and other ruling bodies. A proposed subdivision in our town was recently shot down. It would have developed ~400 homes selling for under $100K. The city council rejected the application stating that homes of that valuation would not produce enough tax revenue and so would be a burden on the city services and surrounding homeowners (who just happen to have valuations more in the $400K - $700K range).
I have a little experience working with people who are trying to build quality housing at a low cost to allow lower wage earners entry to home ownership. It can be extremely difficult, not because of finances (its relatively simple to find the materials at a reasonable cost), but because of regulation. Municipalities use building codes, zoning restrictions and any manner of other regulatory obstacles to control what they always seem to categorize as "low income housing". Its really just a strong arm expression of NIMBY imposed by city councils and other ruling bodies. A proposed subdivision in our town was recently shot down. It would have developed ~400 homes selling for under $100K. The city council rejected the application stating that homes of that valuation would not produce enough tax revenue and so would be a burden on the city services and surrounding homeowners (who just happen to have valuations more in the $400K - $700K range).
You won't get any argument from me on this point. Living in San Francisco, where housing prices are going to the moon because demand is significantly higher than supply, I'm well aware that building and zoning regulation is a huge part of our current problem. Which makes it doubly sad that black people weren't allowed to purchase homes in the suburbs in the 50s/60s when we were producing abundant reasonably priced homes.
You won't get any argument from me on this point. Living in San Francisco, where housing prices are going to the moon because demand is significantly higher than supply, I'm well aware that building and zoning regulation is a huge part of our current problem. Which makes it doubly sad that black people weren't allowed to purchase homes in the suburbs in the 50s/60s when we were producing abundant reasonably priced homes.
Homebuilding is the business I retired from so I still keep a pretty close eye on the industry. We have exponentially more capacity and ability to build reasonably priced housing than we did in the 50s and 60s. The levels of mechanization and standardization are higher by several fold. There are products available that can reduce both the amount of resources used and the cost of building homes. Technology can be used to dramatically reduce what it costs to live in a house once its built.
The tired old adage of location, location, location is still very much in play. Supply and demand. There just isn't any land left to build on in SFO, but there is a high demand for property and a deep pool of deep pocketed potential buyers which is why its expensive. Its not so much because of building and land use codes. Population wise SFO is almost exactly the same size as Indianapolis, but the median home cost in SFO is $1 million and in Indy its barely over $100,000.
If someone makes just $20,000/year and has $200/month in debt payments (say a car loan) they could afford a $52,334 house with a down payment of only $1,000 according to Zillow's affordability calculator. If someone develops 1/10 acre lots and sells them for $15,000 they should see an outstanding ROI just about anywhere except SFO. That would leave someone like me $37,000 to complete a house, including some room for profit and overhead. I can do that all day long if the market is there for 2 BR, 1 bath bungalow type houses. Not trying to steer this into a building thread. My point is that I can't do that in most places because the product I build would primarily be assembled off site and only a few big pieces would be put together on site in just a few days. There are almost no jurisdictions that allow that to be done primarily because the majority of the cost of the house would not necessarily feed the local economy. It isn't nefarious local politicians causing most of the problems, its short-sighted local politicians.
Certainly when discussing single family homes you're undoubtedly right. However in San Francisco the solution to our housing crisis is not single family homes, it's large multi-tenant buildings. We definitely still have land to build on, mostly underutilized land that could be built with larger buildings. Without zoning restrictions and project approvals difficulties these types of buildings likely would get built all along the waterfront. However, existing real estate owners who don't want their views lost to newer buildings closer to the water and existing rent controlled tenants in various neighborhoods who don't want to be evicted so that their buildings can be replaced with newer, denser ones are working hard to make sure that big new buildings don't get built. https://www.vox.com/2015/5/5/8557153/san-francisco-mission-campos Campos's short-sighted effort to help his constituents makes sense when looked at with his narrow viewpoint, but does the larger city harm by making the situation continue to get worse. Additionally there was also a ballot initiative a year ago that passed which requires all new waterfront building projects that would exceed current zoning height restrictions to not just be approved for a variance by the zoning commission but also to be put to a vote of the people. These are just a couple of examples of the way that certain interests are using zoning and other methods to prevent economically viable housing projects from getting built. Fine, apparently that's what the voters here want, but that attitude is definitely a significant part of why not enough housing is getting built here, and likely never will.
Understood jp1 and it makes sense. Afraid I got wrapped up and caused a diversion. One of my current passions is figuring out how to provide high quality housing at very affordable prices. It can be done pretty easily from the construction standpoint, but there are significant and frustrating roadblocks at every other point on the timeline. And you did have a very valid point about the historic barriers to minorities trying to enter the housing market. That goes way beyond just building codes and, IMO, has its roots in the Jim Crow past and is pretty much systemic from local governments all the way up to the federal level. Its the kind of thing we should all be a lot more aware of and a lot more pissed off about than we are.
Yeah, but you kids are way too idealistic. Even if you COULD acquire some buildable land(a VERY loosely defined term in Ca) right in Fran Sansisco, Callyfornya for a bargain price & build some really, really cheap crackerbox houses, really, really, CHEEP on a 4,000 sf lot, either of two things would happen: Some real estate flipper would come in, buy em up as fast as you build 'em and resell them for $350,000+ each; And/or the 'hood would quickly fill up with marginally successful people--the kind that start riots and sell drugs and drive de carz wid de gold weelz and all that stuff. So, with respect to Fransan Cisco--take your idealism & skill, and go somewhere that it will actually do some good! Hope that helps you some. Thankk Mee.
Like Rwanda? Like Sudan?
As kib said, Rwanda/Sudan are not what I would consider tribes--but some people think of tribes as being violent, territorial and with short, brutish lives. But that's like saying all Muslims are terrorists. For my idea of tribe, we need not look any farther than our own back yard--here's a description of the lifestyle of the Lenni Lenape Native American tribe which hails from my own state of NJ:
Some of the Lenape lived in large villages of two to three hundred people, but most of them lived in small bands of 25 to 50 people.
Families were important to the Lenape Indians. There were strong ties between parents and children, and among all the related families that made up the clan.
The Lenape had three clans (or phratries) – Wolf, Turtle and Turkey – which traced their descent through the female line. For example, if a mother belonged to the Turtle Clan, then each of her children also belonged to the same clan. The sons had to marry women from other clans, and their children belonged to their mother’s clan.
Within their own groups the Indians were kind to one another. They felt a sense of responsibility towards everyone in their community. They did not steal from anyone in their own village, for there was no reason to do so. The land belonged to the whole community, shelters were shared, and no one hoarded valuable possessions.
I don't know why we are compelled to think that capitalism is the ONLY way to live, when so many other cultures have proven some pretty good alternatives.
I don't know why we are compelled to think that capitalism is the ONLY way to live, when so many other cultures have proven some pretty good alternatives.I don't think it's the only way to live, but I do believe that capitalism was the catalyst which gave us a choice.
I don't think it's the only way to live, but I do believe that capitalism was the catalyst which gave us a choice.
+1, which is why it's evil, e-v-i-l! We all went trampling after it like a herd of runaway elephants, devil take the hindmost and caution be damned, and look at the fine mess it's gotten us into.
... got to go take my meds now. ;)
I don't think it's the only way to live, but I do believe that capitalism was the catalyst which gave us a choice.
I agree, Alan--I'm a happy recipient of the benefits of capitalism, but as the burden of growth on our planet increases, we are well on the way of outgrowing ourselves out of capitalism being a viable alternative. We can't afford a "but there's no other way" mindset.
I don't know why we are compelled to think that capitalism is the ONLY way to live, when so many other cultures have proven some pretty good alternatives.
Perhaps not the only way (although most of the contemporary alternatives seem to require a fair amount of force to maintain). And if the idealized hunter-gatherer cultures were truly the superior alternative, wouldn't they have done a better job of surviving contact with the nasty, grasping capitalists?
catherine
5-22-15, 10:45am
Perhaps not the only way (although most of the contemporary alternatives seem to require a fair amount of force to maintain). And if the idealized hunter-gatherer cultures were truly the superior alternative, wouldn't they have done a better job of surviving contact with the nasty, grasping capitalists?
If you have a well-adjusted, fully functioning family, and a bunch of thugs force their way in to your home and kill/decimate your family, is that because there was something wrong with your family? In the case of the Native Americans, I don't think they assimilated into Western culture very willingly. They were overcome, sickened with disease, exploited and run off their homelands. Same is true of other aboriginal cultures. It's hard for small local clans or tribes to stand up to highly organized and competitive, self-interested forces of violence and war.
In any case, the way of life we take for granted has only been around for a couple of centuries. On the other hand, humans have lived the "alternative lifestyle" for millions of years, so that speaks to the staying power of that way of life--it's only been in the last couple of hundred years (since the West glommed onto capitalism) that our planet has become increasingly in peril as we wring the earth dry of its abundance.
I'm not saying that we should all go back to primitive lifestyles, although that would be a better alternative than the trajectory we are on. Now it's time to take the best of both worlds, with a focus on innovation and creativity, community and cooperation, regeneration and respect for all life. If capitalism can be redesigned a la Paul Hawken's Natural Capitalism or some other models, great. But right now you can't have capitalism without sacrificing natural resource and human life to the gods of profit.
If you have a well-adjusted, fully functioning family, and a bunch of thugs force their way in to your home and kill/decimate your family, is that because there was something wrong with your family? In the case of the Native Americans, I don't think they assimilated into Western culture very willingly. They were overcome, sickened with disease, exploited and run off their homelands. Same is true of other aboriginal cultures. It's hard for small local clans or tribes to stand up to highly organized and competitive, self-interested forces of violence and war.
In any case, the way of life we take for granted has only been around for a couple of centuries. On the other hand, humans have lived the "alternative lifestyle" for millions of years, so that speaks to the staying power of that way of life--it's only been in the last couple of hundred years (since the West glommed onto capitalism) that our planet has become increasingly in peril as we wring the earth dry of its abundance.
I'm not saying that we should all go back to primitive lifestyles, although that would be a better alternative than the trajectory we are on. Now it's time to take the best of both worlds, with a focus on innovation and creativity, community and cooperation, regeneration and respect for all life. If capitalism can be redesigned a la Paul Hawken's Natural Capitalism or some other models, great. But right now you can't have capitalism without sacrificing natural resource and human life to the gods of profit.
But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?
But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?
Not to a social Darwinist.
But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?
True. Hence the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons.
True. Hence the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Do you think they want them for defensive reasons or offensive reasons? The Saudi's are betting on offensive and now want nukes of their own.
But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?
It depends on how you define superior. I get it, from the simple fact "who won", you have to concede military superiority to the winner.
But consider: the fact that more people buy plastic $1 american cheese and it's a bigger industry than $25 french camembert doesn't make the american cheese superior, and if the american cheese won out economically to the point where all the makers of camembert were put out of business, where no one remembered how to make gourmet cheese, that would not be a win for humanity. Majority rule is not the only criteria for a good life. IMHO, we would be culturally poorer for the loss, and in the same way, I think we're culturally poorer for the loss of indigenous social and environmental knowledge and options held by original tribes.
Maybe the problem is that we are using the rules from an economic system to define everything about us, including the parts that don't need to be economic. Or tangently, the problem might be that our economy has become the only thing that we actually are concerned with.
Not to a social Darwinist.
How about to a realist? As it's been famously said, if men were angels any system would work. But if we take it as a reasonable premise that all men are not angels, isn't it reasonable to assume any social model that can't defend itself culturally or physically is basically a failed design?
Interesting, that's exactly the issue that was going through my mind. You make it a foundational premise that there will always be a human element fighting blindly for control of everything within its potential grasp, even if winning that battle means destroying what is being grabbed in the process, like a dog snapping at soap bubbles. Are we really that stupid?
I mean ... that's rhetorical, it appears that we are. But is there no way to get beyond it?
It depends on how you define superior. I get it, from the simple fact "who won", you have to concede military superiority to the winner.
Not so much "who won" as "who survived".
I think it's the first duty of any polity to keep it's people safe and free. And it's not necessarily a military issue. i think there's a cultural dimension too, especially now. Indigenous societies (probably a poor term to use, considering what an invasive species we are) are probably in more danger from the seduction of a better material life than they are from guns and bombs.
It may very well be that the world is losing a lot of cultural richness with the passing of various tribes or cultures. But unless a people can defend themselves against competing ideas and armies, their cultural richness will end up in other peoples' museums. We can wish that it was otherwise, but that's all we can do.
Maybe the problem is that we are using the rules from an economic system to define everything about us, including the parts that don't need to be economic. Or tangently, the problem might be that our economy has become the only thing that we actually are concerned with.
I don't think that's really true. What is the YMOYL ideal but to become a successful enough capitalist that you can spend your life in ways "consistent with your values"? Capitalism is merely a value-neutral means toward whatever ends we wish to pursue.
Interesting, that's exactly the issue that was going through my mind. You make it a foundational premise that there will always be a human element fighting blindly for control of everything within its potential grasp, even if winning that battle means destroying what is being grabbed in the process, like a dog snapping at soap bubbles. Are we really that stupid?
I mean ... that's rhetorical, it appears that we are. But is there no way to get beyond it?
Perhaps to become so technologically advanced and materially unconstrained that the rewards for aggression become so trivial relative to the risk that we abandon it as a tool.
Perhaps to become so technologically advanced and materially unconstrained that the rewards for aggression become so trivial relative to the risk that we abandon it as a tool.
Beam me up, Scotty.
Beam me up, Scotty.
I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave.
Perhaps capitalism started out as value neutral, but it's become a value in and of itself. Which is enormously problematic for any sort of solution to the problems it's creating. Sort of like, "I'm forming a religion so I can worship God" (which might or might not be a good or reasonable idea but the religion part is value neutral), devolving into "I will worship God because my religion says I should", at which point the religion and not the worship has become the central imperative.
We will create capitalism because it's a means of acquiring what we need, vs we will acquire more stuff because capitalism says we should.
We acquire more stuff because we want more stuff. You don't need to create a monster called Capitalism to explain human greed.
I don't see capitalism as a doctrine so much as a method of arranging an economy. Danes practice capitalism, as do Americans. Danes elect to redistribute somewhat more of the wealth produced thereby than Americans because of the relative positions the two societies occupy on the equality vs. freedom spectrum. Both countries are richer because they rely on price signals rather than a bureaucratic command economy. What they do with that wealth is more determined by the broader culture.
We acquire more stuff because we want more stuff. You don't need to create a monster called Capitalism to explain human greed.
Ooooh ... but WHY do you think we want more stuff! We may be designed for a certain amount of survival-based acquisitiveness that morphs easily into greed, but we want more stuff - as in new and improved, different, special, bigger, smoother, knobbier, shinier, fancier, faster, louder, quieter, longer, shorter, red this year green next year different new stuff - in very large part because the thing capitalism is most invested in manufacturing is Want.
Our other human drive, typically, is caution about new things and comfort with the old ways and familiar items. No way did this belief in the joys of change for change's sake originate organically.
Ooooh ... but WHY do you think we want more stuff! We may be designed for a certain amount of survival-based acquisitiveness that morphs easily into greed, but we want more stuff - as in new and improved, different, special, bigger, smoother, knobbier, shinier, fancier, faster, louder, quieter, longer, shorter, red this year green next year different new stuff - in very large part because the thing capitalism is most invested in manufacturing is Want.
Our other human drive, typically, is caution about new things and comfort with the old ways and familiar items. No way did this belief in the joys of change for change's sake originate organically.
There are many reasons we want more, both noble and ignoble. Stockpiling for a rainy day (or deluge). Status anxiety. Philanthropy. The desire to leave a legacy to loved ones. Monument-building. Boredom. The love of competition scored in dollars. The joy of collecting. the need to attract mates. Financing the freedom to pursue whatever your idea of the good life happens to be. Insecurity.
There was never a prelapsarian Eden where noble savages scorned filthy lucre until Adam Smith slithered in. Madison Avenue may help the less imaginative among us put our wants in concrete form. Whole industries may exist to provide us with what we think we want. But blaming capitalism for wanting things is like blaming the wheel for taking us to bad places.
ApatheticNoMore
5-22-15, 5:23pm
I think the burden of proof is on those who believe money is spent right and left by corporations etc and buys ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
-We are told money is spent on advertising but it doesn't actually persuade anyone (I don't think it's a clear cut relationship, but nonetheless I think the burden is proof is on those who think the money buys nothing).
- We are told money is spent on politicians (bribes otherwise known as campaign finance) but supposedly it doesn't buy anything or what it buys doesn't really matter, influence that doesn't really change anything. Corporations etc. just like wasting their money on political campaigns, anything else is conspiracy theory.
- Money is spent on the military industrial complex to an extent that outspends the entire rest of the world, but we are told it buys nothing, merely defensive, etc..
Now the common sense assumption is: that money is buying something!!! An assumption that money is always spent efficiently is way overstated (this society is really not that efficient even economically), but really all this money spent and doesn't buy anything at all? Oh really? How exactly does such a counterintuitive assumption become commonplace?
+1 ANM.
"Blaming capitalism for wanting things is like blaming the wheel for taking us to bad places."
I actually love the verbal snap of that sentence, but I don't entirely agree with it. Modern day capitalism isn't a blameless wheel, it's a living organism already so much larger than we are, with many human traits and tendencies like greed and defensiveness, deceitfulness and self preservation, but no conscience, that survives by growing in a never ending cycle of get bigger, need more, get bigger, need more. It will stop at nothing to make sure we all participate, including unbelievable amounts of psychological manipulation to feel good /proud / safe if we buy in and bad / scared / deprived if we don't, which we as a society reflect and whisper to each other with rather blank and shiny eyes.
And I'd say have at it, we should all live in the Matrix if that's what we'd like, except that the red pill doesn't allow one to become some non-destructive sleeping beauty. More like a sleepwalking giant who's eating the planet alive.
The main problem I have with our current form of capitalism is the lack of accountability.
I'm not too concerned about the Soros and Koch effects. I'm concerned more about the mindless and vastly huge sums of capital that are responsible to the morals of no one individual, but instead are managed purely for return and are several layers removed from human responsibility. Creatures like the CalSTRS and CalPERs pension funds ($189 billion and $279 billion in managed assets, compare to Soros at $24 billion...). It's like Skynet, but for money.
Do you think they want them for defensive reasons or offensive reasons? The Saudi's are betting on offensive and now want nukes of their own.
Obviously one can't know for certain what another is thinking. However, at this point in history only one country has ever actually used nuclear weapons in any fashion whatsoever beyond providing a powerful threat, so the odds are that they'd be used defensively. The concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't just apply to the US and USSR. Are the Iranians really so stupid and self destructive to believe that if they nuked Israel that we wouldn't retaliate?
The main problem I have with our current form of capitalism is the lack of accountability.
I'm not too concerned about the Soros and Koch effects. I'm concerned more about the mindless and vastly huge sums of capital that are responsible to the morals of no one individual, but instead are managed purely for return and are several layers removed from human responsibility. Creatures like the CalSTRS and CalPERs pension funds ($189 billion and $279 billion in managed assets, compare to Soros at $24 billion...). It's like Skynet, but for money.
+1
Obviously one can't know for certain what another is thinking. However, at this point in history only one country has ever actually used nuclear weapons in any fashion whatsoever beyond providing a powerful threat, so the odds are that they'd be used defensively. The concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't just apply to the US and USSR. Are the Iranians really so stupid and self destructive to believe that if they nuked Israel that we wouldn't retaliate?Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?
catherine
5-23-15, 10:01am
I've been enjoying this debate (had no time yesterday to add my two cents): thanks for keeping it going, kib, LDAHL, Alan and others: provocative questions have been raised--LDAHL, yes, realism is important, but I lean towards idealism, and I think both are called for.
Here's one of my very favorite soliloquies--from Man of LaMancha:
I've been a soldier and a slave. I've seen my comrades fall in battle or die more slowly under the lash in Africa. I've held them in my arms at the final moment. These were men who saw life as it is, yet they died despairing. No glory, no brave last words, only their eyes, filled with confusion, questioning "Why?" I don't think they were wondering why they were dying, but why they had ever lived. When life itself seems lunatic, who knows where madness lies? To surrender dreams - -this may be madness; to seek treasure where there is only trash. Too much sanity may be madness! But maddest of all - -to see life as it is and not as it should be.
I think "life as it is" today should not be dogma, and that goes for any moment in time. Life is impermanent, and I think it's important to move on when times call for moving on.
Here's an interesting take (http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/revolution_and_american_indians_marxism_is_as_alie n_to_my_culture_as_capitalism/?utm_content=buffer3b74e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)on capitalism from a Native American. The article is long, but worth a read. The context is a response to Marxism v Capitalism, and he contends that they are just two sides of the same coin. Thinking one is the polar end of the other is missing out on the bigger picture.
Being is a spiritual proposition. Gaining is a material act. Traditionally, American Indians have always attempted to be the best people they could. Part of that spiritual process was and is to give away wealth, to discard wealth in order not to gain. Material gain is an indicator of false status among traditional people, while it is "proof that the system works" to Europeans.
Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?
It's a question, but while martyrdom is included in the religious beliefs of some fundamentalists, I kinda doubt it's a high priority for most people of any nation.
Bae's 'layers of responsibility' is to me the biggest thing ... normal people living their lives seem to so rarely agree with (or benefit from) decisions made for them by entities with no skin in the game beyond culling profit from it.
Catherine - I loved the native American quote, that so nicely summed up what I've been digging toward in my own questions of "how to be". It's nice to know that there really is another side to the coin that is (or at least was) accepted wisdom by many. I don't know if I am ready to entirely embrace it, but it's like a glowing little flashlight to stick in my pocket when I lose my way.
Does the concept of mutually assured destruction work if the initiator of force is looking forward to martyrdom?
Oh please. If everyone in Iran wanted to be martyrs they'd all be heading to Israel right now. A land war where their true religiosity could be on display for all to see would be better than just getting vaporized in a nuclear bomb blast. And could be done today instead of years in the future. And let's be realistic. Sure there are a small subset of Muslims that are happy to be martyrs, but it's not the people in power, and it's not the majority of the population. Their genes are programmed to want to propagate into the next generation just as strongly as anyone else's. A nuclear bomb obliterating your entire country prevents that from happening.
Oh please. If everyone in Iran wanted to be martyrs they'd all be heading to Israel right now. ..Sure there are a small subset of Muslims that are happy to be martyrs, but it's not the people in power, and it's not the majority of the population.
I don't thing any reasonable person believes all Muslims or all Iranians or all of any other large subset of humanity want to be martyrs. The problem with WMDs of all kinds, including nukes, is that it doesn't require a majority to be martyrs, only a very small group or even a well connected individual can make it pretty miserable for a lot of the rest of us.
To be clear I don't think Iran getting nukes is a good thing. At all. Frankly I don't think anyone having nukes is a particularly good idea for just the reasons you cite, Gregg. Even the US, back in the 60's, had people in very high levels of power that wanted a nuclear war with the USSR. Thankfully those plans never came to fruition. My point though was simply that when looked at from Iran's point of view it's perfectly logical for them to want nukes. Their main enemy in the region has nukes, as well as the backing of us, the country with the most powerful military the world has ever seen.
I was actually trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out the problem with LDahl's comment that it's necessary to be able to defend your way of life from all aggressors so one needs sufficient defensive strength. After all, if one feels that their way of life is threatened by the most powerful country the world has ever seen what steps are reasonable/logical for them to take?
I agree that, unfortunately, thus far Darwin's theory has favored the bullies on the block. I'm thinking (hoping?) the advent of our most recent technologies is the beginning of a trend away from the advantage gained by being able to kill your adversary 37 times over. The ability to inflict suffering on that enemy will still be a sought after goal, but at least the threat won't be from instant death or widespread, prolonged sickness. Baby steps toward enlightenment, I suppose.
I was actually trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out the problem with LDahl's comment that it's necessary to be able to defend your way of life from all aggressors so one needs sufficient defensive strength. After all, if one feels that their way of life is threatened by the most powerful country the world has ever seen what steps are reasonable/logical for them to take?
That is a valid point. If I'm a fanatical theocrat, I've got to feel threatened by the very existence of places like Israel or the US. As long as there are alternatives to the true faith out there, I'm always in danger of cultural corruption. They might even interfere with my efforts to force my faith on the various infidels or heretics who might otherwise submit to my holy warriors.
So what to do? I can make myself as dangerous as possible to raise the price of direct intervention. Nuclear arms have historically served that purpose. They have the added attraction of my more fervent dreams of cleansing the world with hellfire and achieving a spectacular sort of martyrdom for my people (whether they're necessarily on board with that does not especially concern me). My other options include forming alliances (hard to do given the level of hatred most of my neighbors have for me) and subverting my enemies through bribery and terror. I need to be somewhat careful with this, because economic sanctions at a sufficient level create the risk that insufficient graft for the Republican Guard could make my domestic position untenable. I also need to be concerned that the world at large may at some point start believing my rabid threats and calculate that action against me is justified.
-LDAHL, yes, realism is important, but I lean towards idealism, and I think both are called for.
That is a noble sentiment, although I suspect some of history's greatest butchers would have considered themselves to be idealists. There are plenty of ideals out there, but only one reality. ISIS is acting idealistically, just not in ways that a Western Liberal (in the classic sense) might understand.
I think it was Trotsky who said "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
flowerseverywhere
5-26-15, 6:56pm
Here is an interesting article about the high level of homicides recently in Baltimore - one mans Interesting opinion.
http://blackamericaweb.com/2015/05/26/don-lemon-baltimore-crime-is-off-the-charts-guess-who-is-to-blame/
I think the number is 29 shot and 7 killed over the holiday weekend. Tragic.
another blog I read reported when the police arrive they are swarmed by people holding cameras within inches of their faces.
So so what would you do if you were a police officer in that city?
So so what would you do if you were a police officer in that city?
Not respond terribly quickly. Or move somewhere else.
Where are the voices raised up against the absolute epidemic of black-on-black violence, btw? Do #blacklivesmatter only when a police officer shoots someone?
There are plenty of ideals out there, but only one reality.
Even reality is subject to interpretation.
Idealism is not zealotry any more than realism is. I might be an idealist, but I'm adamantly not an ideologue. I try to follow Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st Mindfulness Training:
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as guiding means that help us develop our understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic and discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and in the world.
That is an IDEAL I try to follow, and following it, I know I'm constrained by my human limitations, personal filters and faulty perceptions. That makes me a realist. But it doesn't stop me from trying or believing I can progress. That makes me an idealist.
And from a political/economic point of view, I am realistic enough to see the the fatal flaws in capitalism at this point in time, and idealistic enough to believe that your litmus test for a valid culture (being able to defend itself--which I'll go along with even though I don't agree) and a more equitable and sustainable way of life are not mutually exclusive. How about just changing the rules about how we measure standard of living, productivity and growth? That would be a start.
Fixed that first paragraph for you.
That is a valid point. If I live in a region of the world where the US has routinely picked and chosen who should be in charge of the various governments including causing a coup of my country's democratically elected head so that they could install their own puppet dictator, I've got to feel threatened by the very existence of places like the US.
People have the (Constitutionally supported) right to record what their tax-supported public servants are doing--especially when said servants, in many places, have a history of going rogue and shooting up the place. A few blue-suited sociopaths have ruined it for the rest of them. Like the recent case in Cleveland where two unarmed victims, fleeing from the police (who wouldn't, given the history), were shot 137 times by the brave boys (plus one girl) in uniform--thirteen of them.
Initiating community policing, rooting out good-old-boy attitudes and corruption, rigorous psychological testing, hiring stable, mature officers and paying them well would be the way to start. Something is clearly wrong with the entrenched system.
Even reality is subject to interpretation.
Idealism is not zealotry any more than realism is. I might be an idealist, but I'm adamantly not an ideologue. I try to follow Thich Nhat Hanh's 1st Mindfulness Training:
That is an IDEAL I try to follow, and following it, I know I'm constrained by my human limitations, personal filters and faulty perceptions. That makes me a realist. But it doesn't stop me from trying or believing I can progress. That makes me an idealist.
And from a political/economic point of view, I am realistic enough to see the the fatal flaws in capitalism at this point in time, and idealistic enough to believe that your litmus test for a valid culture (being able to defend itself--which I'll go along with even though I don't agree) and a more equitable and sustainable way of life are not mutually exclusive. How about just changing the rules about how we measure standard of living, productivity and growth? That would be a start.
You can interpret the meaning of the missile coming through your window any way you wish, but it doesn't change the objective reality of your situation.
I wouldn't say that the ability to survive was a test of a culture's validity so much as a test of it's viability. Absent that, discussion of it's spiritual, moral or artistic qualities become more or less irrelevant.
It may be that capitalism is fatally flawed (although I think people want to make laundry lists of all their favorite political and cultural defects and label the whole thing as "capitalism"). Perhaps some new improved version of enlightened thought will "change the rules" of what we want and at the same time deter or defeat our enemies. Show me a viable alternative that can be constructed from the crooked timber of humanity, and I'll get on board.
Just wanted to say I agree with LDAHL's objection to labeling the whole ball of wax as "capitalism" but "unchecked-capitalist-consumerist-free-market-corporate-imperialist-democratic (as opposed to socialist) personal-responsibility-lacking society which apparently encourages violence and murder, environmental suicide and the complete disregard for other cultures and disenfranchised people in the name of economic gain" seems a bit unwieldy. I'd be happy to call this thing I object to something other than capitalism if there's a more accurate and simpler term.
"Corporatism"? "Discorporealism?" "Us"?
Fixed that first paragraph for you.
You keep trying to turn a practical question into a moral one. The thrust of my argument has been that the first function of any political system has to be survival, and that if it fails there nothing else much matters. There are certainly a fair number of blotches on the American escutcheon, but as a political system it has managed to survive and thrive since the eighteenth century.
I think the American escutcheon has been replaced with a global logo, the granddaddy of all brand labels. We just don't see it because economically we're still toward the top of the heap. I think American firepower has really been co-opted to protect the whole world - the world of a few giant corporate interests, that is.
As far as police brutality :|( - but it's all connected - ... perhaps it's a reflection of the mentality that says there can only be one winner, in which case a fight to the death that removes your competitors entirely is an unspoken best solution.
The thrust of my argument has been that the first function of any political system has to be survival, and that if it fails there nothing else much matters.
I think we're both on the same page on this point. Where we differ is that you don't seem to think that Iran's behavior is reasonable since their behavior is an attempt to survive against the US political system.
I think we're both on the same page on this point. Where we differ is that you don't seem to think that Iran's behavior is reasonable since their behavior is an attempt to survive against the US political system.
To the contrary. I think Iran's behavior is entirely reasonable given their political and cosmological beliefs. If you feel you're doing God's will by forcing the infidels or heretics to accept your theology, or failing that kill them (even at the cost of your own survival), then Iran has a winning game plan.
catherine
5-27-15, 12:30pm
The thrust of my argument has been that the first function of any political system has to be survival, and that if it fails there nothing else much matters.
I still don't get it…
There have been many tribes that lasted for well beyond 200 years! 200 years is a blip. It is not a marker for cultural superiority.
If we kill off all the bees because we poison them with pesticides, is that a good thing? We conquered the bees, so we're the superior beings?
And to that analogy: if we keep up acidifying, deforesting, eroding, polluting (the intended and unintended consequence of capitalism), we will be the culture that is extinguished and therefore inferior, and Mother Nature will have had the last laugh and will have reigned supreme. And we can etch our allegiance to capitalism on our tombstones.
I still don't get it…
There have been many tribes that lasted for well beyond 200 years! 200 years is a blip. It is not a marker for cultural superiority.
If we kill off all the bees because we poison them with pesticides, is that a good thing? We conquered the bees, so we're the superior beings?
And to that analogy: if we keep up acidifying, deforesting, eroding, polluting (the intended and unintended consequence of capitalism), we will be the culture that is extinguished and therefore inferior, and Mother Nature will have had the last laugh and will have reigned supreme. And we can etch our allegiance to capitalism on our tombstones.
Once again, I'm not making judgments about "superiority", except perhaps in the sense that existence is preferable to extinction.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with your conflation of "capitalism" with "environmental irresponsibility". You can have one without the other. One has only to consider the records of the former Soviet Union or contemporary China to see that.
Everything is connected. The bottom line is, you can't take everything and also leave enough for a functioning planet, and whether it's a totalitarian system or a capitalistic one, if it has no brakes or checks, which seem at bottom to be about connecting the conscience of individual human beings to the actions of entities (whether corporations or political leaders) that act "on their behalf", then that system will seek to take everything.
ApatheticNoMore
5-27-15, 1:21pm
It's hard to say what could be constructed as much has not been tried. Although of course tribal society was successful for a far longer period of time, I mean humanity has been tribal for a longer period of time (than it has existed otherwise at present, and than it may continue to exist without nuclear weapons and environmental destruction ending the whole thing perhaps). To say whatever is currently is, is successful, well of course it's a "might makes right" argument, but you could argue the same thing about any period of time, the Middle Ages, the Roman empire (lasted far longer than the U.S. is likely to), the centuries this piece of land was home to native Americans. Until they weren't. And they all seem to have lasted longer than this is going to, but that's a prediction that can only be known with certainty in hindsight (if there's anything left alive with the consciousness to know), but the trends aren't good, and this period of time is short yet compared to most others.
I'm not that keen on the capitalist label. My preferred term is "the existing economic system". Although I mostly prefer that because what someone has in their head when you say capitalism depends on who you talk to and I don't want a concrete point I'm making about this economic system, diverted into endless theoretical alleys.
The current system is unchecked, increasingly unchecked as far as protecting anything but profit, as far as protecting human (or animal) life, health etc.. But it's not without state support of course. In fact it absolutely depends on it. What the economic system would look like if no bailouts had happened I can't say. But it wouldn't be smoothly the same exact thing. Without trillions of dollar in bailouts it would be different, I don't comment on whether that would be a better or worse difference (except when your economic system seems to aim only for the extinction of life on earth, everything starts to seem a chance at something better), and it may have sparked revolutions or evolution or mere collapse. What it would look like without the U.S. empire I can't say but it wouldn't be this, some forms of capitalism may or may not exist without the U.S. empire. And some argue capitalism could exist with protectionism, in fact more protectionist periods have been called capitalist, but that would be a less out of control form if it did, since national governments could regulate national common welfare if they wanted (that's not the world of the TPP). It strikes me as a more workable form in terms of being democratically accountable. But the existing and unfolding economic system (some call it neoliberalism), is an out of control unmitigated disaster.
But unchecked-capitalist-consumerist-free-market-imperialist-democratic (as opposed to socialist) society seems a bit unwieldy.
Democracy what's that? Ok I'm not just going to argue the U.S. isn't democratic, that may very well be, but I want to argue there are forms of political democracy. There is direct democracy and there is representative democracy, the results might be different. There is democracy where politicians are chosen out of the population by lottery (lots) rather than being the same old representatives (if we have a jury of our peers why not a government of our peers?). That too is a form of representative democracy. Within even the existing form of having designated representatives there are voting schemes. Consider a voting scheme like this at the most simple:
http://scorevoting.net/Approval.html
Is it any less democratic than what we call democracy? (and it's representative democracy as well). I don't see it. Would it lead to very different results? Would Nader have been President? Ha, now I doubt we know that, but overall such a system would likely lead to some different results. There is also representative democracy where we actually had some immediate power to hold our representatives accountable (democracy with recall power like some states have where we could immediately push recalls of these TPP signers - not sit around and twiddle our thumbs until the next election).
Most things are untried. I fundamentally don't believe in an ideal society constructed in a test tube, but most stuff is only minimally tried in the real world. Most forms of democracy are untried. Most socialist projects are untried. I'm not talking about the USSR, it may have been a corruption of the original intent, but that corruption was tried. I'm talking: the U.S. government has crushed most attempts at leftist government (even anarchists movements) since then worldwide, with straight out coups at times, with mass murder when necessary, even putting in brutal right wing dictators (you could argue the left wing dictators are no better, but you can't argue the coups didn't happen and abort what would otherwise have happened). If "might makes right" this hardly matters but .... it matters if you are arguing what is and is not successful when not crushed by outside force.
What's the point of thinking about something like approval voting in the link above, when it will never happen anyway? It's just some kind of esoteric math exercise for geeks right? Well it's a thought experiment. To show that there's no such thing as one form of political democracy. But also why won't it or countless other things ever happen? Why do we continue to pursue an obviously failed system to extinction? Just sheer stupidity and thick-headedness, a failure of imagination? Because it never was accountable to most people anyway, and we have no power to change it short of revolution anyway and we'll be shot in the streets for trying, the iron fist behind the invisible hand, while the elite are completely out of touch with reality and morality? Because we personally have divine favor that we as individuals and a species will be ok no mater what happens? I think we have no such thing! Because there are no easy fixes? Yes, but I don't think it really explains the lack of even trying.
But also why won't it or countless other things ever happen? Why do we continue to pursue an obviously failed system to extinction? Just sheer stupidity and thick-headedness, a failure of imagination? ...Because we personally have divine favor that we as individuals and a species will be ok no mater what happens? I think we have no such thing! Because there are no easy fixes? Yes, but I don't think it really explains the lack of even trying.
Wow.. awesome, ANM. Love the whole post.
I agree: What we have here is a failure to imagine-ate.
Also, I don't necessarily agree with your conflation of "capitalism" with "environmental irresponsibility".
Yeah, I agree, that was sloppy. You can be a socialist and pollute, or a communist and pollute. But with the current "unchecked-capitalist-consumerist-free-market-imperialist-democratic society" it's hard to build capital and care about the consequences of unmitigated production at the same time. You're Monsanto with a billion dollar global empire: do you really care about topsoil? Just go find another country to clear-cut. God forbid you should tell your shareholders that your profits could have been larger, but you chose to invest in smaller production, biodynamic farming, so corn and soybeans are going up x amount as a result.
If you are a commercial fisherman, are you going to spare the last salmon, because you know the other guy will get it anyway? And the more you pillage the oceans, the more money you will make, and that's what being a good capitalist is all about.
I said in an earlier post that if there are models of capitalism, like Hawken's Natural Capitalism, that take the environmental impact into the equation, OK. But that's not where we are.
P.S.
https://scontent-lga1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10407796_10153351018792908_464725780937705058_n.pn g?oh=01894fbd45b15c10f14a1ed617059846&oe=55FD2C37
I was appalled to learn recently that (quasi-legal) tax evasion amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars offshored by our patriotic flag-waving capitalist overlords. The infrastructure is dissolving before our eyes; think what those tax dollars could accomplish.
Senator Sanders recently published the following list of corporate tax avoiders:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/top-10-corporate-tax-avoiders
ApatheticNoMore
5-27-15, 2:26pm
What about frameworks to think about sustainability? Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_Step
I'm not an "advocate" of it, I don't know enough to be such an advocate! I don't know how it compares to others that may exist etc.. The corporations that claim to be sustainable according to it may be dubious. It may seem an idealistic framework (sustainable so no more is taken than is replenished from the earth, really? isn't that a tad utopian?). But then the question is only how much non-sustainability until the whole thing crashes? What constitutes failure? Human extinction? The death of 6 billion humans out of the 7 billion on earth? What about if it "only" kills 3 billion? Etc.
"To explain the challenge the metaphor of a funnel is used. The walls closing in represent the many (systematic and often exponentially increasing) trends of e.g.; decreasing number and quality of natural resources and ecosystems, the stricter laws and regulations, degrading interpersonal and person-to-person trust, increasing toxicity levels, growing human population, increase in demands for resources, etc. The walls of the funnel are getting closer and closer over time limiting the room to maneuver. Individuals, organizations and society are hitting the walls of the funnel over time e.g.: victims of climate change related weather events, depleting fish stocks, increased number of cancer occurrences, air/water/soil pollution, decreasing trust, bankruptcies due to price increases, fines, stricter regulations, etc." - from the wikipedia article
But anyway back to the idea of frameworks such as that for thinking about things. Maybe it helps with the flailing around, attempts to ground it. The flailing around like: can we have an economy the doesn't destroy the biosphere? Which is better the US or the USSR or China? If we had no growth how would we have an economy? Does anyone know how to think about sustainable economics in a systematic way, I've merely heard nice things about it?
An economy based on such a framework almost certainly wouldn't be the existing economic system. It might be "socialist" or what is called such, but it's not flailing around discussing theoretical ideals alone. The thing is people support more socialist systems (of all varieties) for a lot of really good reasons that are orthogonal to sustainability, but that framework presupposes the goals are sustainability and human needs (max neefs model of human needs).
From Wikipedia, "Jared Diamond proposes five interconnected causes of collapse that may reinforce each other: non-sustainable exploitation of resources, climate changes, diminishing support from friendly societies, hostile neighbors, and inappropriate attitudes for change." I've always thought Diamond's theory on collapse made a lot of sense. If true, the USA is hitting on four of five and possibly only saved from the fifth thanks to the favorable geography that gives us only two actual neighbors.
As far as tribes that survived for hundreds or even thousands of years, I think they came to appreciate the value of everything on that list. Climate change is perhaps the biggest stretch there since humankind has only recently developed the ability to either cause or exacerbate large scale climate shifts. Indigenous people from around the world knew the value of preserving resources and establishing mutually beneficial relationships (even if that meant nothing more than not killing each other off). They would never have anguished over catherine's 'last salmon' because they would have never knowingly been in that position. We know better, but still insist on charging forward and maintaining the status quo. We are far too egocentric to see that we are part of a larger whole and instead act as though everything on Earth exists just for us. At some point we will be reminded it doesn't work that way.
Unbelievable, Jane: money that has no purpose other than to accumulate, while your "family" (fellow citizens) fallow in the sun. So much for trickle-down economics.
From Wikipedia, "Jared Diamond proposes five interconnected causes of collapse that may reinforce each other: non-sustainable exploitation of resources, climate changes, diminishing support from friendly societies, hostile neighbors, and inappropriate attitudes for change." I've always thought Diamond's theory on collapse made a lot of sense. If true, the USA is hitting on four of five and possibly only saved from the fifth thanks to the favorable geography that gives us only two actual neighbors.
As far as tribes that survived for hundreds or even thousands of years, I think they came to appreciate the value of everything on that list. Climate change is perhaps the biggest stretch there since humankind has only recently developed the ability to either cause or exacerbate large scale climate shifts. Indigenous people from around the world knew the value of preserving resources and establishing mutually beneficial relationships (even if that meant nothing more than not killing each other off). They would never have anguished over catherine's 'last salmon' because they would have never knowingly been in that position. We know better, but still insist on charging forward and maintaining the status quo. We are far too egocentric to see that we are part of a larger whole and instead act as though everything on Earth exists just for us. At some point we will be reminded it doesn't work that way.
+1, Gregg. And the authors of Why Nations Fail (http://whynationsfail.com) also stated that "extractive" systems are most likely to fail. Are we still an inclusive political system? Or or we extractive?
can we have an economy the doesn't destroy the biosphere?….
An economy based on such a framework almost certainly wouldn't be the existing economic system.
Derrick Jensen maintains that we ultimately, and inevitably, will go back to a primitive way of life and "reset" our impact on the environment. Not sure I'm that extreme--that's why I think we can modify our values, and figure out how to meld the best of both worlds. Maybe highly localized, community-centric villages, bound together with high-tech communication capabilities? Production based on needs, and value based on contribution to the local quality of life? Not just consumption for the sake of "bigger and better"? Maybe make greed and envy as odious as gluttony and sloth are now? Think about it--who are more vilified in this culture: the people who slave away to accumulate more, or the "fat and lazy" of our society? We make heroes out of the former and pariahs out of the latter.
Think about it--who are more vilified in this culture: the people who slave away to accumulate more, or the "fat and lazy" of our society? We make heroes out of the former and pariahs out of the latter.
Now which forum do we do that in? I can't seem to put my finger on it. :confused:
I have a question. Maybe it should be a separate thread. On another forum I posted something in a conversation about sustainability, and I used "everything is connected" as the premise from which I started. Several people told me I was an idiot, everything is obviously not connected, that's ridiculous. I have a feeling a lot of them are young, but I was still taken aback, it's the given from which I base every idea i have.
Is that, maybe, putting a finger on the real center of the problem? That if you don't stand far enough back to connect the dots, then you probably feel your actions, or a country's action's, or a corporation's actions, are some stand alone issue that make no difference to the overall well being of, well, of everything?
Now which forum do we do that in? I can't seem to put my finger on it. :confused:
Haha! That's a conundrum, Alan.
kib, I agree, maybe we finally take this piece of the thread elsewhere: Alan, maybe you come up with a new forum like New Cultural Revolution or something like that :)
So, kib, bottom line: I agree with you: everything is connected. To be continued…
First things first, yes, everything is connected. I had to get a few years under my belt or at least needed a chance to see life from a few different angles before I got that. The kids I know who are coming up now have a better grasp on the spirituality of that than I did. I'm guessing the intellectual aspect won't be too far behind.
Derrick Jensen maintains that we ultimately, and inevitably, will go back to a primitive way of life and "reset" our impact on the environment.
I like Jensen, but IMO that's horse hockey. My guess is that we will either burn/gas/wash ourselves out in large degree because the rest of the world will try to emulate our consumptive western lifestyle -OR- our emerging technology will blossom just enough and will coincide with a giant "oh $#!+" moment and those of us who survived environmental catastrophe will carry on a little wiser and a lot more humble. It would be lovely if that happened before the big slap was necessary, but we don't seem to be on that course yet.
ApatheticNoMore
5-27-15, 4:36pm
I have a question. Maybe it should be a separate thread. On another forum I posted something in a conversation about sustainability, and I used "everything is connected" as the premise from which I started. Several people told me I was an idiot, everything is obviously not connected, that's ridiculous. I have a feeling a lot of them are young, but I was still taken aback, it's the given from which I base every idea i have.
the push back may have been about the connotations of the statements. Many people think it's the same as saying "all things are one", which is a religious/spiritual idea that people may or may not believe (calling to mind certain eastern tinged ideas: there is no self, no identity, you are one with everything etc.). And they're like: meh, I'm not a Buddhist or whatever, and I am a separate organism. Good luck arguing religion, and if it's something that takes years of meditation or spiritual practice to see then good luck convincing many of that either.
SO ...... I suppose the western rationalized type approach to this is systems thinking. Things are complex interacting systems that interact and reinforce each other. Ecosystems are such a system. Some systems may objectively not interact much, they certainly didn't in a less global less populated time, so say you and a subsistence farmer in Africa now may be systems without much interaction, but it's possible there are connections that could be seen with more information. It's probably you having a negative impact - haha :laff:
Is that, maybe, putting a finger on the real center of the problem? That if you don't stand far enough back to connect the dots, then you probably feel your actions, or a country's action's, or a corporation's actions, are some stand alone issue that make no difference to the overall well being of, well, of everything?
as in individual alone they might not. I mean I'm all for individual moral action for moral actions sake, because it's the right thing to do, but that's different that saying it's changing anything (different moral theories). I sometimes think that thinking too much that it does change things, is wanting, being deluded, wishful thinking, thinking we have power we don't have, because we wish we had it, or we should have it, we ought to have it have it, etc. (but the universe doesn't care about these oughts). And we were always told we do have it, that is was our birthright. We ought to be able to put the world right, to save the world by our individual actions. And probably we believe we are entitled to this at no risk to self (oh really? MLK clearly wasn't able to and he had a movement) I suppose you come closest to trying to do this if your putting your body in front of the pipelines and stuff, but even that's collective (often of a fairly small group) not individual action, the only thing that ever could work, and there are no guarantees.
It's probably you having a negative impact - haha :laff: Lol, no doubt. My influence is massive and horrible!
Yes I see what you mean about misinterpreting it as spiritual dogma. I have no idea if we're all spiritually connected or one or whatever ... in modeling my idea of spirituality after a pattern of living things I would guess we might be, but I'm willing to wait and see.
I see personal action not so much as having a great impact, but that if a large number of people make a small change in their ways or even just their thinking, they pave the way for acceptance of a bigger change, and that acceptance makes it possible. Prius. Early Adopters bought a Prius. I bought a Prius. Half the people in Tucson seem to have bought a Prius. Will owning a Prius save the world or even make a dent? No, in fact it might just encourage the production of more automobiles. However, what I see is that now a lot more manufacturers are focusing on better gas mileage. (Still crappy, but better). Slowly, the country is apparently coming around to say well, if better gas mileage is a possibility, I want that. So ... in the tiniest little way, perhaps I did have an effect. We're all butterfly wings.
So our alternatives are:
1) A voluntary return to the Stone Age.
2) An involuntary return to the Stone Age.
3) Submission to a new, incorruptible regulatory elite with the power to dictate how we eat, breed, travel and trade. This would need to occur quite soon on a global scale to have any hope of success.
4) Muddle through, in the hope we can find technology fixes sooner than we can completely overhaul human nature.
5) Extinction.
I like Jensen, but IMO that's horse hockey. My guess is that we will either burn/gas/wash ourselves out in large degree because the rest of the world will try to emulate our consumptive western lifestyle -OR- our emerging technology will blossom just enough and will coincide with a giant "oh $#!+" moment and those of us who survived environmental catastrophe will carry on a little wiser and a lot more humble. It would be lovely if that happened before the big slap was necessary, but we don't seem to be on that course yet. Does Jensen say we will deconstruct society? My interpretation is that he's saying we must if we don't want to become extinct, but we probably won't. Closer to your POV than you think, in other words.
On another forum I posted something in a conversation about sustainability, and I used "everything is connected" as the premise from which I started. Several people told me I was an idiot, everything is obviously not connected, that's ridiculous. I have a feeling a lot of them are young...
Then again they may not be young so much as disconnected. Others have already brought that idea up, but in a larger sense we could solve a lot of other crises if we solved our crisis of conscience. As in the lack of conscience guiding our decisions. My conscience can be pretty quiet if I don't know about the end result of my actions so I'll give the same benefit of the doubt to clergy and kings alike. There's a scene in the old movie Erin Brockovich where Julia Roberts pours a glass of water for the PG&E legal team. As they're about to drink it she tells them its from the town where everyone got sick. Its a great scene. We need to figure out how to give people that kind of wake up call if we're going to change the world. I want to believe most people will choose to do no harm if they realize their actions are harmful.
So our alternatives are:
1) A voluntary return to the Stone Age.
2) An involuntary return to the Stone Age.
3) Submission to a new, incorruptible regulatory elite with the power to dictate how we eat, breed, travel and trade. This would need to occur quite soon on a global scale to have any hope of success.
4) Muddle through, in the hope we can find technology fixes sooner than we can completely overhaul human nature.
5) Extinction. Are you saying that's how you see it and, from what I've read, you're hoping for #4, or that's the options you hear being given, in which case, what is your option #6?
Does Jensen say we will deconstruct society? My interpretation is that he's saying we must if we don't want to become extinct, but we probably won't. Closer to your POV than you think, in other words.
That was essentially my take on it. I disagree with the deconstruct part. From my POV we need each other more now than we ever have.
Then again they may not be young so much as disconnected. Others have already brought that idea up, but in a larger sense we could solve a lot of other crises if we solved our crisis of conscience. As in the lack of conscience guiding our decisions. My conscience can be pretty quiet if I don't know about the end result of my actions so I'll give the same benefit of the doubt to clergy and kings alike. There's a scene in the old movie Erin Brockovich where Julia Roberts pours a glass of water for the PG&E legal team. As they're about to drink it she tells them its from the town where everyone got sick. Its a great scene. We need to figure out how to give people that kind of wake up call if we're going to change the world. I want to believe most people will choose to do no harm if they realize their actions are harmful.Yep. I said somewhere that if my nice Vanguard statement came with a second page that told me how many jobs went awol and how many egrets were lost to make my balance so pretty, I might think twice about celebrating it.
Are you saying that's how you see it and, from what I've read, you're hoping for #4, or that's the options you hear being given, in which case, what is your option #6?
That's what I'm seeing discussed here, of which #4 seems to be the most likely outcome to me based on the Doomers' past performance and my optimistic nature.
Sigh. We need each other IF we can stop grabbing and competing long enough to focus on getting balance back. If not, perhaps tipping society (not humanity, just social constructs) into the drink could at least temporarily stop the machine and let nature re-balance in a way that's not just our own shaky understanding of how the living system functions.
I wonder how it would affect long term models both mathematically, socially and from a standpoint of changed attitudes if the human race were asked not to reproduce for one year. No sterilization, no eugenics, no imprisonment, just "do your best to put it off a year." If we could for one year cut the birth rate perhaps in half, what would that do. Another observation of mine is that nearly everything we do that is a problem has to do with instant gratification. I don't just want it, I want it NOW.
So our alternatives are:
1) A voluntary return to the Stone Age.
2) An involuntary return to the Stone Age.
3) Submission to a new, incorruptible regulatory elite with the power to dictate how we eat, breed, travel and trade. This would need to occur quite soon on a global scale to have any hope of success.
4) Muddle through, in the hope we can find technology fixes sooner than we can completely overhaul human nature.
5) Extinction. How about a combination of a little 1 and a little 4. Combined with a little bit of option #6, which might be stated as, "overhaul human nature". I think we need to scale down, we need to try to step back from our attitude of competition and "aggressive defense", and we need to keep looking for new technological advances that will allow us to exist in tandem with nature rather than swallowing it whole.
Does Jensen say we will deconstruct society? My interpretation is that he's saying we must if we don't want to become extinct, but we probably won't. Closer to your POV than you think, in other words.
If I recall correctly from my reading of Endgame, he thinks that the natural course of civilization has an apocalyptic endgame--he doesn't specify exactly how it will come about, but its cause will be the consumptive, exploitative nature of civilization. Therefore, civilization will do itself in. He also feels that the more we speed that process up by revolting against civilization, the better for the natural world (and for us, too--as we ARE a part of the natural world).
He would like to see all this happen before we wind up destroying everything. Nature will rebound, but it would be better to not have to start from square one.
Here's one of the Premises of his book:
Premise Nine: Although there will clearly some day be far fewer humans than there are at present, there are many ways this reduction in population could occur (or be achieved, depending on the passivity or activity with which we choose to approach this transformation). Some of these ways would be characterized by extreme violence and privation: nuclear armageddon, for example, would reduce both population and consumption, yet do so horrifically; the same would be true for a continuation of overshoot, followed by crash. Other ways could be characterized by less violence. Given the current levels of violence by this culture against both humans and the natural world, however, it’s not possible to speak of reductions in population and consumption that do not involve violence and privation, not because the reductions themselves would necessarily involve violence, but because violence and privation have become the default. Yet some ways of reducing population and consumption, while still violent, would consist of decreasing the current levels of violence required, and caused by, the (often forced) movement of resources from the poor to the rich, and would of course be marked by a reduction in current violence against the natural world. Personally and collectively we may be able to both reduce the amount and soften the character of violence that occurs during this ongoing and perhaps longterm shift. Or we may not. But this much is certain: if we do not approach it actively—if we do not talk about our predicament and what we are going to do about it—the violence will almost undoubtedly be far more severe, the privation more extreme.
I just remembered what this discussion reminds me of, True Detective, Season One, Episode One.
Rustin Cohle (Matthew McConaughey): I think human consciousness was a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself.
We are creatures that should not exist by natural law. We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, this accretion of sensory experience and feeling, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody when, in fact, everybody's nobody. I think the honorable thing for species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.
So what's the point of getting out bed in the morning? I tell myself I bear witness, but the real answer is that it's obviously my programming, and I lack the constitution for suicide.
Martin Hart (Woody Harrelson): My luck, I picked today to get to know you.
Wonderfully apt, Alan. I keep meaning to binge watch that.
What about frameworks to think about sustainability? Here's one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_Step
I've always thought this is a superb approach. As an engineer/scientist/mathematician it has great appeal, as it lays out the system conditions that seem likely to allow a long-enduring culture to survive. You can of course argue about the particular conditions, but I think the overall approach of laying out the guidelines is very productive, and to me seems one of the few ways to avoid collapse, die-off, or some of the other bad paths.
You can't have honest conversations about these ideas these days with most people though - they rathole into flinging thought-terminating clichés back-and-forth, demonize each other, and make no progress. Meanwhile, time marches on....
Good luck back over there on the mainland.
I really liked The Natural Step too, thanks ANM. And I find myself surprisingly ok with the idea of focusing on enterprise, as long as the rest of the tree comes first. Although I know that there's nothing wrong with business per se, I could never get to the point of agreeing with the idea because as it's practiced, it takes virtually nothing but itself into account. This new tree is very tasty food for thought.
ETA: earlier today I was thinking that Joel Salatin's sustainable farming method's main difference is time. The way he does things, you have to wait for the grass to regenerate before you can feed more cows. You have to wait for the flies to lay eggs before the chickens can forage. And here the idea is again, six hours later: manufacture no faster than the natural materials can replenish themselves. Funny how ideas clump together like this.
flowerseverywhere
5-28-15, 6:49am
You really should start new threads about these subjects. You are missing a lot of valuable input by people who haveno interest in Baltimore and politics however may have much to add about theories and subjects like sustainability.
How about a combination of a little 1 and a little 4. Combined with a little bit of option #6, which might be stated as, "overhaul human nature".
I think you will find human nature extremely resistant to being redesigned to whatever specifications you may have in mind. That's it's charm.
[QUOTE=
Good luck back over there on the mainland.[/QUOTE]
Plan on sitting out Armageddon, do you?
Another observation of mine is that nearly everything we do that is a problem has to do with instant gratification. I don't just want it, I want it NOW.
Brings up another idea that we touch on often, but (as a society) we tend to ignore. There's an interesting, and I think important, difference between wanting it now and needing it now. If a storm is blowing in you need shelter now. If the tribe is starving you need to hunt or gather now. Pretty basic stuff. Once that kind of need was met there was usually plenty of free time for music, dancing, storytelling, creating art, napping, etc. The good stuff. We all know that, but somehow we've made the two pronged transition from "us" being the tribe to "us" as the individual and blurring the lines between what we really need and what we just want. That's preaching to the choir in here, but regardless of how tired the words can be the whole notion is still close to the root of a lot of evils in my corner of the world.
Brings up another idea that we touch on often, but (as a society) we tend to ignore. There's an interesting, and I think important, difference between wanting it now and needing it now. If a storm is blowing in you need shelter now. If the tribe is starving you need to hunt or gather now. Pretty basic stuff. Once that kind of need was met there was usually plenty of free time for music, dancing, storytelling, creating art, napping, etc. The good stuff. We all know that, but somehow we've made the two pronged transition from "us" being the tribe to "us" as the individual and blurring the lines between what we really need and what we just want. That's preaching to the choir in here, but regardless of how tired the words can be the whole notion is still close to the root of a lot of evils in my corner of the world.
Couldn't you add an intermediate level between tribe and individual of family? There's been plenty written on the benefits of an intact family for the overall well-being of it's members. I find that "what I really need" greatly expanded when I try to plan for my progeny's education and launch into adult life, as well as hedging against emergencies and family support for life after work (or life after me). I'd be at a much different point on the grasshopper-ant spectrum if it were just me.
Of course that's a valid point LDAHL. There are lots of intermediate levels between individuals and every living organism on planet Earth. And the "needs" of a society, tribe or even family can coincide with or they can be in direct opposition to the needs of any given individual within it at any given time. Its all pretty dynamic. IRL my ideas of living smaller and simpler have been running into stone walls as of late so I guess some of that frustration comes across here. That, and its been raining every day. Maybe vitamin D is the answer...
You really should start new threads about these subjects. You are missing a lot of valuable input by people who haveno interest in Baltimore and politics however may have much to add about theories and subjects like sustainability.
Good point. Just a note, Catherine has started a new thread. I think this one kept on going as long as it did because it feels like maybe there's a connection between a functional society generally speaking and how it manages to maintain order. Probably not enough of a connection to make this thread an appropriate place for a sustainable society discussion, tho.
ApatheticNoMore
5-28-15, 8:53pm
But ... EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!! Woah man, it's all like connected!! Just kidding :D
But really I think most anyone who wants to participate pretty much finds the thread. Anyone hoping to find a discussion of Baltimore would be disappointed though. Yea that this society is dysfunctional is pretty much to be found everywhere.
:laff: You're right. We should probably just have one big thread, really.
ApatheticNoMore
5-28-15, 9:00pm
We should probably just have one big thread, really.
Exactly ;)
flowerseverywhere
5-28-15, 10:16pm
Good point. Just a note, Catherine has started a new thread. I think this one kept on going as long as it did because it feels like maybe there's a connection between a functional society generally speaking and how it manages to maintain order. Probably not enough of a connection to make this thread an appropriate place for a sustainable society discussion, tho.
i agree. But there is a serious disconnect between theories and realities. The reality of poor people of color and how they survive is so complicated.
flowerseverywhere
5-28-15, 10:19pm
But ... EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED!!!! Woah man, it's all like connected!! Just kidding :D
But really I think most anyone who wants to participate pretty much finds the thread. Anyone hoping to find a discussion of Baltimore would be disappointed though. Yea that this society is dysfunctional is pretty much to be found everywhere.
This society functions for many. Many are thriving. In particular upper middle class to upper class people.
This society functions for many. Many are thriving. In particular upper middle class to upper class people.
No doubt the solutions are simpler if you have resources at your disposal. Nonetheless, we don't even have a working definition of "thriving". I agree that its desirable, but what is it?
This society functions for many. Many are thriving. In particular upper middle class to upper class people.
And it used to be that the many who were thriving including working class and middle class people. If the current trajectory continues eventually we'll have it whittled down to just upper class people who are thriving. Or maybe it will always be the upper middle class to upper class people, but the number of people who fit into those two groups will have shrunk.
i agree. But there is a serious disconnect between theories and realities. The reality of poor people of color and how they survive is so complicated. It is. Just musing on the idea that in a society where "poor" isn't that much of a distinction, in other words a society in which everyone has enough to thrive if not exactly burst into bloom, and there's less focus on material success to begin with, the issues of poverty should be a lot less explosive. Baltimore's a good example of that Not being the case here.
ApatheticNoMore
5-29-15, 11:44am
I doubt some of those well off people are doing so well if they have to worry obsessively about say if their children will be able to do well, or that if their children don't do everything right they'll have nothing etc.. That's not thriving. Of course if you narrow it down to such a small amount of people that that doesn't apply (they could leave their kids a permanent trust fund for life no worries), then never mind. I think by saying upper middle class and upper class it's already narrowed down to 20% of the population at most, with the other 80% not doing well if we believe that only the upper middle class and above is doing well. In most societies a very small elite always does well, probably in any hierarchical society you could name no matter how failed it generally is.
What does "thrive" or "do well" mean, precisely?
I liked the definition that the natural step video came up with, which is basically a person's / group's ability to meet their own needs, including food and clean air and clean water but also things like creative outlet, free time and sense of belonging and value. It alluded to the idea that being economically constrained - having to work in a sweat shop, for example - significantly limited those last things, that concept was actually part of their definition of an unsustainable system.
Veering back to Baltimore briefly:
Mother and 7 year old child shot dead there the other day.
Not a word from the #blacklivesmatter folks. Not a word from anyone asking how we can forgive America for this.
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/28/8-year-old-another-woman-killed-in-baltimore-shooting/
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.