Latest post of the previous page:
Precisely. These are the questions we need to try to answer.thundril wrote:a. What we would like the world to be like, and
b. What we might be able to do about it?
Latest post of the previous page:
Precisely. These are the questions we need to try to answer.thundril wrote:a. What we would like the world to be like, and
b. What we might be able to do about it?
Yes, and it's imperitive that we pick the best system to do this. We are answering these questions, with capitalism. Thundil and Animist, listen to Wilson's reflection on both his and my stance:Thundril wrote:a. What we would like the world to be like, and
b. What we might be able to do about it?
Imagine in many billion years, Animist and Thundril exclaiming that, emotionally, it's "just not right" that the Sun is about render our planet uninhabitable. You have to work with the way the world is - and for that matter, the way the universe is. Animist and Thundril profess the precise idealism which is just not logical in the real world.Wilson wrote:Nobody's saying that everything about capitalism is great, or that there aren't areas where there are terrible abuses, but overall there's no question in my mind but that fewer people are starving because of it. More people are living comfortably. Don't you think that's kind of a good thing?
I don't mean to be unkind, but those are just broad generalizations, with no meat to them.thundril wrote:I think we can look at a hierarchy of needs. I think that a global economic system might benefit from a global political, legal and judicial mechanism to match. I would argue, in such an arena, that companies and individuals should be prevented from doing serious harm to people in order to benefit other people, without some consideration of this hierarchy of needs. I think that an intelligent socialist system need not fall foul of the horrible mistakes that turned the Soviet Union and the PRC into such nightmares. I think that we are probably wise enough, compassionate enough, and smart enough, to create the sort of world we would be proud to bequeath to future generations. And I think these future generations might be more impressed than if we had simply shrugged our shoulders and muttered some fatalistic faith-based shite about the 'invisible hand'.
You do yourself a disservice here, Alex. This sentence makes it look as though you haven't read a word either Animist or I have posted. But I'm sure you have, really!AlexVocat wrote: Imagine in many billion years, Animist and Thundril exclaiming that, emotionally, it's "just not right" that the Sun is about render our planet uninhabitable.
Just another appeal to 'human nature?' The way the world is, politically, ethically and in terms of social behaviour, is nothing like the way the world was say 300 years ago. The laws of capitalism are not unbreakable like the laws of physics, and those who imply that they are are being either very inattentive or else deliberately dishonest. I'm sure your error, Alex, is of the former type.AlexVocat wrote: You have to work with the way the world is - and for that matter, the way the universe is.
Now here's the thing. When a scientist says 'we don't know but we need to look' the YECies go 'Aha! You just said you don't know! Burt we have Goddidit! So we are right and you are wrong!'AlexVocat wrote: Also, Thundril, you said that you didn't hold a properly feasible way to implement socialism but then you say that we need to find the best system out there that can answer question b from above. Now here's the thing. You aren't able to give your own, or quote someone else's new idea for making socialism work in the real world.
"Systems" are the only practical way to effect change. They're easier to fix than human nature.animist wrote:I kind of think that "systems" don't get you very far. The only way I can think of immediately improving the gross disparity between the rich world and the rest is by dropping all barriers to migration. Comments please.
On the "systems" point; I don't see what isn't "systems". It's just 'all-encompassing systems' (like State-Socialism or 'The Free Market') that offer completely misleading solutions.animist wrote:I kind of think that "systems" don't get you very far. The only way I can think of immediately improving the gross disparity between the rich world and the rest is by dropping all barriers to migration. Comments please.
Is it though?Wilson wrote: Almost all of us put family and friends ahead of strangers. That's our DNA talking.
You cite 'human nature' quite often, Wilson. Is there any chance you could make a stab at saying what you think 'human nature' is?Wilson wrote: "Systems" are the only practical way to effect change. They're easier to fix than human nature.
Really? is that what you hear about Europe & the UK?Wilson wrote: From news reports, the UK and Europe in general, which have traditionally favored the idea of free immigration, . ..
Capitalism is a natural phenomenon, one which may need controlling in places but one which works with us. I'm the first person to question human nature but in this case it works best for us all.Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on well perfectly without them.
I'm convinced that group selection during hunter-gatherer days gave us certain emotional and personality characteristics that were useful to survival, and are still with us today. It fostered empathy and cooperation and altruism within one's group, and animosity, fear, and hatred for all groups outside it. Sharing one's resources would be detrimental to survival, but cooperation within one's group would make it easier to feed and shelter everyone. That's the source of bigotry and nationalism today, and sports fanaticism. Just like the hunter-gatherers, we draw a line between "us" and "them". As we've become more sophisticated, and especially with television and other media, we see that "they" aren't so different, and most of us have extended our circle of empathy to include almost everybody out there. But we still have this inborn tendency to see certain others as outside our sympathies - enemy combatants, the criminal class, and so on. I'm not saying that it's a good thing that we do this, just that we all do. I assume, thundril, that you would be more concerned with the well-being of your child or significant other or parents than an anonymous stranger or Tony Blair or Muammar Gadaffi or Rupert Murdock or Sarah Palin, right?thundril wrote:Is it though?Wilson wrote: Almost all of us put family and friends ahead of strangers. That's our DNA talking.
The principal one of which, AFAICS, is the tendency to learn new behaviours through social interaction.Wilson wrote: Human nature, by the way, is nothing more than the behavioral tendencies that were handed down to us by evolution.
Yes but then logic must be used to filter out the shared new behaviours that make things worse. Social interaction (or cultural evolution) produced genital mutilation and religion itself. Sometimes human nature is bad and sometimes it is good. If you don't want to call capitalism good then at least concede that it is the best. I know you won't but that is what me and Wilson are claiming.thundril wrote:The principal one of which, AFAICS, is the tendency to learn new behaviours through social interaction.
I thought I made clear that I do not expect any 'system' to resolve the mess we are hurtling towards. I propose we reconsider our options. Because free-market capitalism did very well for a while, developing new technologies and so on, but continuing in this direction requires more and more production and consumption of unnecessary 'goods'.AlexVocat wrote:I'm not saying that we capitalists are right because you, the opposition, do not have any answers yourself. Capitalism does not become the best system 'absolutely ever' because there's currently no better options, but it is the best system for now. This suggestion that we must find a better system is fine but what do you suppose we do in the mean time? Put a halt to all economic activity until a better system is found?
When I say that we must work with the way world is I mean we must accept the best system which does the most good in the real world. How would we test a new system? Pick a country and view the results? And what do we do if we produce a state no better off than former attempts at socialist states? If we were dealing with the best technique to split DNA or something I would be with you, but we're talking about experimenting with new economic systems. Socialism has made other countries worse because it resulted in fiddling with a system that we don't properly understand (or at least one that we don't understand the consequences of tampering with). As Peter Saunders (an Australian economist) said:Capitalism is a natural phenomenon, one which may need controlling in places but one which works with us. I'm the first person to question human nature but in this case it works best for us all.Nobody planned the global capitalist system, nobody runs it, and nobody really comprehends it. This particularly offends intellectuals, for capitalism renders them redundant. It gets on well perfectly without them.
So to your point on finding a better system I would say this: Socialism isn't a separate system and past attempts at it are really just the product of artificial and idealistic fiddling with the system that developed naturally - capitalism. There's nothing wrong with this until you realise that the original system was better. Maybe it's the way we fiddled with it, and maybe there's an alternative way to fiddle with it that will improve it but remember that any experimentation runs the risk of worsening situations.