ROG RESPONDS TO ANDY'S VARIOUS REASONED POLITICAL COMMENTS AND ENDS WITH THE
SUSTAINABILITY THING AGAIN
Andy's reasoned response:
What is the problem here? Exploitation is exploitation, no matter who
the perpetrators are. I am not recommending a particular model - I am
condemning exploitation. If you want to casually dismiss these
"exploitive powers of American style capitalism," on the basis that you
can find other examples of even more unjust exploitation of people by
other ruthless ruling powers in the annals of world history, then we
cannot have a worthwhile discussion. I am not defending any
exploitation. I want to see the end of all exploitive powers in the
world, in order that many diverse cultures can coexist side by side in
peaceful harmony. A hippie's pipedream? Perhaps, but a worthwhile goal
nonetheless.
Rog:
Reminds me of the response a philosopher had to the comment that "life
sucks". His reply was "compared to what?".
I find that cynics are a lot better at identifying problems than giving
solutions. Indeed, the solutions they do give are often poorly thought out
and contrary to the goal they aspire. You have already agreed that there is
no overall better system than the one you criticize (though we agree
individual societies are better or worse on various scales). My point of
contrasting the exploitation of today with worse exploitation from other
societies is just that we must be careful we move forward, not backward. I
see you as a strong advocate of moving backward.
Andy's reasoned response:
Do we really have to go into this [the allegation that America lacks
intellectual values] again, here? There have been many
others here, beside myself, who have tried to enlighten you on this, but
you refuse to listen.
Rog:
I have given numerous detailed refutations of this, and have been met largely
with folks just repeating their initial unsupported assumptions along with
some laughable rhetoric. You can't "enlighten" me by saying "America is the
asshole of the earth" or that we are unintellectual "according to Hollywood."
Andy:
First of all, lets agree that the American economy
has grown substantially during the cold war and that we have made many
advancements in technology. I am not arguing against this. I don't know
where these advancements would fit in Pirsig's levels, for I am not
enlightened yet in the ways of the MOQ. However, I strongly suspect that
they were achievements made within the social level. It is my belief
that the American intellectual level was stymied during the cold war,
due to the enormous intellectual effort that went towards the creation
and maintenance of the military machine. We were, no doubt, successful
on that front, and many technologies that were developed in this effort
were later made available to the public (the internet) and to commercial
interests.
Rog:
Here is the part where you insert some kind of evidence, Andy. Can you please
show your comparison charts of before, during and after the cold war that
reveals the massive reduction in intellectual output of the US compared to
other similar nations? If not, please quit making stuff up.
Andy:
However, these efforts were motivated by the national
interest towards killing the greatest amount of people, with the least
amount of loss of life to Americans, from the greatest distance away
possible. This is hardly the landscape for developing the intellect, and
I think that is reflected in American culture today. On a higher note,
since the end of the cold war, we have seen some greater contributions
by Americans to the intellectual level. I think we will see more to
come.
Rog:
So, please show how literacy, medical advances, college participation,
research/discoveries in astrophysics, biology, genetics, quantum theory,
fuzzy logic, computer science, neurology, mathematics, complexity theory,
environmental science, space exploration, chemistry, psychology, economics or
the humanities tended to plummet during the period in question. (You will
find many of these fields or at least major subfields within them didn't even
exist prior to 1950. In all cases, I suspect the US was well represented
along with other modern nations in the intellectual advance.)
Andy:
Of course, now I
understand what you mean by the "competition of ideas." America is the
strongest, so we will do what we THINK is best and only adhere to the
friends we TRUST. I presume you would mean Israel as someone we could
trust.
Rog:
Here you reveal not only sarcasm and wild flights of fancy, but odd reasoning
as well. Are you suggesting we do what we think is NOT BEST, or that we have
UNTRUSTWORTHY friends? Are you suggesting we allow those that want to destroy
us to use our power against us? What makes Israel especially trustworthy?
Andy:.
1) Religious fanatics-Do you mean internal or external? I don't think
there is much doubt that the two countries with the highest percent of
popular religious fanaticism are, presumably in order: Saudi Arabia,
USA. We are lucky to have some institutional barriers that have
prevented the intrusion of these fanatics from penetrating the state in
the US, unlike the Saudi's. However, there are indications that these
institutional barriers are being eroded by the penetration of the
fanatics into the conservative wings of the Republican Party, for
example Tom Ashcroft.
Rog;
Actually I did mean both. You should know by now that I am almost as big a
critic of the far right as you are. (I believe the main value of the far
left and far right is to hold each other in check). However, you again are
pulling assumptions out of your arse. Could you please prove or support the
fanaticism ranking charge? Especially in light of the numerous extremist
therocracies that virtually enslave women, give complementary cliterectomies,
kill opposing religious believers, prosecute homosexuals, etc etc. There has
even been more fundamentalist violence in Europe than the US since 9/11.
Andy:
2) Idealistic socialists desiring totalitarian control so they can
implement a better world - I have not met any idealistic socialist who
wish to make the world a better place and are also desiring totalitarian
control. I don't think there are any serious idealistic socialists who
consider Stalin as one of their ilk. That cold war mentality has
penetrated the inner reaches of your mind. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to cast out - I am afraid.
Rog:
Ah, the ol' reliable "you would see that I am right if you weren't
brainwashed argument." Your favorite!
Can you please let us know how it is that the state can VOLUNTARILY assume
all means of production? Were they planning on asking real nicely? If they
weren't planning on having total control over society, how much control were
they planning to have? Did you get this in writing?
Sorry for the cynicism, but I suggest you really answer these questions.
Large scale, involuntary socialism requires force. You are right that you may
never have met any moral socialists that thought out the ramifications of
their theory. If they did they probably would have rejected it and wouldn't
be a socialist in the first place. Socialism and communism were possibly the
most damaging social experiments of all time (evidence available upon
request).
Andy:
3) Intellectuals out to eliminate the rule of law - Are you serious? And
this requires the maintenance of our military superiority around the
world. So we can go from university to university around the world in a
military engagement to cast out the infidels from academia, I presume?
Rog:
Huh? Who are you arguing with? If you can't make a response to something I
say, do you find it easier to respond to an absurd caricature of my views? I
believe in countering ideas with ideas. It is the threat of violence in the
hands of intellectuals that I am rejecting here, not advocating.
Andy:
4) Environmentalists out to protect the environment or resources by
dismantling the economy - Again, I think you need to do some research
here. You cannot grow the economy without harming the environment, and
thus our long-term outlook for survival on the planet.
Rog:
I guess that you are excluding Denmark, which grew its economy by 48% from
1971 to 1989, while reducing the usage of energy. I suppose this excludes
the fact that the world was able to produce double the amount of wealth per
unit of energy in 1992 than in 1971. It certainly dismisses the Environmental
Sustainability index which I have mentioned two or three times and which you
have mysteriously ignored. I guess it excludes all the data on water and air
quality improvement that wealthy societies have achieved, or of the
improvements made in forests and wildlife in the US and Europe.
Do not get me wrong here though. You know full and well that I am concerned
with global warming and population growth and with the destruction of the
environment and ecosystems by poor countries, especially when socialist or
totalitarian. Again though, I suggest that we continue to invest in clean
renewable technologies and that we work together with other countries to
devise various solutions to overfishing, clearcutting, species destruction
etc. Most importantly, we must help them to get wealthy themselves so that
they can afford to live in harmony with their environment too.
But I could be obnoxious!
Rog
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:20 BST