|
U-Know! Forum » Teetering on the brink of the new Depression |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Sep 24, 2008, 13:56
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: I'll indulge in adding to my previously mentioned metaphor for humanity's stage of growth being that of a late adolescent... I agree with your basic point. But I'd make the distinction that we're talking about modern culture as opposed to "humanity". Plenty of human cultures have achieved a state of equilibrium (or a 'steady state'). The fact that modern "western" civilisation (however we choose to define that concept) has become almost globalised does indeed blur the distinction, so in that sense you're pretty accurate. At the same time though, this psychosis we're talking about is a function of our culture rather than our species. Leastways that's how I read it.
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 24, 2008, 14:30
|
||
|
Yah, I go on later to qualify that statement by saying that I'm generalizing and employing metaphors quite liberally there. It could be argued that the original inhabitants of Australia had achieved a 'steady state' of culture, but of course we're talking about a stone age culture. Earth-friendly, indeed, but not an option for us now. The world in general has all caught up with the twentieth century, and so I consider nearly everyone on the planet to be part of a larger leading edge, if you will, of the total human race. I do think that sustainability is a meme that is growing and will eventually replace the existing capitalist one, but not before we've exhausted that model and realize, in our dimly collective fashion, that we have to learn to live on, not just for the day, but for the long haul. Odd that the western world has been so full of doomsday-ism and also at the same time been so industrious. I guess if we can quit our love affair with catastrophes and settle down into a respectful arrangement between our tech and nature we might be around long enough to finally meet another intelligence, and compare notes.
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Sep 24, 2008, 16:06
|
||
|
Just as an add on to this; I read today that the FBI are investigating all the big finance houses that have gone tits up in the US recently - yer AGI's and Lehmans et al.... Creaking sound of a big can of worms being opened?
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Edited Sep 24, 2008, 16:34
Sep 24, 2008, 16:31
|
||
|
handofdave wrote: It could be argued that the original inhabitants of Australia had achieved a 'steady state' of culture, but of course we're talking about a stone age culture. Earth-friendly, indeed, but not an option for us now. Absolutely! And this is precisely why I feel that a psychodynamic approach may well be our best chance at understanding why some cultures achieve sustainability -- a steady state system -- and others (particularly, though not exclusively, our own) fail. Whenever I discuss this issue with economists, for example, I find they almost invariably make the same, specific assumption (i.e. that I'm proposing some kind of neo-primitivism... "a return to the stone age" as it were). Nothing could be further from the truth. Such a return would be completely impossible even were it desirable (which it's not). It's usually possible to demonstrate to an intelligent person that western culture -- as it is currently configured -- is inherently unsustainable. A vast amount, perhaps a significant majority, of the systems which fuel and feed our culture are reliant upon non-renewable resources. The question of when these resources will become sufficiently depleted that our support systems begin to fail is of course still open. I tend to believe it will happen sooner rather than later, but the fact that it will happen some time is almost a given. Once it's agreed that we need to transition from an unsustainable culture towards sustainability, I would argue that one of the things we should do is examine cultures which have achieved sustainability in the hope of learning something from them. This, as I said, is almost immediately construed as an argument in favour of turning us all into hunter-gatherers. As though such an absurd plan were even vaguely possible. Apart from anything else, such an assumption contains within it an extremely western-centric (and very ignorant) view of other cultures. When I reel off a list of sustainable cultures, I might include the Balinese, the Iatmul, the Australian aborigines, the North American Sioux, the Yanomami of South America and the !Kung of the Kalahari (just as for instances). To respond to that list, as I've heard many people do, by complaining that "we can't live that way" is to assume that they all live the same way in the first place. Nothing could be further from the truth. The logistics of the !Kung lifestyle, for instance, are quite different to that of the Iatmul. In fact, the !Kung are a fascinating case-study, with evidence that they have shifted between pure hunter-gatherer to nomadic herding plus hunter-gatherer, to semi-agriculture plus herding plus hunter-gatherer, and back again, on numerous occasions in their long existence. This is why Bateson's seminal essay on the subject is called "Bali: The Value System of a Steady State" (my emphasis). To call for an examination of sustainable cultures is not to call for a shift to a particular lifestyle. What is important is to discover the underlying reasons why these cultures have remained sustainable. And it's not as simple as pointing to "industry" or "technology", which many have done... there are numerous examples of pre-industrial unsustainability and there is no inherent reason (leastways, none that I'm aware of) why a technologically advanced culture could not achieve a steady-state; though obviously technology does bring potential pitfalls... the introduction of 'novelty' always brings risks as well as rewards. Bateson believed -- as do I -- that the vital element common to sustainable cultures was not to do with the logistics of their lifestyle, but was inherent in their values and beliefs; i.e. was essentially a factor of collective psychodynamics. In Freudian terms one might say that the collective psyches of these cultures have each developed a functioning super-ego and/or reality principle.
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 25, 2008, 02:41
|
||
|
(a cut n' paste) Dear American: I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude. I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you. I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transactin is 100% safe. This is a matter of great urgency. We need a blank check. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred. Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to [email protected] so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds. Yours Faithfully Minister of Treasury Paulson
|
|||
|
Moon Cat 9577 posts |
Sep 25, 2008, 10:57
|
||
Heh! V Good. I caught a brief glimpse of Dubya's "Well now, thangs are a bit wonky at the moment, but look see, dem'cratic capatilzm is still the bestest thang ever and don' you think otherwise y'hear?" address to the nation. It was literally like someone had a hand up his ass and was moving his mouth. Freeeeaky.
|
|||
ron 706 posts |
Sep 26, 2008, 03:40
|
||
|
It's Too Late To Turn Back Now... x
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 26, 2008, 07:03
|
||
|
Hey Dave (or anyone) this is all getting beyond my technical understanding but I've just seen a US professor saying a simple amendment to the proposal would break the deadlock - a clause specifying that the owners of toxic debts should indemnify the taxpayer against any losses above what are paid for them. The idea being that the taxpayer will be happy and the irresponsible lenders will suffer the consequences of their folly. What do you reckon, is there a fallacy there? The fact this hasn't been done (or the alternative, the taxpayer taking out insurance against losses) strikes me as scary - because it may imply that what I suggested before is right - that the toxicity of the debts is much, much worse than appears on paper....
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Edited Sep 26, 2008, 16:00
Sep 26, 2008, 15:55
|
||
|
well, I'm no financial wizard, which is why I live in a modest little house in a broken down town and am constantly on the brink of economic disaster. But basically, the premise behind all modern financial systems is that they trade in promises. Some promises have collateral to back them up... most do not. When promises become to big to keep, it destroys the worth of OTHER promises that are riding on the first promise. In some cases, there are up to 30 levels of promises all relying on each other to keep the economic system inflated. A series of defaulted debts in this house of cards can play havoc with the whole system, as we're seeing now. The loan makers got overconfident, the borrowers got overconfident, the fragility of the whole mess became too great to stand up and here we are. The problem with simply allowing Wall Street to collapse is in the history books. It can lead to a general depression. I'm not so sure this isn't going to happen anyway. There is no real money in this world anymore.. even the bailout is just going to be another grandiose 'promise'- another whopping sum of borrowed money.
|
|||
IanB 6761 posts |
Oct 01, 2008, 12:20
|
||
http://www.monbiot.com:80/archives/2008/09/30/congress-confronts-its-contradictions/
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
