Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: By the way, I recognize that population growth is leveling off. But consumption in the rest of the world is ramping up at the same time.

Automation (robots) and autofabrication (3D printing) will take care of it.  Necessity is the mother of all invention.

At some point most of us won't even work for a living anymore since both our basic and hedonistic needs will be provided essentially free or so low cost that it is inconsequential to accounting.

doodle wrote:That depends on your definition of consumption I guess.

Doodle, what are you even talking about anymore? This conversation is over as far as I can see. You haven't really explained what it is you're complaining about now, beyond advertising.

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:That depends on your definition of consumption I guess.

Doodle, what are you even talking about anymore? This conversation is over as far as I can see. You haven't really explained what it is you're complaining about now, beyond advertising.

I think I'm just waiting for you to say uncle at this point.

doodle wrote:

Gumby wrote:

doodle wrote:That depends on your definition of consumption I guess.

Doodle, what are you even talking about anymore? This conversation is over as far as I can see. You haven't really explained what it is you're complaining about now, beyond advertising.

I think I'm just waiting for you to say uncle at this point.

Why? I already won. You admitted that people, including yourself, crave hedonic consumption. I established that you were wrong in that individuals don't consume exponentially. And you admitted that the developing world's utilitarian and hedonic consumption is the main problem going forward.

If people indeed crave hedonic consumption, the way they crave food (your words, not mine), — and they require utilitarian consumption — then there is nothing anyone can do to stop people in developing countries from consuming more things going forward.

Checkmate. Time for bed.

doodle wrote: I work with a lady who goes to Japan every year. She thinks it's the absolute shiznit! I would be okay with a Japanese style of living (only much worse....does that mean like With occasional visits by Godzilla and Mothra) if it meant saving the planet for ecological disaster and cutting work weeks to 15 hours.

I don't think we could expect the same level of neuroticism that they have for consumer electronics because those are huge export markets fed by the West.  And I would expect suicide rates to be even higher, because no one would be able to ignore their hedonistic desires and not feel tortured.

doodle wrote: I harpoon dolphins for a living during the summer and hunt elephants in the off season. Where do I rank on your list of evil? Don't hit me with the moral relativism. Some behavior is reprehensible. Targeting children with cigarette and alcohol ads (Joe Camel and Bud Frogs) probably makes its way on that list.

Morality is often relative (some would say always).  It's constantly changing and has never remained constant in an area or population for a significant amount of time.  There has also never been a time when humanity has shared a common sense of morality, making the vast majority of us "wrong" at any given point in time.

This is not to say that we aren't capable of making moral judgements of the behavior of others.  It's just advisable to at least be somewhat cognizant of the fact that your morality is a result of your point of view, not some universal code (unless you draw morality solely from religious texts, in which case good luck and enjoy your stonings).

If find your description of reprehensible "immoral" behavior to be heavily dependent on the vast wealth that you enjoy.  I would hope that you would be open minded enough to not suggest the Inuit people hunting whales and seals in order to survive, or the Kenyan farmers shooting elephants to protect their crops or families are committing "reprehensible" behavior.  But then again, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if that were the case either.

RuralEngineer wrote:

doodle wrote: I harpoon dolphins for a living during the summer and hunt elephants in the off season. Where do I rank on your list of evil? Don't hit me with the moral relativism. Some behavior is reprehensible. Targeting children with cigarette and alcohol ads (Joe Camel and Bud Frogs) probably makes its way on that list.

Morality is often relative (some would say always).  It's constantly changing and has never remained constant in an area or population for a significant amount of time.  There has also never been a time when humanity has shared a common sense of morality, making the vast majority of us "wrong" at any given point in time.

This is not to say that we aren't capable of making moral judgements of the behavior of others.  It's just advisable to at least be somewhat cognizant of the fact that your morality is a result of your point of view, not some universal code (unless you draw morality solely from religious texts, in which case good luck and enjoy your stonings).

If find your description of reprehensible "immoral" behavior to be heavily dependent on the vast wealth that you enjoy.  I would hope that you would be open minded enough to not suggest the Inuit people hunting whales and seals in order to survive, or the Kenyan farmers shooting elephants to protect their crops or families are committing "reprehensible" behavior.  But then again, I wouldn't be particularly surprised if that were the case either.

Moral Relativism is actually a sticky subject. I was just lashing out. No offense. However, there is a point where I think morality potentially stops becoming relative....torturing babies for fun. It would be difficult to say that the morality of this is subjective.

Besides there is the obvious contradiction that arises when one forces the morality of moral relativism on someone. In that case, all morality is relative except for their morality.

doodle wrote: Besides there is the obvious contradiction that arises when one forces the morality of moral relativism on someone. In that case, all morality is relative except for their morality.

I'm curious… how does one force moral relativism on another?

By society forcing me to live in a world where morality is relative and not absolute.

Moral relativism is a philosophic viewpoint. If the world is governed by this view, and I have to live in that world, then I am being forced into living under that philosophy. Again, all morality is relative except the absolute morality of moral relativism.

Moral relativism sounds all dandy until you take it to absurd extremes when it breaks down and morality becomes absolute again for all practical purposes...I can't think of a practical example where torturing a baby for fun could be considered a morally relative action.

You really need to re-read the parts of How I Found Freedom In An Unfree World that deal with accepting society in its current imperfect state. Let go of your anger! There's so much good in this world that I hate to see you so bitter over the things that are out of your control, like the prevailing moral standard.

Sometimes I get frustrated...but I inevitably come back to the fact that this is all a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or maybe it signifies everything? I don't really know. 

Im an open mind and my ego is pretty docile; although I might explode from time to time it is more an act than anything else. I'm just playing my role in this drama production.

I am the quantum particle. Its hard to pin me down because I don't really have a position... which is probably why engaging in debates is pretty pointless for me other than for sport.

doodle wrote: By society forcing me to live in a world where morality is relative and not absolute.

Moral relativism is a philosophic viewpoint. If the world is governed by this view, and I have to live in that world, then I am being forced into living under that philosophy. Again, all morality is relative except the absolute morality of moral relativism.

Moral relativism sounds all dandy until you take it to absurd extremes when it breaks down and morality becomes absolute again for all practical purposes...I can't think of a practical example where torturing a baby for fun could be considered a morally relative action.

Morality is itself just a philosophic viewpoint.

The fact that the whole world doesn't adhere to your personal philosophy upsets you? That's...unfortunate. I foresee much disappointment in your future.

You can take moral relativism to whatever extreme you want. It doesn't mean all things are equally good. Just that we can disagree and that there's no objective way to determine who's right. I'm still willing to fight and die for things I feel are moral.

You may want to look up the difference between meta-ethical and normative moral relativism.

The fact that the whole world doesn't adhere to your personal philosophy upsets you?

But you are also asking me to adhere to your personal philosophy...which is that morality is relative. I might be able to formulate my own personal morality under this system, but I still must adhere to the overarching philosophy that it is all relative. So in the end, you are still forcing your philosophy on me.

Hahahaha!!!......this discussion has more twists than a pretzel factory. I also think we probably have a new record length thread here.

You got me Doodle. You discovered my dastardly plan to impose moral relativism on you (lol, irony much?).

Now if you'd be so kind as to explain how I go about doing that, I'll hop right on it.

doodle, you appear to confuse being exposed to information with that information being forced upon you. You've done it a lot before with advertising, and you're doing it right now with RuralEngineer's position on moral relativism. Have you explored this interesting assumption yet?

doodle wrote:

The fact that the whole world doesn't adhere to your personal philosophy upsets you?

But you are also asking me to adhere to your personal philosophy...which is that morality is relative. I might be able to formulate my own personal morality under this system, but I still must adhere to the overarching philosophy that it is all relative. So in the end, you are still forcing your philosophy on me.

If I describe what I believe to you, aren't you still free to believe what you want to believe?

Aren't all beliefs absolutist in the sense that we believe that our beliefs are true?

Do you have any beliefs that you do not believe to be true?

Part of my point is that the reason we have a marketplace of ideas is so that people can figure out for themselves what makes sense to them and what they want to believe.  The alternative to a marketplace of ideas is an entity attempting to corner the market on ideas and impose a standardized idea on everyone.

I would much rather figure out my own beliefs than have someone else figure them out for me.

MediumTex wrote:

doodle wrote:

The fact that the whole world doesn't adhere to your personal philosophy upsets you?

But you are also asking me to adhere to your personal philosophy...which is that morality is relative. I might be able to formulate my own personal morality under this system, but I still must adhere to the overarching philosophy that it is all relative. So in the end, you are still forcing your philosophy on me.

If I describe what I believe to you, aren't you still free to believe what you want to believe?

Aren't all beliefs absolutist in the sense that we believe that our beliefs are true?

Do you have any beliefs that you do not believe to be true?

Part of my point is that the reason we have a marketplace of ideas is so that people can figure out for themselves what makes sense to them and what they want to believe.  The alternative to a marketplace of ideas is an entity attempting to corner the market on ideas and impose a standardized idea on everyone.

I would much rather figure out my own beliefs than have someone else figure them out for me.

How would this hypothetical of moral relativism work in the real world? If I torture my baby child and you come into my house and forcefully restrain me to get me to stop, couldn't I argue that you have no right to come onto my private property and tell me what I can or cannot do with my own flesh and blood. Maybe under my own conception of morality, torturing my baby is preparing it for the later pain it will inevitably suffer in life. Under my morality I also believe that the baby is my property because it came out of my body.

How do you have a society of law and order if everything is relative?

Seriously Doodle, Wikipedia is your friend. I'm not going to copy and paste the difference between meta-ethical and normative moral relativism for you.

doodle, MT is talking about your own personal moral compass, which of course is the only thing you have any control over.

You really need to take the weight of the whole world off your shoulders. You appear to feel the need to either fix every societal problem you see, or rage about your inability to fix it. This isn't a healthy attitude. The only person you can control is you, and you're only one man.

There are many ways single individuals can effect broad change in the world, but ranting on online message boards about the unsustainable exploitation of the earth's resources isn't among them. You're just going to burn yourself out and get bitter.

If you really want to do some good on the societal level, my suggestion is to invent a product that features radically decreased energy or raw material consumption compared to its already existing cohorts, and then start a business to sell it.

Or start a discussion group in your local library to teach people MMM principles, using as a hook your skills to help reduce unnecessary costs that most people don't even know they have.

Or anything productive and useful, really. But let go of the notion that the only way you can change the world is by first changing people's thought patterns to match your own. People change their own minds when they're ready, and you can even get them ready by showing them how to perform actions beneficial to them that encourage that mindset change. But going on about how imaginary exponential consumption is unsustainable and how Marx is misunderstood is likely to achieve poor results not only here, but probably everywhere else you try it, save for places where people already agree.

Doodle, I am not trying to be rude, so I mean this with all due respect. But, if you haven't received the message yet, we are asking you, politely, to stop trolling (or whatever you want to call it). You are asking questions and provoking responses simply for the sake of having an argument and we all have better things to do than sit around playing "verbal gymnastics".

RuralEngineer,

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

So again, how does this work in reality? This sounds like science fiction to me. Again apply it to my hypothetical. How does a society of moral relativists deal with this if you must tolerate my behavior?

If I torture my baby child and you come into my house and forcefully restrain me to get me to stop, couldn't I argue that you have no right to come onto my private property and tell me what I can or cannot do with my own flesh and blood. Maybe under my own conception of morality, torturing my baby is preparing it for the later pain it will inevitably suffer in life. Under my morality I also believe that the baby is my property because it came out of my body.

Don't feed the Troll.

Gumby wrote: Don't feed the Troll.

Gumby, I am NOT a troll. I think I have asked a serious question.  But with all do respect they can make the decision for themselves. You say that you believe in letting people make decisions for themselves, well stop trying to influence them. Let them decide.

I think Moral Relativism is a serious question and it strikes at the heart of the libertarian philosophy. These are important questions. Yes, I engage in verbal gymnastics and what we do here ultimately has no impact. Heck, I'm not even sure what we do on this planet has any impact. I am exploring ideas with freely participating people. If you silence me, you only prove the point that I'm trying to make in this thread. 

For those who are particpating, I think the discussion (its a better word than debate I think as debate implies winner and loser which is not where I'm trying to go) is moving down this path at the moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertaria ... taphysics)