I agree that people crave these shallow values, but I also believe that the fundamental basis of doing so are now hoplessly outdated. The way I interpret these values is in an evolutionary sense, what do these values create that can help our advancement? All of the social values you list are necessary to some extent, evolution makes it so. Forget what people try and tell you that we are all equal, this is nonsense. I am not perticularly good at maths, I have put in many many hours of study and barely pass and yet have friends that can pick up the most difficult concepts easily, with no need for study, biologically/psycologically, I lack the neccesary things to find maths easy. On the other hand, I used to play soccer for New zealand at age group levels. I didnt need to work that hard, I just found it easy, something I was able to do, and I had friends who practiced far more than I and yet could never reach the same level. There has to be some way to differentiate between people so that others know something about them, this signal is needed in an evolutionary sense as it allows species to distinguish between favourable and unfavourable partners. The key is what is needed and what is not. Take gorillas for example - the alpha male is in all cases the biggest/strongest/best fighter. This signal is deemed attractive because it provides the most protection to offspring, and thus continue the "bloodline", The same can be said of fashon today, high class labels allude to money, and money is the best way to protect the young and thus give thir particular genes the highest chance of survival. Same principle. Being cool is bed partners with fitting in and fitting in is necessarry. As you correctly state, groups are able to return far higher returns to scale than individuals. However a group must have a common thread in order for it to work harmoniously. In the pre industrial era this was to produce crops and offer protection in numbers, once again inreasing the chances of passing on bloodlines. Being cool is intrinsic, you have it or you dont, this intrinsic popularity is fascinating, but once again if you look at the people that are considered cool you find that they are able to offer something differnt that others dont posess, what that is varies depending on the values of the people who describe them as cool (or not) this difference is part of diversity which is an increadibly important component in the survival of a species. Respect is a product of mutual understanding and this understanding comes only from actions or discourse. this is important as once again it provides a thread which can bind together groups. Sexiness has been shown in many species including our own to come from near perfect bilateral symmetry (we studied this aspect in sociology) and scarcity (these go hand in hand) I suppose that this means their genetic structure is strong, which has obvious genetic implications. Sexiness is a core ingredient in reproduciton, so if sexiness can be achieved it creates a higher chance of finding a suitable mate, passing on the genes. In this sense people do desire these things, heirachies are formed by these things and heirachies have been based for all of time on the ability to control others, usually by physical force, heirachies inter and intra species, the strongest survives. What I am absolutely opposed to is the forms that these things have taken today. I see these forms as a response to our ability to control the environment in almost any concievable way. We can live in any place on earth reasonably comfortably, this gives us the entire planet as our species range. We can destroy any other forms of life, this gives us the top of the heirachy. We can provide ourselves with plentiful food. We can provide ourselves with plentiful shelter. We can have sex whenever we want. This covers food, shelter/sleep, defence and reproduction, the essence of all life. What more do we do? This is where it all goes pear shaped. We are stumbling along looking for something else to achieve, but weve achieved basically all the natural goals, this leads us free to create our own goals, and this is the problem with consumerism. The only 2 goals left are the advancement of our mind, which I would encourage seeing as we are the only species on earth with the ability to do this (as the mind is not used trying to stop us from being killed/eaten) or collect trinkets, which is essentially what consumerism is all about. The reason we choose the trinkets is because it is easy. We do what others tell us to, the people with power, the cool, the sexy, the rich, we have simply become complacent. We must amuse ourselves. what consumerism has done is exaclty what you say, it has empowered these complacent traits, the problem is that the companies are exploiting our complacency and this does not induce much advancement, it merely gets us running around a hampster wheel, consuming energy but not really getting anywhere, and the people who run the businesses keep feeding us, and we excrete more wealth for them, and more trinkets for us (but not as much trinkets as the people collecting our excrement, that is impossible, we cant jump out of the wheel unless we think our way out of it, which is not really encouraged anymore. It is not encouraged because of the same complacency, we can just get someone else to do it, or someone else will orry about that, and because of the homogonising effects of advertising (to ensure that their product can be sold to the largest possible demograph) people keep jumping onto the wheel without question. what I object to is the fact that we dont need to do it this way anymore, we need to use this increadible ability to induce absolute freedom of the conscious self. We need to take the next step. Otherwise we will consume ourselves into history. I dont know yet how to jam the wheel, but Im certainly going to try. enjoy, evolve david wilkinson >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: MD HELP - Consumerism, homogonisation and the degregation of >quality >Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:06:45 EDT > >Hi David, Platt, Rasheed, Joel, Andrea and a half dozen others now..... > >Please take this feedback with a grain of salt, your initial post expressed >a >lot of sincerity and intelligence. I hope I can add rather than subtract >to >both. > >If I could be so bold, the problems you observe aren't with americana or >consumerism. They aren't deviously controlled by advertisers or nefarious >"factory managers." The thing you are revolting against is to be >subservient >to social values. You see beyond the social values of beauty, wealth, >position, power, fitting-in, being cool and sexy, etc. > >In your writing you frequently allude to influential manipulators that >somehow ruined the pure, happy, level-headed pre-industrialists with >capitalist, consumerist values. I suggest you are missing that people >really >are that shallow. Oh sure, advertisers, teachers, parents, the media and >politicians play to our weakenesses, but they aren't creating it out of >thin >air. The truth is that people do want and need to be >sexy/beautiful/powerful/wealthy/respected. Americana didn't create those >values, it EMPOWERED them. The shallow, social-focused values are a >reflection of what many of the people around us pursue. But not all. Many >-- >perhaps even most -- of those that pursue social value don't JUST pursue >shallow quality. > >By the way, I agree that the free enterprise system is currently >ill-equipped >to manage non-repleneshable resources. > >Free enterprise does not have to be a zero-sum game. We do not have to (as >Rasheed says) 'step on whoever you need to step on to get there." Granted >some people play it that way, but they miss that the value of free >enterprise >is in the synergy. More can be created out of specialization, competition >of >ideas, expertise, trade, cooperation etc than is put in. Those that play >capitalism in a harmful way (ie in a strictly win/lose fashion) only >detract >from total value. But I repeat, it can be played to mutual benefit, and it >is when it is that the world becomes better. > >The reference to Adam Smith's invisible "finger" as the source of our >evils >is interesting. On the one hand, you refer to free enterprise as doing >nothing for those engaged in it, but then you blame it for "reducing the >chance of anyone outside that 6% to have any piece of that wealth." I >repeat, wealth is a positive sum process (as are societal and intellectual >values in general). The invisible hand is people voluntarily agreeing to >work with/for/beside each other to accomplish more apart than separately. >A >lone individual can pick fruit, a team can catch rabbits, and several >hundred million together can build a 747. Capitalism did not create the >other 94%, it inherited it. And so far, only free enterprise (and the >intellectual values that blossom off this level) has offered any hope. >Please don't blame the medicine for the disease. > >Roger > > >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org >Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ >MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
