|
Ray,
Much could change if we begin to
escape the fundamentalist lock on our brains and begin to examine the true
diversity of the world outside the limitations of our intellectual
logic. Good things could truly begin. I hope so and I
value your words.
Arthur
I
would change intellectual logic to the limitations of our economic
logic.
I acknowledge that the use of the word Capitalism
has more than one meaning. The way that I choose to look at it is
the way that wars are being fought over. As for the rest of your
post, I think we agree or at least there was nothing that you said that I
would not agree with.
I too believe that one begins with
"self-awareness" and that the meaning of life is education of the mind, body
and soul of the individual. That it takes more than one
person to accomplish such a thing and that being selfish deprives others of
what we demand for ourselves.
That a third way as in the combination of Nature
and Nurture could very well be a model for a third way in the system's
argument for economics. There are many things to balance and
education is essential for the individual's ability to ride the boat through
the river. Too often we build our village on a rapid and
then treat it as if it were a lake while complaining about the results that
occur. We can choose many solutions but every solution must
take the implications into account and to do that takes intelligence and
intelligent teaching by the society that has responsibility for the
children.
Recently a mother was held responsible for the
suicide of her young son. She was severely hampered by a terrible
work schedule and was a single mother. In Florida they sent a
child to prison for killing another in a similar situation. This
new situation convicted the parent. One can see where the possible
issues of responsibility could lead. New ways seem to be
emerging. If enough parents are harassed for being unable to
survive then votes will change things.
Much could change if we begin to escape the
fundamentalist lock on our brains and begin to examine the true diversity of
the world outside the limitations of our intellectual logic. Good
things could truly begin. I hope so and I value your words.
Thanks
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:02
AM
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>
|
