"As regards the celebrated "struggle for life," it seems
to me for
the present to have been rather asserted than proved. It
does occur, but as
the exception; the general aspect of life is not hunger
and distress, but
rather wealth, luxury, even absurd prodigality -- where
there is a struggle
it is a struggle for power." (Friedrich
Nietzsche)
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>
|
