> Is there not confusion within the ranks of our allegedly erudite
> economic scholars who see only increased production as solution to
> Social Problems?
This is the opinion of the scholars who want to defend
the present system, even though it is so evidently
wrong, as the last period of global boom
did not manage to raise the living standard of the poor even in the
booming countries.
> Is it not evident that since the Post-Agrarian era
> began a century ago that only a small fraction of the entire work force
> is needed to supply the entire population fully? And with that comes
> the ancient imperative of the Social Scientist -- Work or Starve --
> "earn a living" or die. Where are the original thinkers other than
> those within the Real Sciences, whom I also condemn for allowing the
> Social Sciences to continue to destroy us all when solution ought to be
> so obvious and easily accomplished.
>
What can physicists/biochemists/mathematician do (if you think they
are the Real Scientists) - they have the same limited information to form an
opinion from, than most other people. The direct producers of
industrial goods and food make up less than 20% of the population
in the relatively well-off countries. I don't know what your simple
solution is, but I know social scientists, who reckon, that sharing
out the work and the resources and stopping all the superfluous pretend-activities
would free vast creative capacities to find sustainable ways to keep
our way of living with all the sensible mod-cons.
Eva
> Hyman
> >
> > Eva
> >
> > >
> > > You have the cart before the horse. "Practical" comes only after the
> > > "theoretical" proves itself to be so, a common success among the Real
> > > Sciences. Also, you are displaying a common Social Science fallacy,
> > > that all things are already known, and esconced in someone's writings.
> > > That all you have to do is to discover that writing, and you also know
> > > everything. Also, as to the value of any writing, just list the
> > > successes that can be attributed to it if followed. Among the Real
> > > Sciences, name any textbook that already knows everything there is to
> > > know. Explain then how the Real Sciences know phenomenal success, while
> > > the Unreal Social Sciences can claim only failure.
> > > >
> > > > As for the glory of science and it's ability to analyze and come to
> > > > solutions. It would take the fascist power of the shaman/warrior
> > > > Gengis Khan to create the state you guys are talking about.
> > >
> > > The leader of any group is there upon the sufferance of the group, the
> > > group being naturally being more powerful than any lesser group. Unless
> > > it allows it. It is a correct philosophy that will shape the destiny of
> > > the group. We have been inflicted with a shameless fraud called
> > > Economics the Science of Scarcity that maintains unnecessarily the
> > > misery of the ages during this modern Post-Agrarian era.
> > >
> > > > His
> > > > state required total political fealty but had the most free state in
> > > > realtion to the arts, crafts, religion, and family culture, yet
> > > > devised.
> > >
> > > How does this compare to a close knit, efficient organization, wherein
> > > every member therein is fully and freely supplied with whatever he
> > > needs, and each assumes the role of a cog within the group using as much
> > > as possible of his special expertise in cooperative conjunction with
> > > every other cog, under the dictatorial direction of the CEO and his
> > > subordinate managers, and the engineering department, to effect a goal
> > > useful to society, the personal goal a sense of Self Esteem at a job
> > > well done that benefits society. Is this contrary to the freedom you
> > > seek? Is this not the means with which we have achieved a hitherto
> > > unimagined wealth of GDP that could be created only by group efforts
> > > such as this?
> > >
> > > > I'm afraid this cry to science that you all are making
> > > > sounds like the typical cry of every great Democracy of the past (with
> > > > the exception of the Native ones here). "Where is my Superman?" " I
> > > > need someone to walk the 'hero's journey' to give up my responsiblity
> > > > for myself so I can get on with the fragmentation of my
> > > > existence." On the other hand, the oldest alternative might very
> > > > well still be the best in this situation.
> > > >
> > > > Shamanism or as the Canadian peoples call "Indigeneous Science"
> > > > begins with taking a drum into the forest, digging a hole and putting
> > > > your feet where no one has ever walked, finding the beat of the earth
> > > > and then observing the adage: "Pay Attention to Everything." That
> > > > is the child's first "science" lesson. After that you go back and talk
> > > > to your teacher and tell them everything you observed. After that you
> > > > label everything in your mind. Written symbols, in this context, are
> > > > not for learning how to be mentally lazy and forget what you saw.
> > > > Symbols are only the triggers to enfolded reality.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps a little read in David Bohm? Or more recently David Peat.
> > > > Maybe as you get smaller and smaller and the the physical becomes the
> > > > same issue of probabilities as the social sciences you will understand
> > > > that you just see a little better in the Social Sciences and that the
> > > > physical scientists are still in the shaman's apprentice stage filling
> > > > up the room with the water of their tears of impotence. You all
> > > > have to do it together. That is the great lesson that everyone
> > > > denys and thus plans their death alone to avoid. How's that for
> > > > melodramatic Sally and Arthur? Sorry just got carried away.
> > >
> > > I'm afraid that the Social, better called the Unreal, Sciences are not
> > > Real Sciences for having failed to understand the very simplistic
> > > essence of humanness, that is much too much overcomplicated in the
> > > literature. As we are a part of Nature rather than the commonly
> > > presumed apart from Nature, we as humans subscribe to the very same
> > > simplistic equation that has proven so successful in the Real Sciences
> > > -- that Result is Proportional to Forcing Function and Inversely
> > > Proportional to Reaction. In human terms that will equate to
> > > Achievement is Proportional to Motivation and Inversely Proportional to
> > > Frustration. Except that as we are all endowed with Self Awareness,
> > > that Motivation is a dual element comprising Security (assurance that
> > > our near future is not unduly threatened) and Self Esteem (that our very
> > > existence is of potential value at least to society). Economics is
> > > concerned ONLY with threatening Security (earn a living or die), and
> > > completely ignorant of Self Esteem as a much more appropriate incentive
> > > to get things done.
> > >
> > > The essence of Social Problems is that the Social (Unreal) Sciences have
> > > taken self aggrandizement seriously when threatened with loss of
> > > function a century ago when Food inadvertently became abundant enough to
> > > eliminate Social Problems. Instead of announcing a new era entirely
> > > different from the age old Agrarian era, (though the title Post Agrarian
> > > era is accepted), and switching from textbooks titled "Economics, the
> > > Science of Scarcity" (of Food, what else), to a new textbook called
> > > "Economics 2, the Science of Abundance," they tried to maintain the age
> > > old focus of Social Problems, and their prestigious jobs, advising
> > > Presidents and Kings, by destroying Food, subsidies to growers NOT to
> > > produce, a practice still going on.
> > >
> > > Failing to restore Food scarcity, they cleverly managed to switch the
> > > emphasis from Scarce Food to Scarce Money, a fantasy as unreal as Alice
> > > in Wonderland. And there we stand today, with a vast overcomplicated
> > > Rube Goldberg machine no one understands, making a lot of noise and fuss
> > > and accomplishing absolutely nothing beneficial except to those of the
> > > Money Mongers who happen to periodically sweep all the money from the
> > > losers, virtually everyone, to the winners, themselves. In the process,
> > > all of us will suffer as our civilization goes under with the continual
> > > squandering of the earth's precious resources in the pursuit of Money
> > > "profit."
> > >
> > > But condemnation is not the end of the answer. The answer is to see
> > > that everyone has free and immediate access to Food, and that alone will
> > > alleviate virtually all Social Problems. That can be done by emulating
> > > what we did during the depths of the Great Depression when upon being
> > > attacked we lifted ourselves up, threw all economic shibboleths to the
> > > winds, and just DID what had to be done. First, we saw everyone fed,
> > > even sparse military rations. Then we assigned everyone a job to be
> > > done. Self Esteem was clearly evident among all those people who even
> > > would sacrifice their own lives to further the cause. We can do the
> > > same now in peacetime, by having the government subsidize the private
> > > sector, cost no object, to embark upon all the things that need doing.
> > > This includes Restoring the environment, Fixing everything that needs
> > > fixing, Space Programs, Pursuit of Knowledge, Anything, until there is
> > > no one left unemployed in a job suited to whatever is his special
> > > expertise. Use Deficit Spending for funding until we can let all this
> > > nonsense fade from the scene by attrition. Forget all the scam of
> > > "taxpayer's money" "national debt" as a deliberate attempt to misguide
> > > the public, as these are all unrealistic, meaningless fantasies. We can
> > > mollify those too much under the insidious spell of Money, by giving
> > > them all they can possibly take. How much of it can they exchange for
> > > REAL WEALTH, "land, labor and production" without creating a burden upon
> > > themselves of managing mountains of junk they can never consume nor use
> > > given the natural restraints of capacity and time and space.
> > > >
> > > Hyman
> > > >
> > >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
