On Sep 17, 11:56Â am, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:> On Sep 16, 7:33Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 6:01Â pm, ta
nc.rr.com> wrote:>
>>>> I don't think that the big companies are *necessary* for the
>>>> conditions we have to exist, although they certainly reinforce the
>>>> problem. At some point, scarcity *does* arise 'naturally', and then
>>>> all the mechanisms follow that keep it going---that's the nature of
>>>> positive feedback.
>
>>>> All we can do is try to inject some reason into the system to damp
>>>> things down.
>
>>> How does scarcity arise "naturally" when humans are capable of making
>>> choices that can prevent those conditions from occurring?
>
>> Well yeah ta. It is 'natural' for humans to count on their offspring
>> to improve their existence. That's a relatively rare mechanism but it
>> isn't unique as I understand it----other critters have groups that
>> depend on kin relationships; lions and hyenas for example IIRC.
>
> Sure, the behaviour of poor people having more children is natural,
> but the conditions under which that behaviour becomes necessary are
> not. We humans have made poor choices that resulted in such
> circumstances.
>
>> What it come down to is the fact the we are in the class of 'top
>> predators' and 'top omnivores', so that we end up with other humans as
>> the major threat to our survival and reproduction. Our strength is
>> being successful troop apes, but that's our weakness as well. Â Bonobos
>> would lose the fight with chimps, so they fit into their environment
>> by limiting reproduction and reducing internal tensions. We win the
>> fight with chimps, but screw ourselves because we carry over instincts
>> that are destructive in the environment we have created.
>
> Your analysis makes sense, but we humans are different from chimps and
> bonobos in that we have the capacity to make decisions that go beyond
> our animal instincts. We have the ability recognize the insanity of
> our own behaviour (and many do) and make conscious decisions to take a
> different route.
>
> The fact that some do recognize the insanity means that those that are
> promoting the ideology of scarcity (even if unconsciously) and narrow
> self-interest have that capacity as well.
Of course I get your point ta. But I don't know what 'capacity' means
for some of these people. It just might not be insanity for them---if
you don't care about the next generations, even your own kids, then
why would you change behavior even if you weren't in denial?
-tg
The question to me is not
> whether they will recognize it, but rather will they recognize it
> before it's too late.> -tg> > One problem, particularly in the US I think, is that people have been
>>>> brainwashed into thinking that *their* kids are the ones who will be
>>>> eating Brandywines when everyone else's are eating cardboard.
>
>>>> Another is something I just read but can't remember where about how
>>>> expectations shift down over time---another factor in commodification.
>>>> People get used to eating cardboard, and then you can raise the price
>>>> for the cardboard so they get to eat even less of it. Whoopee,
>>>> progress....
>
>>>> -tg
>
>>> Interesting point. :-(
