Re: chimpanzeehood
-Original Message- From: Tor Forde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; list futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, August 12, 1998 8:07 PM Subject: Re: chimpanzeehood >Ed Weick wrote, etc.: Tor, It wasn't me that wrote that the human population was similar in number to the ape population prior to agriculture, or that agriculture visited some kind of catastophe on the world. I don't know about the first, and don't believe the second. The only important point I tried to make about agriculture is that its invention permitted people to accumulate a surplus that would permit survival in difficult times and would, once the surplus was sufficiently large, permit population to grow and the detachment of part of that population from food production. In "The Economy of Cities" Jane Jacobs suggests that urban development was the driving force in the development of agriculture - i.e., the fact that people began concentrating in cities and could not produce their own food meant that a system had to be developed to produce food for them. Perhaps this was so. I don't know why someone would suggest that health deteriorated with the development of agriculture. It may have in some cases. For example, the Indian population of the Caribbean was undoubtedly healthier before Europeans converted the islands to sugar plantations. By the time the sugar plantations were well advanced, the native population was not only unhealthy, it was largely dead. However, in much of early Europe, it's probable that the transition to agriculture led to a healthier population. Of course, climate played a very important role in agricultural productivity and the ability of agriculture to sustain a population. A large agriculturally-based population was vulnerable to adverse changes in climate, but then so was a hunting and gathering population, even a small one. An agricultural population was also on something of a treadmill even during normal times. Agriculture could stimulate rapid population growth, but to feed a growing population you needed more agriculture. Population had to either move out from the center as it probably did in much of early Europe or raise more productive crops as it probably did in much of China, or both. If none of these things were possible, people would certainly become less healthy and would die off. Except perhaps in some tropical areas, where there was an abundance of wild food, hunting and gathering populations were typically more vulnerable than agricultural populations. Hunters and gatherers in colder climates could produce little by way of a surplus - some dried meat and fish, some berries, to help tide them over the winter, but that's about it. Ed Weick
Re: Rational? Nope!
I'm not going to say much about this since there is a sleeping tiger on this list named M. Hollinshead who has written a book on the matter. Maybe he will awaken? Who knows. But, let me say about the issue of rationality, Universities, Utility etc. the issue for me is not Reason but Practice. The Utilitarians eliminated anything that was not of use in their inimitable 19th century fashion. That included all of the abstract play that had trained humanity to be competent in their use or better still the application of logic in performance. Competence is a holistic matter and not a simple matter of reflection. I read you all complaining about application on a societal level of the practice of the application of your logic. That Utilitarian stuff was the first shot across the bow of universal practice. The practicality of mechanical thought and as you have pointed out here, the laws of Thermodynamics, kept it reasonably in check but it destroyed serious affective education in most of the English speaking countries. But the Latins (French) and the Germans kept it going. Any one who studies the Statistical Digests at the Department of Education for the U.S. Government will find the second shot, a direct hit to the gut of the society in the sputnik that armed the science and math educators and transferred huge amounts of funds to the three Rs education here in the U.S. Since that time there has been a marked decline in all practical, i.e. performance, education. Money has been transferred from the arts, the vocational programs, and the sports programs to Math, Science and Literacy. As a result the Math scores have risen slightly but have declined in relation to the rest of the Industrialized world. The Science scores are roughly the same and literacy has declined. What is their answer to this problem of a decline in the Reasoning skills? More money and less practical performance. More of the same. (That is not the answer of modern business which want less money given to the whole educational venture in general, but that's another post.) Now it would seem logical that making children sit in school all day long would be a terrible way to practice competitive sports and no one would make such an error. But the problem of the underlying cognitive structures that create both Reasoning and Practice have been basically ignored. In short they cut off the legs to the table of life and now complain about the wobble. So my suggestion is to put them back. Start with the issue of teams and teach them in Musical Ensembles and Sports. Deal with aural cognitive structures by analyzing both musical forms and grammatical forms from a communicative performance mode in speech, debate, drama and oral literature. Develop a sense of systems and structures, not in an abstract over-simplified, dull Math problems but through actual building and design of structures to be used and that are pleasurable to study. . Learn about the kinetics of a system by fixing broken internal combustion engines in a auto shop. You can learn a lot in computer building as well. It is already happening in the building and breakdown of computers. But the key word is the pleasure principle. The direct root to dull uninteresting, to most of humanity, problems expands all the way to ignoring the termination of life on the planet. That is a pretty resistant psychological issue if you ask me. Must have a lot of anger behind that one. Any child trained to learn the application of practicing a musical instrument daily realizes the either/or quality of such work. You are now faced with an either/or in the performance of something that can mean the very survival of humanity or at least modern civilization. But we are faced with a woeful lack of competance in the practice of doing so. So in short, if you are having a problem of practice then the only answer is to practice. But know what you want to accomplish before you do and then be imaginative. Unfortunately, with the possible exception of some of the economists on this list, there is an amazing lack of imagination or systems thought in the economic field. So I wouldn't start there. Maybe study a history of how they have screwed it up both East and West first. In that case a committee to study the problem wouldn't be a bad idea and could keep them out of mischief. Just a thought. But get busy, it took over forty years to screw it up. It will take at least that long to train the people who will have to fix it. REH Charles J. Reid wrote: On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Jay Hanson wrote: > > The only "rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by > economists. Trouble is, people fail that test. > -- Hi, Jay! It is important for ALL to understand that the statement, "The only "rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by economists," IS INCORRECT, FALSE, or UNACCEPTABLE. Research will show that the economic definition of 'rationality
Re: chimpanzeehood
Eva Durant wrote: > > OK, I haven't the concrete sources, but the > claim, that hunter-gatherers had a healthy, > starvation free existence sounds > extraordinary. My source is Jared Diamond's book "The Third chimpanzee". He writes that the average new born child would live until it was about 60 years old before agriculture was developed, and that is quite a lot without the help of scince and medicine. In Norway that average age was reached between 1920 and 1930. I read a study about average duration of life last century in the municipality where I live. There were years when the average age of people who died were less than 15 years. That is almost incredibily, but it was years when most of the children died. Before 1850 the average age by death was between 20 and 30 years, and by 1900 people were living on average until they were about 40 years old. I guess it was not very different in other European conutries. What is extraordinary is the short lives of people in agricultural societies. Of course one important reason to their short lives was the deadly combination of diseases and hunger. > Agriculture provided extraordinary surplusses, > kept a fair-sized minority - the ruling class > and it's administrative/military personel, > in relative well-being even through > "bad years" when others starved. You cannot > ignore the different sizes of populations involved. The part of the ruling class that was well off was only the top of the pyramide. Most of the personell was badly paid. So badly that they could not live from their wages. They either had to be corrupt or have some business/farm in addition to their job to keep alive. The good old days were in 1955, not one hundred or three hundred years ago, but maybe 20.000-30.000 years ago as well. > Anyway, even if it was so, which it wasn't, > we cannot go back to that "golden age" of > pre-civilisation with our x billion of today, > but we still - just about - could make it > if we get to the democratic, conscious > social intervertion stage, before total > disintegration. Of course we can not and will not return to the stoneage, but the stoneage was a much better time to live for the common man than the renaissance. > > -- > > All the best > > Tor Førde > > visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ > > email: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: chimpanzeehood]
Eva asked me to forward this: -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] OK, I haven't the concrete sources, but the claim, that hunter-gatherers had a healthy, starvation free existence sounds extraordinary. Agriculture provided extraordinary surplusses, kept a fair-sized minority - the ruling class and it's administrative/military personel, in relative well-being even through "bad years" when others starved. You cannot ignore the different sizes of populations involved. Anyway, even if it was so, which it wasn't, we cannot go back to that "golden age" of pre-civilisation with our x billion of today, but we still - just about - could make it if we get to the democratic, conscious social intervertion stage, before total disintegration. Eva > Ed Weick wrote: > > > > > > > >> Agriculture became a catastrophe because, according to Jared Diamond, > > >> all evidence (skelletons and bones from humans) shows that before > > >> agriculture was developed humans were never suffering from hunger and > > >> malnutrition. But some time afterwards it became usual that there were > > >> times in humans lives when they were starving so much that it is > > >> possible for scientist to read it from their bones. > > >> > > > > > >before agriculture developed the number of humans was > > >probably comparable with apes. > > > No, because humans were able to live all over the World before > agriculture was deveopled. That is very different from apes. > > > Agriculture was a success > > >story in the amount of food and other human goods produced. > > >The first massive population growth was the result of > > >these early feudal civilisations. > > >The problem - as I mentioned previously - was the divisive > > >and hierarchical social structure > > > > > > > I'm not sure of the source of these notions came from, but there is plenty > > of evidence that hunting-gathering peoples could as easily suffer from > > hunger and malnutrition as anyone else, and perhaps even more so. > > > The comparation that Diamond makes is between the nuturition of a > population in a given region before and after agriculture became the > dominant industry. Jared says that all evidence shows that before > agriculture became the dominant industry the health of the population > was much better than after. Of course after agriculture had been > dominant the few who stayed hunting-gathering were forced into areas > were it was very difficult to live. They have to be out of the > comparation. > > > > Much > > depended on factors such as where they lived, climatic conditions and cycles > > in game populations. The most basic fact about hunting-gathering > > populations was that they could never accumulate surpluses large enough to > > tide them over periods of scarcity. > > They did not have to build storages for food, because they were not > sitting waiting for the gras to be green. They went to the places were > the gras was green. > > > > Agriculture was invented to do just > > that - to provide surpluses that would increase the chances of survival > > during difficult times. Once agriculture got underway, and if the climate > > remained favourable, larger populations could develop and the formation of > > villages, towns and cities became possible. Larger populations and the need > > to support urban communities that could not sustain themselves in turn led > > to innovations and greater efficiency in agriculture. > > > > I am just now reading Ferdnand Braudel: "The structures of everyday > life". From page 73: "Famine recurred so insistently for centuries on > end that it became incorporated into man's biological regime and built > into his daily life. Death and penury were continual, and familiar even > in Europe, despite its privileged position. A few overfed rich do not > alter that rule." > > Starvation was a part of life, and often the end of life, in all of > Europa until 100-200 years ago. > > > > > One must not overlook that the age in which agriculture dominated economic > > activity lasted a very long time. The earliest cities date back to about > > the seventh millenium BC. They could not have existed without some form of > > relatively complex agricultural base. > > > > Ed Weick > > -- > All the best > Tor Førde > visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ > email: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
Re: Rational? Nope!
On Thu, 13 Aug 1998, Jay Hanson wrote: > > The only "rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by > economists. Trouble is, people fail that test. > -- Hi, Jay! It is important for ALL to understand that the statement, "The only "rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by economists," IS INCORRECT, FALSE, or UNACCEPTABLE. Research will show that the economic definition of 'rationality' requires the concept of 'utility,' which preceded the conceptual development of rationality. HOWEVER: the concept of utility PRESUMED human rationality, which was a ceteris-paribus assumption. It is true that people fail the test, depending on what you mean by 'fail the test.' We can say this is the case (1) because there is no agreed-upon acceptable way to test it in an actual setting, though we may observe 'irrationality,' depending on what what the parameters of observation are. [A metaphor: we can say that the Soviet policy at Brest-Litovsk (No war, no peace) was irrational, because it was logically contradictory, if we accept logical contradiction as a criterion of irrationality.] We might also be able to say that we can observe rationality, though not without great disputation. We can also say that people 'fail the test' (2) if we can show that not failing the test (successfully achieving what is required) is empirically impossible. [Another metaphor: We can say that the Central Committee of the Soviet Communitist Party could never rationally implement an economic policy, or never implement a rational economic policy, in the old USSR, if we regard rationality as maximizing utility (the extreme economic definition of rationality), we can say this, because making all the calculations necessary to determine "maximal utility" was never possible, so they would always fail the test. In short, for practical, scientific, or purely theoretical purposes, the economic theory of rationality based on utility maximization in the context of ecomomic theory is nonsense. //CJR
Re: Rational? Nope!
>It is important for ALL to understand that the statement, "The only >"rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by economists," IS >INCORRECT, FALSE, or UNACCEPTABLE. I don't understand your point in this post. What other definition of "rationality" exists? The only other one that comes to mind means "not insane". Jay
Rational? Nope!
>necessary. I don't think it has been convincingly demonstrated that any >person 'has' any rationality. If we say that people can "manifest" >rationality, it is clear that some people never manifest rationality, >depending on how you define it, and there are probably ten conflicting >definitions. Finally, if we can adopt the notion of 'rational interest,' The only "rational" definition of "rationality" is the one used by economists. Trouble is, people fail that test. "Those who believe society can best be understood as a series of markets begin by positing a rational, calculating individual whose goal is to maximize 'utility.' This premise says everything and nothing, since it is true by definition in all cases. But it is a key aspect of the market model, since it is the behavioral part of the logical argument that whatever the market decides must be optimal." [1] Economists assume people that people make "rational" [2] decisions but abstain from testing that assumption. Instead of testing, economists invoke "revealed preferences theory" which states that choices are rational because they are based on preferences that are known through the choices that are made [3]. In other words, economists resort to meaningless, circular arguments to justify their normative claims. [ For more on economics qua politics, see: http://dieoff.com/page141.htm ] Researchers who actuality observe humans making decisions, find that economists are wrong. Humans give undue importance to recently presented information. What does this mean? Simply put, people are manipulated by information providers -- the last commercial has the most influence. Change the order of the messages, and one changes the choices made (no need to change the prices -- or the content). What are the implications? If people are not "rational", the economist's normative claim for market outcomes can not be defended -- can not be used to rationalize the ongoing destruction of the planet. In an ideal world, governments would intervene in the markets NOW to end the MARKET-CREATED consumption binge and plan for our future needs -- especially energy needs. ENERGY BASICS We use up or "waste" energy in systems that supply energy -- such as oil-fired power plants. Energy is wasted when exploring for oil, building the machinery to mine the oil, mining the oil, building and operating the power plant, building power lines to transmit the energy, decommissioning the plant, and so on. The difference between the amount of energy generated and the amount of energy wasted is known as the "energy profit". By definition, energy "sources" must produce more energy than they consume -- must produce a profit -- otherwise they are called "sinks". WHAT NEXT? Global oil production is expected to "peak" in less than ten years, and when it does, our world is going to change forever. As far as I know, there has been no study that shows the US economy could be run on solar technologies. Here's one that shows it can't: http://dieoff.com/page84.htm . During the next hundred years, the energy profit for fossil fuel plants (oil, gas, and coal) will become negative. It is fundamentally impossible to provide a constant level of energy while aggregate energy profit drops. Keeping the production of goods and services at current levels will require more energy than we now generate. To have more energy in the future means that energy must be diverted now from non-energy sectors of the economy into energy generation. In other words, once oil production "peaks", the world will experience declining standards-of-living (as measured by per-capita energy consumption) for at least the following 20 to 30 years (that's if we do everything right). What economists have been calling the "Valhalla Economy" is already falling apart: was Asian miracle, now Asian nightmare. I suspect it is due to declining natural resource quality. When resource quality is defined in terms of energy investment, the record clearly shows that quality is declining across almost the entire spectrum of resources. >From 1972 to 1982, the fraction of GDP allocated to natural resource extraction grew from four percent to ten percent. Joseph Tainter has studied about two dozen failed civilizations and found that the key to their success is ENERGY. Human civilizations collapse when they become too complex for their energy base. [4] Gever et. al. has calculated that if we wait until the oil "peak" before starting a crash program in alternate energy systems, net energy could drop to 30% of present values before starting to climb again. [p. 255] Does anyone think that our so-called civilization can survive a 70% cut in energy production? Jay -- www.dieoff.com -- [1] p. 41, EVERYTHING FOR SALE, Robert Kuttner; Knopf, 1997 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0394583922 [2] "The social sciences have a long, rich history of writings on rationality. In the tradi
Re: What planet are you proposing for this experiment?
Ed Weick wrote: > > > In response to my argument that man is not particularly rational, Tor Forde > wrote: > > >The best way to keep a society rational is to get "the calculators" to > >wear the eyes of the common man, that is to avoid the development of > >excessive poverty and wealth. > > Tor, > > I see two problems with this. One is that "calculators", as you call them, > come with theories by which they interpret the world and with pre-conceived > notions of what things ought to be like. Whether they would recognize it or > not, they are, as Keynes put it, slaves of some defunct economist (or > philosopher, or political thinker, defunct or otherwise). Each person has his own rationality. Find his viewpoint, his priorities, his situation and his possibilities, and it is possible to see his rationality. It will be conflicting with others. A democratic society should develop according to the rationality of its members. If their rationalities becomes too conflicting the society can fall apart or only be kept together with massive violence. The only way to keep it together without violent means is to let people develop their own democratic institutions which keep them together and joins their rationality, and gives it power. I am thinking specially of labour unions. Countries with strong internal conflicts are contries where independent labour unions are not allowed. Countries were strong and independent labour unions are part of the system are much more peaceful annnd prosperous than countries without unions like that. Economists and planners have to much power compared to democratic institutions. The other problem > is that there is no such thing as "the common man". We are essentially > tribal, with each tribe having its own notion of what is, or ought to be, > common to man. And within each tribe, people vary greatly in erudition, > power and wealth, and it is not always the good people who wind up on top. > The situation is different in different countries. A country like Sudan ought to be divided into at least two countries. > I'm trying hard not to be cynical about what is and is not possible with > respect to the future of humankind as we know it. However, from what I have > seen around me for several decades, I simply cannot bring myself to believe > that this future can be planned rationally, or that any coherent plan can be > devised that will be viewed as fair and equitable by all peoples, or indeed, > fair or not, that we will all somehow come to our senses and behave with > enough environmental and social responsibility to pull our global industrial > system back from the brink toward which it appears to be headed. > The crisis must hit and hurt people first, but then it will be possible to make some changes. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FW: Cashing in
Tom Walker wrote: > > There's a consensus opinion that the bull market of the 1990s was largely > fueled by retirement savings from the baby boom generation. Since we've had > the numbers for several decades, it shouldn't be too hard to project the > turning points in the investment boom. > > A plot of U.S. working age (20-64) and retirement (over 65) populations > reveals two striking features: 1. a decisive turning point around 2004 where > the over 65 population begins to rise dramatically at the same time as the > 20-64 pop begins to slow its increase (working age population is projected > to actually fall between 2020 and 2025) and 2. a pronounced lull in the > growth of over 65s during the 1990s (the depression era 'baby bust'). > But does it have to be a bad thing? People have been saving in stocks and shares at the exchange through funds of many kinds, and when they retire they are cashing in in so large numbers that the funds, and individuals, may begin to sell stocks and shares in large numbers, and the price of stocks and shares are being reduced. But on the other hand all these persons reetired persons still are a large market. It is almost like in the years 1940-45, which ended the recession because of the large war time expenditures and because lots of men had to leave work and made room for unemployed people. And the war too was among other things funded by sales bonds. I read sometimes that Japan is woried because of its aging population. But what Japan needs now is an aging population, because one of the big economic problems of Japan is underconsumption. Japan needs lots of people who consum but do not produce. -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: chimpanzeehood
Ed Weick wrote: > > > >> Agriculture became a catastrophe because, according to Jared Diamond, > >> all evidence (skelletons and bones from humans) shows that before > >> agriculture was developed humans were never suffering from hunger and > >> malnutrition. But some time afterwards it became usual that there were > >> times in humans lives when they were starving so much that it is > >> possible for scientist to read it from their bones. > >> > > > >before agriculture developed the number of humans was > >probably comparable with apes. No, because humans were able to live all over the World before agriculture was deveopled. That is very different from apes. Agriculture was a success > >story in the amount of food and other human goods produced. > >The first massive population growth was the result of > >these early feudal civilisations. > >The problem - as I mentioned previously - was the divisive > >and hierarchical social structure > > > > I'm not sure of the source of these notions came from, but there is plenty > of evidence that hunting-gathering peoples could as easily suffer from > hunger and malnutrition as anyone else, and perhaps even more so. The comparation that Diamond makes is between the nuturition of a population in a given region before and after agriculture became the dominant industry. Jared says that all evidence shows that before agriculture became the dominant industry the health of the population was much better than after. Of course after agriculture had been dominant the few who stayed hunting-gathering were forced into areas were it was very difficult to live. They have to be out of the comparation. Much > depended on factors such as where they lived, climatic conditions and cycles > in game populations. The most basic fact about hunting-gathering > populations was that they could never accumulate surpluses large enough to > tide them over periods of scarcity. They did not have to build storages for food, because they were not sitting waiting for the gras to be green. They went to the places were the gras was green. Agriculture was invented to do just > that - to provide surpluses that would increase the chances of survival > during difficult times. Once agriculture got underway, and if the climate > remained favourable, larger populations could develop and the formation of > villages, towns and cities became possible. Larger populations and the need > to support urban communities that could not sustain themselves in turn led > to innovations and greater efficiency in agriculture. > I am just now reading Ferdnand Braudel: "The structures of everyday life". From page 73: "Famine recurred so insistently for centuries on end that it became incorporated into man's biological regime and built into his daily life. Death and penury were continual, and familiar even in Europe, despite its privileged position. A few overfed rich do not alter that rule." Starvation was a part of life, and often the end of life, in all of Europa until 100-200 years ago. > One must not overlook that the age in which agriculture dominated economic > activity lasted a very long time. The earliest cities date back to about > the seventh millenium BC. They could not have existed without some form of > relatively complex agricultural base. > > Ed Weick -- All the best Tor Førde visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/ email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
