On Sep 17, 12:38Â pm, tg
earthlink.net> wrote:> 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
You only change your behaviour when the existing behaviour no longer
"works". For some people, the learning process is slower and longer.
As I mentioned below, the only question is how far it will go before
the required learning takes place.
It's not that people don't care about their kids or future generations
-- not consciously anyway. But they do invent elaborate, kooky stories
to rationalize their behaviour. Otherwise, we're back to the "people
are just bad" theory.
All I can do is continue to act sanely, and hope the ranks of the sane
are increasing at a greater rate than the insane.
> Â 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. :-(
