Yes, and God is dead. There is no morality
higher than that which man contrives to suit his purposes.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 9:28
PM
Subject: RE: Sex, of course! ( was RE:
I'm trying! (was Re: [Futurework] A truce in the Nature versu s Nurture
argument
"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>
|