Desires unlimited, etc. -----Original Message----- From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:43 PM To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Sex, of course! ( was RE: I'm trying! (was Re: [Futurework] A truce in the Nature versu s Nurture argument
Arthur, What are these immutable laws? Harry ---------------------------------------- Arthur wrote: >Gosh, you are starting to sound like Harry P. and his "immutable" laws. >-----Original Message----- >From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2003 12:29 PM >To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Sex, of course! ( was RE: I'm trying! (was Re: [Futurework] A >truce in the Nature versu s Nurture argument > >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, **************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.comcast.net/~haledward **************************************************** _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
