In a message dated 4/14/02 1:19:37 AM GMT Daylight Time, RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD ignorance and the rule of emotion
Date: 4/14/02 1:19:37 AM GMT Daylight Time
From: RISKYBIZ9@aol.com
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hey Squonk!
Thanks for the quick response. Oh! Before I forget, please get me your
input on my Middle East test.
You are welcome.
I do not wish to involve myself with the test.
I do not wish to rain on anyone's parade or anything like that, but i feel
this test may be a little polarising?
>If you have a better alternative to free enterprise, please feel free to
>explain. But may I suggest you do it in ways that don't dismiss others'
>competence to decide for themselves. We aren't zombies, and we don't need
>intellectuals protecting us from our own will.
S:
You may be presenting the, 'Creative consumerism' stance here, or that of
the, 'active consumer.'
This basically says that although you can be fed consumer items it is up to
you how you utilise them.
Fair enough but you are still consuming.
R:
Nope, I am just giving the stance of someone that is familiar with how
economics works in the real world.
Oh i see.
Economics works in the real world does it?
And what is more, you are familiar with it are you?
Like those who were familiar with it right up until the Wall street crash?
S:
Freedom to do X, Y or Z does not necessarily make X, Y or Z moral.
R:
Of course not, but you never presented any argument on why it is immoral.
Considering that you are the one that (apparently) wants to limit other's
freedom (to engage in free enterprise), I think the moral and intellectual
burden is on you.
I have tried to argue that economics is a social activity, and as such is not
the highest value level in MOQ terms.
Reducing the real world to economics is a trend i find immoral.
>As for biodiversity, I am a fan of this as well. Modern
>economies and science are the only way to protect biodiversity from the
>ravages of 6 billion people.
S:
Well, it better get a move on because it does not appear to be working?
In fact, one may prefer to concede that Modern economies are doing the
damage
in the first place?
R:
Nope. The modern cultures are able to invest in maintaining and protecting
their environments, and with replacing deforestation with renewable tree
farms. The biggest immediate problem is in the loss of our rainforests in
predominately underdeveloped areas. These are being clearcut for farmlandor
used for timber or firewood. We need to protect the rainforests from such
short term exploitation. (In a way, you are indirectly correct in blaming
modern society -- the overpopulation in underdeveloped nations came about
due
to the dramatic drop in death rates -- without changing birth rates --
courtesy of modern medicine. Of course, i am sure you wouldn't offer child
mortality as a good solution to saving the wildlife). Interestingly, the
major mammalian/bird extinction of the past 20,000 years came when
hunter/gatherers crossed into new continents and islands.
It is a little arrogant of you to suggest that it was OK for the Forests of
the Southern US to be obliterated in order to develop but its not OK for
anyone else to do it?
The problem is that is was not such a good idea for the US to have done it in
the first place and its hardly surprising that the trend has spread with
alarming viciousness across the world as other nations have industrialised.
Food, shelter, family, love, care and a beautiful environment are life's
essentials don't you feel? Capitalists social structures have a rather
unpleasant way of removing these joys; life becomes a slave to the economy
with little time for enjoying life.
>A tenet of higher level patterns is a little thing called empiricism. This
>means that we don't do any intellectual idea, we do SUCCESSFUL, PROVEN
>intellectual ideas. Bad ideas are discarded. True socialism is absurdly
>unsuccessful, and violates virtually all current theories on successful
>management of complex dynamic systems. If you want to argue as being on
the
>side of intellect, I propose you get out of the 19th century and into the
>21st. Just a suggestion though!
S:
True socialism, as you call it, would be an ideal paradigm and i do not
believe we have yet to see anything closely approximating that as having
been
attempted yet?
I am not sure if it would work anyway; people are not that benevolent.
R:
What are you suggesting then? Shouldn't you suggest a better solution,
rather than just say that we shouldn't buy and shouldn't harm mother earth?
I fear you belittle my arguments?
Environmental destruction is a serious matter.
A better solution begins with developing an appreciation of quality?
And as i feel we may both agree, that is not something i need to tell people
about, for they can appreciate it for themselves?
With regard to socialism, i have merely suggested that planetary resources
are finite and require maintenance.
The details of that maintenance may involve a degree of restricted freedom.
S:
As for managing dynamic systems?
That's a contradiction in terms; dynamic systems can't be managed without
losing dynamism?
R:
You are a complex dynamic system. Our economy is one as well. Complex
dynamic systems indeed must not be overly managed, and they usually benefit
from distributed control rather than solely being under centralized command.
For example, most functions of your body work with no central direction
(your
immune system, your liver, etc), however, there is a level of central
command
for you to take higher level control. Similarly, Trenton, New Jersey alway
has food and water and other necessities without anybody coordinating the
overall economy. It is an emergent system based upon millions of
independent
agents buying, selling, employing, etc along with a small degree of economic
oversight.
And those who cannot afford to pay their utility bills?
If basic utilities are so fundamental to the lives of citizens why make them
pay for them?
Why not put utilities under, errrr, central control?
S:
I feel there may be a moral justification for 'dampening' dynamic systems if
in doing so one frees up a higher level of value. That's what socialism, for
me, is about.
R:
Hmmm. I suggest you study the field before tossing out half-baked ideas. I
DO agree though that unrestrained capitalism is disfunctional too.
Successful cultures invariably manage the economy in ways that focus on
protecting and even "turbo-charging"its dynamism, yet that also protect the
environment and the weak from exploitation.
Rog
>>
This is all very well, but your idea of success may not be my idea of success?
If by successful you mean dynamic, then i would ask you to consider the
nature of dynamic social structures?
Dynamic in their ability to gain mass?
Dynamic in their ability to be more economically successful?
Dynamic in their ability to manufacture more comfy toilet paper?
Dynamic in their ability for promoting presidential dynasties?
Dynamic in their ability to intellectually and emotionally fulfil their
citizens?
What do you feel your 'field' accommodates and achieves in human terms?
How about a little less chat concerning the system and a bit more about the
people who have to work their lives away in order to support them so a few
greedy bastards can sit back and get to eat all the pie?
All the best,
Squonk.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:10 BST