|
Not a bad thought.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:31
PM
Subject: RE: I'm trying! (was Re:
[Futurework] A truce in the Nature versu s Nurture argument
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>
|
