Given "spending is irrelevant"/fiat money, why not give every poor person 30K?

[Pointedstick]

doodle, I think the problem is that don't seem to accept that some people actually like the system. You have to believe that everyone who says they like the status quo is actually a slave because advertisements beam false desires into their minds and bombard them with messages of unhappiness. But we all differ in our susceptibility to advertisements. I'm beginning to suspect from your posts that you are very strongly affected by them, and feel their impact very powerfully as thought it were a weight that you need to throw off. But some people find it easy to tune them out, or tackle their messages head-on by mocking them. Not everybody is obsessed with stainless stel appliances and granite countertops.

If you acknowledged that there may be people who actually derive real happiness from the current system, I think you'd get a lot less pushback.

[doodle]

PS,

They like the system in the same way that a baby loves its mother. It's all they know and so they cling to its breast.

TennPaGa,

Very cool! Never heard of him but just read synopsis on wikipedia. I admire anyone who tries to make this topic more palatable to people....God knows I've failed in that department. :-) This was a pretty good quote from the book that is driving at the same point I'm trying (and failing) to get across:


"There's nothing fundamentally wrong with people. Given a story to enact that puts them in accord with the world, they will live in accord with the world. But given a story to enact that puts them at odds with the world, as yours does, they will live at odds with the world. Given a story to enact in which they are the lords of the world, they will act as the lords of the world. And, given a story to enact in which the world is a foe to be conquered, they will conquer it like a foe, and one day, inevitably, their foe will lie bleeding to death at their feet, as the world is now."

[doodle]

PS,

I am also not criticizing the system in its entirety. I think there are many positive benefits that it has created for humans. Yet, I still feel that this system is slightly out of control. The answer to our present problems don't lie within the system, but outside of it. We are focusing a tremendous amount of effort and energy on producing a material solution to a set of societal problems that are largely psychological. We are refusing to ask the question "why" and are therefore left trying to achieve meaning and happiness for ourselves through activities that are unfulfilling for a large number of people (as evidenced by the persistent levels of alienation and depression in the west) while at the same time we are poisoning the environment for all the other creatures we share this planet with.

At the end of a string of "why" questions the answer ultimately is "happiness and peace". That is what everyone is looking for. Is our present system taking us in the right direction? Does more material consumption lead to more happiness and peace? If not, then why do we continue to do it? Why is economic growth and consumption paraded out by every politician as the solution to all our problems?

[MachineGhost]

There are no limits if you redefine what it means to be human. All of this technology is fine and dandy but what is the goal that it is aiming at? Where are we going with all of this and what is the point?

The point is to transcend the stifling limitations of biology, i.e. ascension or immortality.  What makes humanity unique is our volitional intelligence and the ability to manipulate and transform physical or mental reality.  If you don't care for this post-capitalist end, then jump off the ship because it is what we're sailing towards.

And since you appear to have so heavily bought into the watermelon propaganda, I'd suggest reading some real-world sanity from an environmentalist who broke ranks with the doom porn: http://lomborg.com/

[MachineGhost]

I am greatly affected by the cultural structures that surround me. My ideals of beauty for example are in many ways tied to what is portrayed as beautiful in the media. Yet, I'm aware that beauty is not an absolute concept but rather a subjective social construct. What is

Beauty is a hard mathematical fact.  It is all about ratios and symmetry: http://www.intmath.com/numbers/math-of-beauty.php

[Gumby]

And since you appear to have so heavily bought into the watermelon propaganda, I'd suggest reading some real-world sanity from an environmentalist who broke ranks with the doom porn: http://lomborg.com/

Yes, doodle, please consider the fact that your doom and gloom crowd may indeed be wrong — as they have been for centuries.

Here's a recent opinion expressing the bullish case for growth...

Consumption cannot grow forever.  Some consumption is of physical, nonrenewable resources, and the volume of cumulative nonrenewable resources consumed cannot exceed the volume that exists on Earth.  Even at a zero growth rate, resources continue to be consumed, subject to physical limits.  Thus, a worldwide slowing of growth at some point in human history is inevitable.

We are, however, nowhere near that point.

The physical environment is in pretty good shape.  It is cleaner in developed countries than it was in those same countries when they were developing, and the same potential exists in countries that are still developing today.  While some resources have been depleted so that the easiest-to-obtain supplies are gone and what remains is costly and difficult to obtain (oil being the most prominent example), that very cost makes the discovery and development of substitutes possible, necessary, and likely.  We have barely breached the surface of nuclear, solar, geothermal, wind, and tidal power.  Recent fossil fuel discoveries have been a pleasant and unforeseen surprise (though we’d be foolish to rely on more such good fortune). People have been finding cheaper substitutes for existing resources since the beginning of human history, and there is no sign that we will stop any time soon.

We have heard concerns about the permanent slowing or stopping of global growth after every depression or severe recession.  In the 1890s, the idea was circulated that everything worth inventing had already been invented.  In the 1930s, it was popular to say that capitalism had created the mechanism of its own destruction.  In the 1970s, concerns focused on foreign competition and resource constraints, and some people forecast mass starvation. Today’s concerns are no different in principle, and they are no more realistic.

The problems we face are real, but they are hardly insurmountable.

Economic growth does not come from discoveries of natural resources (although those help), but from innovations that permit us to do more with less.  That is the economist’s definition of an improvement in technology, and it is the definition we should always bear in mind.  Thus economic growth comes from people trying to better their own lives and those of their children, and it comes from the dissemination of information on how to do so across time and space.  If we can avoid the plagues of war and disease that kept economic growth from catching fire before the 1700s, we can rely on the natural desire to improve one’s lot in life as the engine of economic growth in the future, and we can expect it to continue.

Source: http://www.advisorperspectives.com/news ... tique4.php

[doodle]

There are no limits if you redefine what it means to be human. All of this technology is fine and dandy but what is the goal that it is aiming at? Where are we going with all of this and what is the point?

The point is to transcend the stifling limitations of biology, i.e. ascension or immortality.  What makes humanity unique is our volitional intelligence and the ability to manipulate and transform physical or mental reality.  If you don't care for this post-capitalist end, then jump off the ship because it is what we're sailing towards.

Hahaha! Your avatar lines up nicely with the ship captain imagery and "into the great beyond" attitude. So your story is one of "man conquers nature"? It's an interesting narrative, we'll see where it ends up. As long as you realize that you are setting up this narrative based on the philosophical view of nature as a set of conditions that we must somehow conquer and overcome.

Let's say we succeed in achieving immortality, then what? At some point you have to answer the question "why" or "to what end"? This is a deep philosophical question that touches on issues of spirituality. I know that this question maybe doesn't have a definitive answer, but if my goal on earth is to be peaceful and happy, does this "man vs. nature" narrative further that end? How does immortality change my life for the better?

Maybe I'm asking a question that only I can truly answer, yet somehow I feel that our societys obsession with the exterior and physical is leading us down a path where we get further from the truth. At any rate, investing energy into searching for answers about ourselves and this mysterious universe we inhabit is in my opinion a much more elevated and redeemable pursuit than getting lost in gluttonous material consumption. Coming back to the crux of my argument though, this particular viewpoint extolling the virtue of questioning would seem to be a natural component of a post capitalist society where ones material needs were taken care of. Once man has food, clothing and shelter it seems that he is free to turn his attention to more lofty pursuits. Sorry if this comes across as hypercritical, but sitting around the mall on a Saturday afternoon trying on your 100th pair of shoes seems like a sad perversion of mans potential and true nature. It sounds like the outcome of what happens when you drug someone into believing that their purpose on this earth is to consume and that through this avenue they will find redemption and fulfillment. Not surprisingly, the studies show that it isn't working.

[doodle]

Beauty is a hard mathematical fact.  It is all about ratios and symmetry:

Nature is beautiful, yet it is all wiggly.

[Gumby]

Beauty is a hard mathematical fact.  It is all about ratios and symmetry:

Nature is beautiful, yet it is all wiggly.

Hardly. Nature is full of symmetry, complimentary colors and golden numbers. They aren't accidental. Even birds and bees need to be enticed by specific wavelengths and symmetries. Peacocks, roses, snowflakes, tree frogs, etc all have these sorts of qualities.

[Pointedstick]

Maybe I'm asking a question that only I can truly answer

There you go. But what makes you think that those around you--your friends, neighbors, and family members--aren't doing the same thing in their own way?

[Gumby]

this particular viewpoint extolling the virtue of questioning would seem to be a natural component of a post capitalist society where ones material needs were taken care of. Once man has food, clothing and shelter it seems that he is free to turn his attention to more lofty pursuits.

You're describing post scarcity, not post capitalism. Post capitalism doesn't require that basic necessities are taken care of. Post capitalism is just a hypothetical economic model for what might replace capitalism one day.

[doodle]

Yeah, I would argue that we are post scarcity already if one measures it in terms of basic needs being fulfilled. If we never draw a line, then post scarcity is impossible to achieve because human wants (at least in our present societys culture) seem to be infinite.

At any rate, peoples happiness seems to level off once their needs are taken care of, so further consumption really does little good. Of course, that little secret needs to be kept hush hush if our present system and all it's vested interests is going to survive.

I wonder out of curiosity what would happen if when you walked into a car dealership for example,  they sat down and discussed with you all the reasons why buying this car might be a good decision as well as the the bad things, problems and other alternative transportation options at your disposal? In addition, Car commercials had to be based on reality, instead of fantasy. In other words the commercial would show morning rush hour commute in traffic instead of curvy mountain road....frustrated look on drivers face as pump meter ticks up at refueling station.....mechanical problem with you shelling out a weeks worth of pay. Do you think a law mandating reality in advertising would have an effect on consumer behavior?

[Pointedstick]

I wonder out of curiosity what would happen if when you walked into a car dealership for example,  they sat down and discussed with you all the reasons why buying this car might be a good decision as well as the the bad things, problems and other alternative transportation options at your disposal? In addition, Car commercials had to be based on reality, instead of fantasy. In other words the commercial would show morning rush hour commute in traffic instead of curvy mountain road....frustrated look on drivers face as pump meter ticks up at refueling station.....mechanical problem with you shelling out a weeks worth of pay.

Isn't that what your imagination is supposed to be for? Who cares what the commercial says! I've never bought a car based on the idea that I could drive it at 70 mph along a perfectly flat though deserted winding road through a beautiful environment.

[Gumby]

Yeah, I would argue that we are post scarcity already if one measures it in terms of basic needs being fulfilled. If we never draw a line, then post scarcity is impossible to achieve because human wants (at least in our present societys culture) seem to be infinite.

And, you'd be wrong because post scarcity is defined as...

"Post-scarcity is a hypothetical form of economy or society in which goods, services and information are free"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-scarcity_economy

At this point in time, goods and services are not free. You have to go to work and be a productive member of society if you want goods/services. The fact that we all worry about inflation only confirms that things cost money.

[doodle]

Beauty is a hard mathematical fact.  It is all about ratios and symmetry:

Nature is beautiful, yet it is all wiggly.

Hardly. Nature is full of symmetry, complimentary colors and golden numbers. They aren't accidental. Even birds and bees need to be enticed by specific wavelengths and symmetries. Peacocks, roses, snowflakes, tree frogs, etc all have these sorts of qualities.

Yes there is alot symmetry in nature...but also a great deal of asymmetry as well. ...mountains, trees, rivers, etc are hardly geometric shapes.... and even many animals are not perfectly symmetrical...crabs as just one example have two differently sized claws. Beauty is subjective, but you could define it maybe as the balance between symmetry and asymmetry. Too much symmetry is boring, and too much asymmetry, while interesting, lacks order and harmony.

In general howver, if you look at the shapes that humans build things in...squares, triangles, rectangles etc. these are shapes that you dont often perceive when you go for a walk in the woods where objects are much more "wiggly" so to speak. Caves don't come in perfect rectangles and mountains and trees aren't triangles and circles. Now at a molecular level symmetry is pervasive, but that wasnt the scale I was referring to. A tree swaying in the breeze is beautiful, because of its wiggly shape...not its molecular structure.

[doodle]

MT,

You make a lot of good points in your "surf the wave" post....but I think you start to drift out of reality into what I would call "libertarian fantasyland" which I have discussed before as overlooking the interdependency and interconnectedness of nature. This fundamentally myopic view of reality is what leads libertarians over at Von Mises Institute to praise the wisdom of hands off governance in the Tao Te Ching, while completely overlooking the deep interconnectedness and oneness that that book speaks of. Depending on the level of magnification, MT is either an organism unto itself, a small part of a much larger organism, or just a random amalgamation of smaller cellular organisms for which MT is the greater "universe". We are working with somewhat arbitrary lines and concepts when we talk about me and mine and you and yours. It is kind of like the question of asking where does the body stop and the head begin? People have a vague idea that it is somewhere around the top of the neck, but there isn't one agreed upon specific point. And besides, even if you could draw a line you can't seperate them because they are interdependent.

There is an ultimate futility to pursuing consumption in the same way that there is ultimate futility in bothering to eat because you're still going to die someday.

Just because something ultimately doesn't really lead to anything doesn't mean that it's not worth doing or wouldn't be enjoyable to do.

The ascetic has a tendency to look in on the world with a bit of scorn, but what is the point of living if not to live?  Perhaps some consume too much, but I am not concerned with the way other people choose to live.  I am only concerned with how I choose to live. 

I like the idea of leaving people alone to make their own decisions about how to live their lives in the hope that they will do the same for me.

When you say to leave people alone and "only concern yourself with how you live" I say that sounds fine and dandy, but that it is absolutely meaningless. The choices that I take as an individual have repercussions on society. The choices that society makes have huge repercussions on me. In a sparsely populated world of 500 million people (as things were a few hundred years ago) that concept is maybe possible. In a technologically advanced world of 7 billion that concept is pure fantasy.  If I want to go surfing like that guy in the picture, but the beaches have been turned by a consumption crazed society into toxic waste dumps, then I am being restricted and do not have freedom to live how I choose.

[Gumby]

Caves don't come in perfect rectangles and mountains and trees aren't triangles and circles

You are describing non-living objects that don't need to use attraction.

A tree swaying in the breeze is beautiful, because of its wiggly shape...not its molecular structure.

Big deal. We all admit that beauty can exist within asymmetry. But, keep in mind that the acorn, the leaves the pine cones all have symmetry. The laws of attraction tend to require aspects of symmetry — it's well documented. Babies prefer people with symmetric faces. Men are more likely to open a door for a woman with excellent bone structure and perfect symmetry than one without. These are evolutionary constants built into our genome and the genome of nearly every living animal that has eyes — it's not some invention of advertising.

Anyway... WTF is this discussion about anymore?

[Gumby]

When you say to leave people alone and "only concern yourself with how you live" I say that sounds fine and dandy, but that it is absolutely meaningless. The choices that I take as an individual have repercussions on society. The choices that society makes have huge repercussions on me. In a sparsely populated world of 500 million people (as things were a few hundred years ago) that concept is maybe possible. In a technologically advanced world of 7 billion that concept is pure fantasy.  If I want to go surfing like that guy in the picture, but the beaches have been turned by a consumption crazed society into toxic waste dumps, then I am being restricted and do not have freedom to live how I choose.

And yet, you haven't offered any real solutions. You're just incessantly whining and complaining about society's flaws — which we are all aware of. If we were to all sit around in our underpants living a MMM lifestyle, it would not solve any of the problems with society. In fact, all it would do is produce a society of deadbeats who made no effort to provide for their own children or improve humanity.

[doodle]

When you say to leave people alone and "only concern yourself with how you live" I say that sounds fine and dandy, but that it is absolutely meaningless. The choices that I take as an individual have repercussions on society. The choices that society makes have huge repercussions on me. In a sparsely populated world of 500 million people (as things were a few hundred years ago) that concept is maybe possible. In a technologically advanced world of 7 billion that concept is pure fantasy.  If I want to go surfing like that guy in the picture, but the beaches have been turned by a consumption crazed society into toxic waste dumps, then I am being restricted and do not have freedom to live how I choose.

And yet, you haven't offered any real solutions except for whining and complaining about society's flaws. If we were to all sit around in our underpants living a MMM lifestyle, it would not solve any of the problems with society. In fact, all it would do is produce a society of deadbeats who made no effort to improve society.

When asked to define enlightenment the Buddha could only give a negative answer. He could tell you what enlightenment "wasn't" but he couldn't give a positive definition of it (partly because he didn't want to create an image of something that people would attach themselves to).  In that same regard, I don't have an answer for what society should become, but I can certainly say what I think it "shouldn't" be.

I'm not arguing that consumption is bad any more than I am arguing that eating food is bad. Nevertheless, just as an obese person experiences many negative repercussions by looking towards food for salvation,  our society and leaders overwhelmingly look towards growth and material consumption (that usually has a dollar sign attached to it) as a solution to all of the Earth's problems. This particular philosophy has many negative consequences as well, and beyond a certain point is not leading to any increase in our physical, mental, or emotional well being. Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system. In other words the system inculcates you with beliefs and attitudes that ensure the survival of the system. You feel a love and attraction for the system like a baby is attracted to their mother (even though she might be an abusive hideous hag).

I am offering a solution....I am saying "not this". That is a wonderfully libertarian answer in a way because it leaves the options open. :-)

[doodle]

Caves don't come in perfect rectangles and mountains and trees aren't triangles and circles

You are describing non-living objects that don't need to use attraction.

A tree swaying in the breeze is beautiful, because of its wiggly shape...not its molecular structure.

Big deal. We all admit that beauty can exist within asymmetry. But, keep in mind that the acorn, the leaves the pine cones all have symmetry. The laws of attraction tend to require aspects of symmetry — it's well documented. Babies prefer people with symmetric faces. Men are more likely to open a door for a woman with excellent bone structure and perfect symmetry than one without. These are evolutionary constants built into our genome and the genome of nearly every living animal that has eyes — it's not some invention of advertising.

Anyway... WTF is this discussion about anymore?

I'm acknowledging the beauty in both symmetry and assymetry.  You seem to be saying that "beauty" is something that only exists in symmetry and I think this is wrong. They compliment each other. This interdependent, complementary reality is something that I feel libertarianism unfortunately overlooks. The "yin and yang" so to speak that creates our reality. There can be no me without a you, no tall without a short, no strong without a weak. So really, how "strong" is strength if it is so dependent on "weakness" to exist.

As to the topic of this conversation, I would reference my post immediately above....this one is a distraction. :-)

[Gumby]

Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system.

Not sure if you noticed, but every living being on the planet has its own treadmill that is set in a permanent position.  It's called life.

I am offering a solution....I am saying "not this". That is a wonderfully libertarian answer in a way because it leaves the options open. :-)

Nice try. But, that's not a solution. It's still just whining and complaining about society. You've offered no solutions.

[doodle]

Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system.

Not sure if you noticed, but every living being on the planet has its own treadmill that is set in a permanent position.  It's called life.

I think you fail to overlook the feedback mechanism that exists within the system between influencer and influencee.

Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system.

I am offering a solution....I am saying "not this". That is a wonderfully libertarian answer in a way because it leaves the options open. :-)

Nice try. But, it's still just whining and complaining. You've offered no solutions.

What? If someone is punching someone else and you tell them to stop,  could they also say that you haven't given them a solution? I am simply saying that massive growth in material consumption (as our leaders are proposing) is not the solution to problems that our country is facing. That is a classic inside the box solution to a problem that requires "outside the box" thinking. Maybe the problems of our system cannot be solved by applying solutions that originate within the problem causing system to begin with.

Again, what is the problem? The primary one is the idea (religious faith in our present system) that increasing economic growth and material consumption beyond a certain point will lead to more peace and happiness. You can plot happiness and material consumption on a chart and see this isnt true. It is nothing revolutionary. So I am saying that if this is the case, we should invest our energies in pursuits that lead to more health and happiness. Working longer hours at the Foxconn plant in China to produce twice the amount of widgits and sending 30,000 dollar checks out to everyone so that they can buy them probably won't help much.

[Gumby]

Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system.

Not sure if you noticed, but every living being on the planet has its own treadmill that is set in a permanent position.  It's called life.

I think you fail to overlook the feedback mechanism that exists within the system between influencer and influencee.

If you say so. Last time I checked, every being on the planet has its own treadmill rituals. Penguins walk the same hundreds of miles each year to lay their eggs and then walk back to return to the sea. Salmon spawn and return to their same breeding grounds to spawn and then die. Humans find attractive mates and then work hard to provide for their families who, in turn, provide for them when they age. It's the circle of life. Always has been, always will be.

I am simply saying that massive growth in material consumption (as our leaders are proposing) is not the solution to problems that our country is facing.

Ok. Great. You've made a rather obvious point. Are we done? Anything else you need to add? Because unless you have a solution beyond that opinion, there's not much else to say.

[Pointedstick]

Yet, we continue in our ways because what we are walking on is not a "path" where we can decide to stop or take a turn, but rather a "treadmill" which has been set in a permanent on position by a self reinforcing system.

Not sure if you noticed, but every living being on the planet has its own treadmill that is set in a permanent position.  It's called life.

I think you fail to overlook the feedback mechanism that exists within the system between influencer and influencee.

I don't think he is at all. But it doesn't change anything. No organism lives in a perfect bubble where none of its actions affect anything else and no external constraints impose conditions upon it. That feedback mechanism between influencer and influencee is present for all organisms and their environments. This is simply what biological life is all about.

It's hard to see what could possibly satisfy your desires… an existence in which we are totally free to pursue whatever idea we can think, but without affecting our environment, and in which our environment can't affect us? Perhaps you should look into video games! 

[l82start]

we can all live like shire hobbits in our round houses, doing simple farming and animal husbandry to keep us fit and connected to our environment, with plenty of free time to hang out at the pub drink, dance, sing and flirt with the cute girls...

it doesn't sound all that bad actually...   

the problem with post consumerism in the real world is in order to have the free time to pursue art, music, inventing,  and simple living we need the consumer society that creates the products that make that lifestyle possible, agrarian living is actually very time consuming and involves a lot of hard work without those modern world tools and know how..