Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] Ockham's Razor
Guilty as charged! (01)
I think you're right, Hirohide.
I need some of that salvation, myself.
:_) (02)
Hirohide Yamada wrote:
>
> > Perfect description. But one thing the great philosopher Vin
> > Diesel said at the Agora (aka Leno's place) was "invest in your
> > dreams". And *that* appears to be the antidote to overspending.
> >
> > (Actually, he said "invest in yourself". But I've followed that
> > advice for years. Unfortunately, it lets you pamper yourself to
> > death, indulging any interest that comes along -- but "invest in
> > your dreams" implies a focus on a goal, so that all expenditures
> > dovetail to help you get where you want to go, and be who you want
> > to be.)
> > :_)
>
> I feel 'invest in communication or relationship' works.
> I believe in the theory that human being has two fundamental needs
> to survive;
> *physiological needs; foods, house, various materials, etc.
> *communication needs
> When we were poor and not enough food for the family, physiological
> satisfaction (food for the dinner) brings family together and enhances
> communication. Human being has so long not have enough things for basic
> living, I think it is imbedded in our mind as a tacit knowledge that
> material satisfaction brings better communication. Very recently,
> it is not the case any more in the economically leading countries.
>
> If there is only one TV in a family, communication is forced among the
> family member to settle on the TV channels, but if everybody has a TV
> in their room, you do not have to communicate anymore. The point is that
> at a certain threshold beyond, physiologica satisfaction does not
> necessarily enhance communication but rather it effectively results in
> cutting the communication. Still our body(because of the tacit knowledge)
> seeks material satisfaction which destroys communication which results
> in seeking more materials.
>
> I think now is the time to restructure the society based not on
> physiological needs but on communication(mental needs), for which we will
> need more conscious efforts. I think Doug's ABC, NIC and collective IQ
> model addresses this.
>
> Hirohide Yamada
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:47:40 -0700
> Eric Armstrong <eric.armstrong@sun.com> wrote:
>
> > Mighty post. Thanks.
> >
> > I began reading with a predisposition to accept his thesis.
> > In particular, I find his condemnation of market economies
> > as causing environmental degradation and loss of quality of
> > life (in some respects, at least) rather apt.
> >
> > However, when he argues that most of the goods go the rich
> > and _as a result_ people in poor countries are starving, I
> > think he may be confusomg correlation with causation. There is
> > definitely a correlation. I'm not sure about the causation,
> > but I remain open to demonstration -- which he seems to
> > point to when he talks about use of 3rd world lands -- but
> > whether they are better off with a market for goods, or worse
> > off because of it, I'm not yet totally convinced.
> >
> > (That is the only small issue in an otherwise fine post, though.
> > Of course, I eagerly anticipated some concrete alternative,
> > which I failed to find. But his analysis and his allusion to
> > information sources gives me hope...)
> >
> > As for banks and businesses sweeping away all obstacles, he is
> > dead on correct. The new keiretsu are, in effect, nation states
> > that are making geopgraphical boundaries obsolete. But is this
> > a good thing?
> >
> > In the 60's, I was sure that it was. At that time, I saw
> > *nationalism* as the fundamental enemy to human welfare.
> > Religious fantacism is a terrible thing, to be sure, but it
> > is only when it is combined with nationalism and governmental
> > power that it becomes demonizing. I saw then, and still see
> > now, that "nationalism" is the most likely cause of war and
> > catastrophe".
> >
> > Global corporations, because they cross boundaries, serve as
> > an effective antidote to war. But is the cure worse than the
> > disease? That is an open question. Having seen for myself the
> > misery that corporations are capable of inflicting in the name
> > of profit -- unless and until restrained by an act of government,
> > I am certainly not enthralled with government by corporate
> > entities.
> >
> > All of which brings me back to the separation of business and
> > state which is such a fundamental necessity. But it is perhaps
> > interesting that if it is business which makes war obsolete, it
> > may well be business which provides the motivation for the U.N.
> > to turn into something useful. Of course, that will take 50
> > years or so, but the end result may well be a global magna carta
> > that takes power out of the hands of the wealthy aristocracy,
> > and returns it to the people once and for all.
> >
> > His point about market and its destructive effect on community
> > is equally well taken. Here, I resport to equilibrium theory as
> > the "right" way to think about the social contract. In fact, it
> > was with just this idea in mind that I eagerly read this message.
> >
> > Again, he is dead on when it comes to the commitment to growth,
> > which eats up resources -- not to mention that deading effect on
> > people who are financially enslaved to corporations, for lack of
> > any means of subsistence without them. (For this, I see 3-D
> > farming as a possible remedy.)
> >
> > Pollution, too, is a major concern. Granted, it is fueled by a
> > market economy. And like rats who overrun a ship, we may well
> > eat find ourselves with no usable environmental resources of any
> > kind.
> >
> > Hey! He references "a substantial and growing literature on the
> > basic form a sustainable society must take", and "small market
> > gardens (located) throughout cities". Now he's talking my
> > language! (Everytime I see a bare lot, I think about how a
> > great forest farm could be growing there.)
> >
> > And this, I love: "we could easily organise a much higher
> > quality of life at a much more relaxed pace than most of us have
> > now, with no reduction in the availability of modern medical or
> > other important technologies..."
> >
> > It sounds like quite a few people are thinking in the right
> > directions. Now if we can only get some concrete proposals and
> > take steps to get there...
> >
> > When I get the exercise equipment company off the ground, I
> > expect to have the wherewithal to focus on 3-D farming, music
> > instruction, and community building. In fact, it was during my
> > last start-up attempt that I reflected how beneficial it would
> > have been to have no rent to pay, and few groceries to buy. At
> > the moment, though, I'm as trapped as anyone else.
> >
> > If only I didn't have so many interests! (There was a great line
> > on one of the Law & Order shows last night -- "You're an
> > intelligent person and you have a lot of interests -- that you
> > spend a lot of money on -- so you don't have any.")
> >
> > Perfect description. But one thing the great philosopher Vin
> > Diesel said at the Agora (aka Leno's place) was "invest in your
> > dreams". And *that* appears to be the antidote to overspending.
> >
> > (Actually, he said "invest in yourself". But I've followed that
> > advice for years. Unfortunately, it lets you pamper yourself to
> > death, indulging any interest that comes along -- but "invest in
> > your dreams" implies a focus on a goal, so that all expenditures
> > dovetail to help you get where you want to go, and be who you want
> > to be.)
> > :_)
> >
> >
> >
> > Jack Park wrote:
> > >
> > > >From: Thommandel@aol.com
> > > ><< Relayed by Doug Everingham from an attachment to a message
> > > >From: "Alan Kerns" <akerns@tpg.com.au>
> > > >To: <ERANet@yahoogroups.com> [Economic Reform Australia list]
> > > >Subject: Re: [ERANet] Ockham's Razor - Uncertainty and Demonising - Eva Cox
> > > >Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 4:12 AM
> > > >----------
> > > > >From Eva Cox's radio program
> > > >Ockham's Razor -- transcript at
> > > >http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s658492.htm
> > > ><http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s658492.htm> or listening
> > > >to it (in RealAudio format) from
> > > >http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/audio/ockham_25082002_2856.ram
> > > ><http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/audio/ockham_25082002_2856.ram> [15
> > > >minutes]
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Ockham's Razor - 16/02/1997
> > > >
> > > >Let's Scrap The Economy
> > > >
> > > >Summary:
> > > >
> > > >Ted Trainer explains why the most important item on our agenda should be
> > > >almost completely scrapping our economy, along with the theory it's based
> > > >on.
> > > >
> > > >Transcript:
> > > >
> > > >Robyn Williams: The economy is on everybody's mind, as usual, sometimes to
> > > >the exclusion of most other affairs. So you'll be diverted, perhaps, to
> > > >learn that the title of this week's Ockham's Razor talk is "Let's Scrap the
> > > >Economy." No prisoners taken today.
> > > >
> > > >Well Dr Ted Trainer lectures in Social Work at the University of New South
> > > >Wales, and here's his case for abolition.
> > > >
> > > >Ted Trainer: I want to explain why the most important item on our agenda
> > > >should be almost completely scrapping our economy, along with the theory
> > > >it's based on.
> > > >
> > > >Firstly, this economy is obviously not solving our problems. In the last
> > > >four decades, real income per person in rich countries like Australia has
> > > >more or less trebled. Even in the recessed 1980s, Australia's GDP increased
> > > >by one-third in real terms. Now one would have thought that such large
> > > >increases would have enabled us to totally eliminate problems, such as debt,
> > > >insufficient casualty wards and especially poverty. But in fact it's
> > > >difficult to nominate one social or economic problem that's not become much
> > > >more serious. Unemployment, inequality and poverty increased, and we now
> > > >have perhaps 40,000 homeless people in Australia. In the 1980s Australia's
> > > >rural debt and our foreign debt both multiplied by about ten. In addition,
> > > >just about all indices of social breakdown and the experienced quality of
> > > >life deteriorated.
> > > >
> > > >It's not just that a system with that record is not likely to suddenly start
> > > >providing well for all. This economy causes the problems now literally
> > > >threatening the destruction of our ecosystems and our social cohesion in
> > > >coming decades.
> > > >
> > > >Consider firstly the market system. Markets do some things well and there
> > > >might be an important role for them in a satisfactory economy. But at
> > > >present, market forces are given far too much power to determine production,
> > > >distribution and development. It's no exaggeration to say that most of the
> > > >human misery and environmental damage in the world is directly due to the
> > > >operation of market forces.
> > > >
> > > >Access to the world's resources is grossly unjust. One fifth of the world's
> > > >people are taking and using up about 80% of all the resources produced and
> > > >two to three billion people are seriously deprived. While we squander
> > > >resources on affluent consumer lifestyles, between one and two billion
> > > >people have insufficient food and unsafe drinking water. As a result, more
> > > >than 30,000 people die every day.
> > > >
> > > >The main reason for this extreme deprivation and injustice is that the
> > > >global economy is a market system, and in a market most of the available
> > > >resources go to those who can pay most for them. That's why Australia has an
> > > >average energy consumption that is 18 times the average for the poorest half
> > > >of the world's people. And it's why more than 500-million tonnes of grain -
> > > >about one-third of the world's total production - is fed to animals in rich
> > > >countries every year to produce meat, while millions in the Third World are
> > > >hungry.
> > > >
> > > >Even more important, is the fact that market forces draw Third World
> > > >productive capacity into producing things to export to rich countries, when
> > > >anyone can see that those resources should be used by Third World people to
> > > >produce for themselves the basic goods they need. The most disturbing
> > > >example of this is the vast area of the best Third World land growing crops
> > > >to export to our supermarkets.
> > > >
> > > >Hence, we see the essential characteristic of conventional growth and
> > > >trickle-down development. That is, the fact that it results in development
> > > >which is almost entirely inappropriate to the needs of most Third World
> > > >people. When what's developed is determined by market forces, by what will
> > > >be most profitable to those with money to invest and money to buy products,
> > > >then the inevitable result will be development of the wrong
> > > >things; development mostly of what will benefit the rich. In the last decade
> > > >we have entered an era in which these impoverishing effects of the market
> > > >will rapidly accelerate, because we're now seeing the "globalisation" of the
> > > >world economy. Since the 1970s it has become
> > > >increasingly difficult for corporations and banks to find enough profitable
> > > >investment outlets. Now they're solving this problem by a huge effort to
> > > >sweep away all the tariffs and protection and arrangements which previously
> > > >enabled large numbers of people and regions to produce and sell things. The
> > > >freedom of trade has been made into the supreme sacred value and anything
> > > >which restricts the access of the big corporations and banks to resources
> > > >and markets is being eliminated.
> > > >
> > > >Why are the economic and political leaders of all countries eagerly going
> > > >along with this push for globalisation and absolute freedom of trade, fully
> > > >opening their societies to the predations of the transnational corporations
> > > >and banks? The answer is, because they have studied conventional economics
> > > >and the only way they know to try to solve their problems is to "get the
> > > >economy going", to crank up more production and consumption, and of course
> > > >the best way to get more business turnover happening is to give the
> > > >corporations even more freedom to buy and sell. The sane alternative is
> > > >never considered: that is, to make sure that Australia's abundant land,
> > > >labour and capital is fully applied to producing what we need for a very
> > > >satisfactory and secure existence, sharing the work, letting in only those
> > > >foreign corporations that will produce what we want, trading only a little,
> > > >to earn the export income needed to import only those things we can't
> > > >produce easily.
> > > >
> > > >The second major criticism of our economy concerns the destructive relation
> > > >between the market and society. A number of economic historians, such as
> > > >Polanyi, have pointed out that the more the economy prospers, the more that
> > > >desirable social bonds and cohesion are undermined.
> > > >
> > > >A society is made up of many intangible social bonds, ties, commitments and
> > > >relations - for example, bonds of familiarity, friendship, trust,
> > > >obligation, morality and tradition. These social values are contradicted by
> > > >the values and attitudes that the market requires. In a market situation
> > > >your attention is focused on maximising your individual gain and guarding
> > > >against exploitation. The market situation does not encourage you to think
> > > >about what is good for the other person or for society. The more we turn to
> > > >market relations, the less emphasis we're putting on relations that build
> > > >social concern and cohesion. As Polanyi and others have explained, in all
> > > >pre-capitalist societies, markets and the maximisation of individual income
> > > >were either of trivial significance or did not exist at all. Social factors,
> > > >such as moral codes, religion and tradition were the important criteria
> > > >determining production, distribution and development.
> > > >
> > > >This clash between the economy and society becomes obvious when we ask what
> > > >would happen if we allowed production and distribution within a family to be
> > > >determined by what would maximise sales or cash income. If Mum started
> > > >making the toast and then selling it to the highest bidder, the economic
> > > >efficiency of the domestic scene would be greatly improved, but the kids
> > > >wouldn't get much toast because Dad can bid much more than they can. In no
> > > >time, the desirable social relations which ensure that Grandpa can have some
> > > >toast, even though he is economically useless, would be replaced by
> > > >calculations about individual cash advantage. In other words, merely
> > > >economic calculations of individual advantage would drive out the social
> > > >relations and concerns whereby in a good society we do many things because
> > > >they are right, or nice, or just, without regard to whether or not they're
> > > >profitable or economically efficient. Hence we can understand why Polanyi
> > > >emphasised that the self-interest which market relations are about will
> > > >literally destroy society and its ecosystems if they're not kept under close
> > > >control.
> > > >
> > > >I come now to the most serious of all the faults built into this economy.
> > > >This is simply the mindless commitment to growth in a world of limited
> > > >resources. You cannot go on and on forever increasing output on a planet
> > > >with limited energy, mineral, biological and environmental resources. But
> > > >conventional economists on the Left and the Right refuse to think about
> > > >this.
> > > >
> > > >It's recently been estimated that each person in Sydney requires 4.5
> > > >hectares of productive land. If all the world's people were to live as
> > > >people in Sydney do, we would need three times all the productive land on
> > > >the planet and for the expected world population of 11-billion by about
> > > >2070, we'd need six times that area. Clearly it's impossible for all to live
> > > >as we do.
> > > >
> > > >The greenhouse problem provides another powerful argument. The
> > > >Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that we must cut global
> > > >carbon emissions by 60% to 80%. If we cut it by 60% and share the remaining
> > > >energy among the 11-billion people expected after 2060, each of us would
> > > >have to get by on only one-eighteenth of the energy we now average in
> > > >Australia. Most people have no idea that we must face up to such huge
> > > >reductions in consumption if we are to solve the big problems.
> > > >
> > > >But we have an economy which cannot tolerate any reduction in the volume of
> > > >production or sales. In fact unless output grows at more than 3% per annum,
> > > >there are serious problems, especially of unemployment. It is obviously not
> > > >an economy that could enable us to just produce sufficient to provide us all
> > > >with good lifestyles, or a stable minimum amount of resource use and work.
> > > >
> > > >If you examine potentially recoverable resource estimates for minerals and
> > > >fuels, you will find that if all people were to live as we in rich countries
> > > >do, then most resources would be totally exhausted in something like four
> > > >decades. These have been some of the lines of argument which I think show
> > > >that there is no possibility of all people rising to anything like the
> > > >living standards people in Australia take for granted today.
> > > >
> > > >During the 1980s Australia had about 3.2% per annum growth, but this was far
> > > >from sufficient because all our problems became more serious. Let's assume
> > > >4% would be sufficient for a healthy economy, and let's assume we keep that
> > > >up to 2060, and that by then all the world's people will have risen to the
> > > >living standards we would then have. Do you realise that world economic
> > > >output would then be 220 times what it is today? Even if the world as a
> > > >whole were only to average 3% growth from here on, then by 2060 total world
> > > >output would be eight times what it is now. I have just explained that there
> > > >are convincing reasons for concluding that the present amount of world
> > > >output is totally unsustainable, let alone any multiple of it.
> > > >
> > > >There is now a substantial and growing literature on the basic form a
> > > >sustainable society must take, given the limits to growth analysis of our
> > > >situation. An almost completely new economy must be eventually developed, a
> > > >Third Way, quite different from the capitalist and the big-state socialist
> > > >ways. It must be made up of many small scale, highly self-sufficient local
> > > >economies, involving much simpler and less affluent lifestyles than we have
> > > >now, and much more co-operative arrangements. There could be a role for
> > > >market forces and free enterprise in the form of mostly small businesses,
> > > >but these would have to be under strict social control. Above all, it would
> > > >have to be a zero growth or steady state economy, in which we can just
> > > >produce enough for a high quality of life for all without constantly
> > > >increasing production or consumption.
> > > >
> > > >Among the ideas being discussed and implemented are locating small market
> > > >gardens throughout cities, planting our suburbs with edible landscapes that
> > > >will provide free food and materials, decentralising much production to
> > > >small local firms, many of which might operate in craft ways, having our own
> > > >town and suburban banks with elected boards ensuring that our savings can be
> > > >invested in enriching our own suburbs, moving much economic activity out of
> > > >the cash sector and into the realm of gifts, surplus swapping and
> > > >contributions to working bees, having suburban market days and running many
> > > >things via local voluntary committees.0
> > > >
> > > >I have no doubt we could easily organise a much higher quality of life at a
> > > >much more relaxed pace than most of us have now, with no reduction in the
> > > >availability of modern medical or other important technologies, if most
> > > >people saw the desirability of restructuring towns and neighbourhoods along
> > > >the lines now being pioneered by the global Ecovillage and Permaculture
> > > >movements.
> > > >
> > > >It is astounding that although the limits to growth argument has been around
> > > >for about 25 years, there is almost no public discussion of it in Australia
> > > >today. The historian Toynbee analysed the rise and fall of civilisations in
> > > >terms of their capacity to respond to challenge. What can we say about our
> > > >prospects when we show almost no ability to even recognise that an economy
> > > >committed to affluence and growth is totally incompatible with ecological or
> > > >social sustainability.
> > > >
> > > >Robyn Williams: Ted Trainer lectures in the Department of Social Work at the
> > > >University of New South Wales. If you'd like to read more about the details
> > > >of a sustainable society according to him, you can get hold of his two
> > > >recent books: one is "The Conserver Society" published by Zed Books; and the
> > > >other is Towards a Sustainable Economy, by Envirobooks. (03)