|
There are many ways of feeling worthily
human. Irish monks used to live in little beehive huts on remote
islands. Southeast Asian monks felt they had attained the ultimate when
they broke their begging bowls. Those may be extremes, but I would be
willing to bet that a considerable part of the mainstream population does not
want a lot of wealth and status - enough perhaps to make themselve feel valid in
society, but surely not as much as Onassis. And, yes, people do want sex,
but more than that, they was secure relationships with others of the same or
opposite sex.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 12:39
PM
Subject: RE: Sex, of course! ( was RE:
I'm trying! (was Re: [Futurework] A truce in the Nature versu s Nurture
argument
Gosh, you are starting to sound like Harry P. and his "immutable"
laws.
Arthur,
At 11:14 08/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
Keith,
When is enough, enough. What do we do with our
success? Run faster? What is wrong with "resting on our
laurels" and taking stock of just how fast development has been and what
have been the costs and benefits of such development.
arthur
There's no enough until
scarcity is forced on us. The working-class want what the middle-class have
got. Because the Chinese (and inhabitants of another 100 countries round the
world) want what the Americans have got.
Everybody wants higher
status. If someone is talented and energetic then he'll strive for it in
every possible way whenever opportunities arise -- physically, mentally,
militarily, in business, in politics, in science, in the arts, etc.
Otherwise, the less talented buy pseudo-status -- the consumer goods that
the talented individuals gain as a byproduct of their success but which are
seldom their prime motivation.
What we do with it all is beside the
point. We are driven to it. And behind status-seeking? Sex -- and
opportunities thereof -- of course! (Johann Sebastian Bach and his
hanky-panky with Madeleine in the organ loft, as much as nasty old Aristotle
Onassis on his yacht.) By far and away the strongest instinct we have --
yes, even among this intellectual FW crowd.
There you are. Most of
Hudson's Theory of Economics in a nutshell!
Keith
- -----Original Message-----
- From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
- Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 11:02 AM
- To: Ray Evans Harrell
- Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Subject: I'm trying! (was Re: [Futurework] A truce in the Nature
versus Nurture argument
- Ray,
- At 07:44 08/10/2003 -0400, you wrote:
- Keith Hudson said:
- It is no longer Nature versus Nurture. Each of us is a product of
Nature and Nurture. Thus, each of us, by our own individual decisions
can to some extent influence the way our genes behave. For example, it
is possible for an individual to avoid an illness, such as a form of
cancer, to which certain of his genes might have made him vulnerable
by being sensible about his behaviour. Avoiding excessive sunlight is
one obvious example.
-
- At last, the third way. How wonderful to be finding
your way out of the X/O duality trap of Western Thought.
Now, how about doing the same for economics and political Socialist
vs. Capitalist thought or is that too much to ask?
-
- REH
- No, it is not too much to ask -- because, at the
fag-end of my life, I'm trying. (I have reservations about using
"Capitalism" as a label, whether pejoritavely or otherwise. Every
activity needs capital; even socialism needs capital. Immediately after
the Russian Revolution in 1917 Lenin said something to the effect that
what socialism in Russia needed more than anything else was an
electrification grid.)
- This is indeed what I am struggling towards -- one of my recent
struggles being at the end of my recent posting "Lumps of unskilled
labour".
- I say, proceed with globalisation and free trade (and "capitalism"
in the sense that you use the term, if you like), because if any people,
or region or country doesn't and tries to isolate itself, then it will
face penury. However, particularly in the most developed countries,
there are many reasons to believe that social buffers and institutional
instabilities are gradually grinding the whole process to a halt. Even
if we are to say -- on the basis of sound polling evidence -- that we
are distinctly less happy in the developed world than we used to be in
the '60s and '70s. This seems trivial to say but it is true.
Conventionally, if we are to listen to the orthodox economist, this
should be an absurd statement. But it isn't. We have several times the
abundance of energy and consumer goods than we had half a century ago
but we are more deeply mired in daily stress and unhappiness than we
were then. But it is not just about our daily happiness, of course. Our
present institutions means that we are vulnerable to sveral different
types of disaster.
- But, in continuing the way that we are, we are at least buying time
and are able to invest in scientific understanding -- of which, in my
view, by far the most important is the investigation of what sort of
species we really are and how we can get along in this wonderful world
of nature around us more felicitously. Among all this we have to be able
to honestly define, and then accept -- warts and all -- certain deeply
engrained behaviours that were appropriate in times past but are
dangerous now. We cannot go back to some arcadian past because we have
already destroyed most of our bridges. We have to go forward. However,
there is no reason why we should not be able to design societies and
institutions which are more appropriate and which can marry ineradicable
genetic dispositions with our high-tech systems.
- We can never achieve this in a purely intellectual way (as I
personally used to think when younger), such as by starting new
political parties and new ideologies within the present system. Our
emotions to try and keep what we already have are far too strong for
that. However, once we start entering an era of increasingly expensive
energy, shortages and social and political breakdown of our present
sorts of institutions, then this will force us into new directions. It
is then that I think we have a chance of getting away from the bands of
iron that enslave us now.
- But first, I think we have to be very much clearer as to just what
sort of creature we are. Otherwise, we will continue to be a menace,
both to ourselves and the rest of the natural world.
- Keith Hudson
- Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>, <www.handlo.com>,
<www.property-portraits.co.uk>
|
