In case nobody caught the gist of my first post here, the boursuasi are alive and well. I recall my economics professor dismissing the term and calling them "money-bags" instead when we covered Marx, and he was on tenure too. Puzzling, coming from a liberal college where I went.

So, do you think that "the desire for more" is the basic driving force in human development? Some people think it is. Should we suppose that human beings have been hungering for more for the last... let's say, 100,000 years? It seems like our species has spent far more time living in equilibrium with needs, wants, and resources than in incessant hankering after more.

Most of our history has been lived as hunter gatherers whose societies were very stable and who did not accumulate goods. The couldn't carry more than the absolute minimum gear needed to carry out hunting, gathering, and consuming food. Studies of contemporary hunter gatherer societies reveals people who are reasonably healthy, and reasonably happy. Our basic formula for success has been 'travel light'.

Of course, we want 'more'; just because you ate well at breakfast doesn't mean you will not want 'more' at supper time.

The idea that humans hunger for ever more and better goods, experiences, and services is a treadmill made to serve corporate purposes, not an inherent human desire. "Always more" is the motto of capitalism, which requires ever expanding sales to maintain profitability. This, by the way, is capitalist theory, not Marxist theory. It's just a fact: corporations can not achieve steadily increasing profitability on the basis of flat sales and consumer contentment.

Henry Ford understood this. His very short list models (any color you want as long as its black) were not made to be bought and enjoyed for decades. Ford engineers strove to produce a vehicle that would not last too long. Why? Because if everyone who wanted a car bought one, and the car lasted them for decades, Ford would be out of business fairly soon. Ford soon had the company of many auto manufacturers who offered an array of cars in various styles, colors, luxury, or utility. They all followed the same principle: car sales can be driven by encouraging dissatisfaction with what you have in hand in favor of what is at the showroom. And we haven't gotten to 1930 yet!

So, this idea of driving sales by the whip of dissatisfaction wasn't invented in 1901. Sales of fashionable goods (clothing, shoes, jewelry, home furnishings) had been applying this principle to the affluent bourgeoisie for a while; let us say, during the 19th century. The further back you go, the fewer people there were who had sufficient resources to engage in discontented buying (we are talking about very small numbers).

You know this: there is a huge industry devoted to the careful, 24/7 cultivation of discontentment. It is so ubiquitous that it might seem invisible. It is certainly so ubiquitous that it is inescapable short of becoming a cloistered monastic or falling into a coma. — Bitter Crank

:up: +1, yes, and amen. Thank you Professor Crank. That about sums the last 100,000 years (as far as I’m concerned). Excellent point about planned obsolescence being an integral factor from the very start of industrialization. It is extremely wasteful. I’ve thrown away 3 microwaves and 2 TVs in the last five years. Multiply that times a billion or so. This must change if we want to live somewhere other than a garbage dump.

It would seem to require a rather drastic shift in values, and that takes time, probably much more time than we have left before the shit hits the fan. Oddly, I think people would generally be much happier if their values were shifted toward seeking meaning and happiness, rather than wealth, status, and distraction. In a culture that values meaning and happiness, "rationing" may not feel like rationing but simply living cooperatively for mutual benefit. — praxis

Yes. I would agree. Adding the small point that I don’t think any major shift will happen until “the shit (shift?) hits the fan”. Many want change, and many work towards improvement. But there is a cultural and economic logjam of epic proportions. Those on top absolutely don’t want things to change, unless it is to make it even more in their favor, if that can be imagined. I am not a revolutionary, and think that violence is usually counterproductive, poisonous, and a complete waste. It might be an ecological disaster that shakes things up so that new ideas are seriously considered, not just given lip service. Will we still buy from Amazon if the real Amazon forest has been turned into grazing land and parking lots?

As a semi-trained economist I'm just going to throw this out here:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-offshore-wealth/super-rich-hold-32-trillion-in-offshore-havens-idUSBRE86L03U20120722

Private wealth held offshore represents “a huge black hole in the world economy,” Henry said in a statement.

Yeah, go figure. — Wallows

As a semi-potty-trained economist, I am inclined to agree with that assessment. A vacuum “Black hole” created by greedy people with their heads up their black holes. The thing about black holes is that they really suck. Money is just more power and leverage to the 1%. It’s all just a game, it seems. It is food, clothing, and shelter to us. Somebody please convince me that the system isn’t broken beyond repair, that we aren’t in complete sociological, economic, and planetary meltdown... despite flying AI drone smartphones that can read your mind and stock your refrigerator. (wait... is that a good thing?)

What brought us to this state is the triumph of the American Empire (let's call it AE). AE became the dominant global power in the aftermath of WW2. And following the collapse of the USSR, AE's global supremacy was basically unquestioned. However, America doesn't like to think of itself as an empire. AE doesn't conquer nations or set up colonies. Rather, it rules by trade. AE dominates other countries by giving them no other option than to business with it. And when you do business with AE, you do business on AE's terms.

In a lot of ways, America does a much better job at ruling than its imperial predecessors. It goes to war less frequently than the Romans did, and it doesn't violently impose its culture upon other peoples the way the British did. But because Ae rules through economic might, it's caused wealth and power to become nearly synonymous. And that, I think, is why we are so obsessed with filling our coffers and raising our GDPs no matter the human cost. Under the current global order, money makes the world go round. You can't do anything without money. All the noble objectives you want to accomplish require an enormous amount of money. And in order to get that money, you need to act like a greedy soulless capitalist. — Dusty of Sky

Thanks for the insightful post. I might quibble slightly about the US violently imposing its culture. But I get your point that business sets the pace. Multi-national corporations are ultimately loyal to and answer to no one, not stock holders, governments, or concerned citizens. They are more machine than human.

where are the resources, both economic and energy, not to mention scientific and technological, going to come from to build all those robots? And where is the money going to come from to radically transform all the existing infrastructure to serve the new regime? And where is all the money to support all the humans who will be out of work going to come from? Where is the political cooperation, globally speaking, going to come from? Where is the willingness to sacrifice our precious lifestyles, not to mention the knowledge as to precisely how and to what degree to do it going to come from? — Janus

I’m not a believer in robot saviors-servents either. Not that I think robots will turn into Terminators. It’s the ones pulling their strings, the man behind the curtain, that is more worrying.

I’m not a believer in robot saviors-servents either. Not that I think robots will turn into Terminators. It’s the ones pulling their strings, the man behind the curtain, that is more worrying. — 0 thru 9

It's the human robots that you gotta be real scared of.

Somebody please convince me that the system isn’t broken beyond repair, that we aren’t in complete sociological, economic, and planetary meltdown... — 0 thru 9

Well, on the bright side, you, I, and everyone else currently alive won't see the full impact of climate change. Most likely the next generation won't either. So, there's some time to prepare for the worst. I'm going to harp the Keynes saying that we're all dead in the long run. Kinda sucks; but, it is what it is.

*cries inside*

Well, everything is becoming automated. The Luddites were aware of this impending doom to their welfare and claimed that machines should be banned from becoming the means of production, yet here we are enjoying ourselves due to these machines that are sorting your mail or building new electric cars.

Keep in mind that things are progressing in a manner where costs are decreasing or remaining stable comparatively to inflation. This is just me pointing out the fact that technology, productivity increases, and efficiency gains - through automation and other factors - are causing deflationary tendencies in the economy, not inflationary. — Wallows

I can appreciate the thinking and optimism behind this, and your other posts. And I can see the logic, and partially agree. Science, knowledge, and technological advancements have both a neutrality and a goodness. Keep the knowledge and technical abilities, lose the rapacious and devouring modus operandi. Easier said than done, by far. It’s not just the climate, oil, deforestation, and pollution problems, bad as they may be.

There is something fundamentally wrong with our culture. Not with humans, since humans, in one form or another, lived upon the earth for millions of years as relatively harmlessly as apes, snakes, and squirrels. Survival of the fittest involves killing, but only a small-scale “necessary” killing for food and reproduction. We were the first to evolve to be smart enough to commit planetary murder-suicide. (Even putting aside nuclear weapons for the moment). We are the first to be at war with everything, including the earth itself. By war, I mean a violent conquering operation. If there is coal we want in a mountain, level it completely and leave a pile of gravel. Because we NEED IT, dammit, no time for politeness. Rape is the name for it, on a large (and therefore invisible) scale. There are many Sarumans, not just one evil wizard as in The Lord of the Rings. It is measurable ratio here: the injustice and violence that a culture unleashes on the earth, will be unleashed upon its citizens in due time. And will render such culture ultimately unsustainable on many levels. We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on, and developing more powerful saws every year.

Humans as a species can’t go backwards. We can’t live in caves again, or even mostly in small villages. Huge cities are here to stay. But we are smart and inventive enough to learn from our mistakes and find solutions. The solutions are already out there, like seeds waiting to sprout. There are those who would kill the sprouts as a contender to their throne. Our weakness is not our intelligence, but our stubbornness, fear, and isolation. These weaknesses are encouraged by the powers that be. But as powerful as they may be, it is not them who must be overcome. It is the ideology behind them that is antiquated, toxic, and overdue for a change...

People want too much, and can't carry the burden of it.
It's always pushing and pulling; an overstressed heart.
A heart attack is a learning experience for some and a death sentence for others. — Shamshir

Yes, interesting metaphor. A heart clogged with stuff, but desperate for love and a feeling of belonging. Can we be open again? Can we cast off, like torn and soiled clothing, the tiresome and strained ways that no longer work for us? (That is, if they ever really helped us at all).

I can appreciate the thinking and optimism behind this, and your other posts. — 0 thru 9

Thanks.

Science, knowledge, and technological advancements have both a neutrality and a goodness — 0 thru 9

Oh; but, how the Japanese circa the end of WWII disagree here, along with the scientists that created the atomic bomb felt guilt and repugnance at their own creation.

Because we NEED IT, dammit, no time for politeness. — 0 thru 9

No, no, no... We want it. Needs have been met a long time ago. Wants and values are endlessly manufactured out of thin air. It's amazing really how malleable expectations are, and how this endless lack is perpetuated ad infinitum...

It is measurable ratio here: the injustice and violence that a culture unleashes on the earth, will be unleashed upon its citizens in due time. And will render such culture ultimately unsustainable on many levels. We are sawing off the branch we are sitting on, and developing more powerful saws every year. — 0 thru 9

Yes, let us hope we go electric in a short enough time.

But we are smart and inventive enough to learn from our mistakes and find solutions. — 0 thru 9

These problems are being passed on to the next poor fucks to deal with it. The can keep's on being kicked down the road here.

Our weakness is not our intelligence, but our stubbornness, fear, and isolation. These weaknesses are encouraged by the powers that be. But as powerful as they may be, it is not them who must be overcome. It is the ideology behind them that is antiquated, toxic, and overdue for a change... — 0 thru 9

Hmm, this is somewhat distorted. Homeostasis eventually tells us, through self-regulation that we have enough, yet we endlessly watch TV and other outlets that perpetuate our alienation and disenfranchisement with ourselves and others. And, this is why I dropped out of college. The noble institution that it once was has been perverted and subjugated to the demands of the economy. I see no solution to this problem. Perhaps, I need to become more religious to stave off the wallowing.

Yes, interesting metaphor. A heart clogged with stuff, but desperate for love and a feeling of belonging. Can we be open again? Can we cast off, like torn and soiled clothing, the tiresome and strained ways that no longer work for us? (That is, if they ever really helped us at all). — 0 thru 9

Perhaps you've heard this story.

In ancient Egypt, the hearts of the dead were measured against the feather of Maat, to determine their passage in to the afterlife. Maat being truth, law and balance.
Should the hearts outweigh the feather, they are fed to Ammut - which would lead to a second death.

Now, swap out Ammut for the ego; the constant cravings for fame, power, items and so forth.
You feed over yourself and all your time, trying to please a thing that won't be pleased, and whereas you may have lived a content life, gratifying yourself - you throw everything away and start chasing a dangling carrot. And so, by throwing life away during the act of living, acquire a second death - realised at the moment of passing away, when all your regrets suddenly start piling up.

This modern problem isn't modern at all, but it's highly saturated and it was known for ages that it would become highly saturated with the propagation of trade, which would in turn leave people to value items over themselves. People are too enamored with owning, rather than being.
Owning knowledge, rather than being knowledgeable - that's why diplomas are commonplace.
Do people not tend to put money over their own life?
When I see beggars, they always ask for money to buy food, rather than just directly ask for food.

So many are too busy trying to live, when they could just live.
Someone pursuing happiness, is simply forgetting to be happy.

It would seem to require a rather drastic shift in values, and that takes time, probably much more time than we have left before the shit hits the fan. Oddly, I think people would generally be much happier if their values were shifted toward seeking meaning and happiness, rather than wealth, status, and distraction. In a culture that values meaning and happiness, "rationing" may not feel like rationing but simply living cooperatively for mutual benefit. — praxis

I wholeheartedly agree.

Sure, but my point was more about the practical impediments to the advent of anything like total automation, impediments that make the very idea look like a wishful pipe dream, than it was about problems that might be thought to be likely to occur if such a situation were every brought to pass.

How about automating mysticism? We could have robots performing and dispensing the Eucharist for example. An ordained robot could do the whole thing: hear the confession, dispense appropriate penance and absolution, read the lesson, deliver a quick homily, chant a psalm, sing a hymn, perform the consecration of the Eucharistic meal, and then dispense it. The Robot Priest would be available 24/7, anywhere. It could be a chapel, a drive up window, a cathedral, a hospital bedside, your home, the mall, a bowling alley...

Addition advantages: The Holy Robot would obey the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, would leave the cute boys alone, wouldn't gossip, and would never have heretical ideas. When the unit was not busy, it could monitor the behavior of congregants. Further more, given robotic power, it could do something about misbehaving parishioners who thought they could get away with a little adultery or embezzlement. It would certainly be able to balance the diocese's books, while monitoring congregants and turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The shortage of priests would be solved. And, for that matter, the shortage of nuns and monks could also be solved. The Church would have that large, reliable, and low cost work force again.

Sounds like a win/win/win to me.

Reminds me of that poem you shared a while ago about the gracefully watching over of our robot overlords.

:rofl: The fertility of your comedic imagination rarely fails to amaze me Master Crank!

Wait till you see what our robotic soon to be overlords determine as what we really want. It will be spoon-feeding us drugs and blasting pornographic videos based on our irrational tendencies with respect to human desire.

Oh dear. You thought I was joking.

Frankly, I would love a good robo Zen master who could effectively lead me to realize emptiness.

I think you are joking now!

Oh yes, this trainwreck is going to hell in a handbasket. We are all doomed.

How long have we been doomed for now?

Two hundred years? More?

But now it's really going. Just now, Honestly.


Have you noticed that people of a different era could already talk of you as a cyborg? Of course, the machines you use aren't attached to your body, but still. Spending your time in communication with total strangers through various machines calledthe internet and using all those computer algorithms and electronic widgets in your life. It's not just coming, that horrible future is already here. Has been for quite some time.

I can imagine the time when we would be writing actual letters in candle light: "Dear Mr. Bitter Crank, on the letter you sent me last October..."

Wow!

Amazing the shit we get all testy about and worked-up over.

Time for TRUE INTELLIGENCE (not "artificial" intelligence) to come along and rid this planet of its worse virus.

The floor is yours, Frank A.

The question always seems to be: where will the money come from? If the money is taken from the rich, by massively increasing taxation at the higher income levels, reintroducing death taxes or disallowing inheritance (above a certain level say) and the money gained thereby is given to the poorer sectors, then sales of luxury items that only the very rich can afford will decline, and they will decline to the degree that the wealthy are, so to speak impoverished.

If these industries generally decline and some even collapse what effect will this have on the global economy, if everything is interconnected, as it seems to be, in complex, and increasingly complex, ways?

Also, if the poorer people have more money to spend, then there may be a shortage of goods, which will cause inflation. Of course that would not seem to be a problem now, with inflation at historically low levels. It's a very complex situation, but I think whichever way you look at it, the current level of prosperity cannot continue, and bringing ever more people up to that level is unsustainable.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; just to the degree that avoids collapsing current industries. But it would seem to be impossible to enforce, such a "rationing", or even quantify how austere would need to be, and people generally seem too complacently self-centered and unable to sustain voluntary cooperation for such a thing to come about through the "will of the people", anyway, even if they could know just how frugal they needed to be. — Janus

:up: Thanks for that take on the economic situation. Every adjustment to one group affects the whole. It’s mind boggling. I think nearly everyone is resistant to change, including the less wealthy. Being less wealthy myself, often I see proposed change as a trick or con. What’s the catch? I think suspiciously. There is very little trust on any side. It reminds one of trench warfare. I am for a “meritocracy”, where there is incentive to achieve and create. Still, a universal basic income, whether joined with a public works program or local currency or not, seems like an idea whose time is quickly approaching. But as I mentioned above, the situation is in a gridlock logjam mostly continued by those with the gold. And the opportunity for any significant change won’t happen as long as the “1%” keep throwing monkey wrenches into the machine, to put it politely. (And the political leaders who officially rubber-stamp the whole deal likely won’t change of their own accord, either. They are implicated in the whole process. The two party system is simply two sides of the same old gold coin).

There is no real reason, except capital gain and perhaps inertia, that each area or country cannot mostly make its own goods. (Though this would require time, effort, and investment of course). The manufacturing drain from the US for the last 40 or so years has been devastating. And the reason was purely profit-driven. The advantages of having each community more or less self-sufficient in many goods are many. More employment and less travel, fuel, and effort required for getting goods from creation to consumer. Shipping goods across the world is unnecessarily wasteful. Of course, there will still be some trade between states and nations, just not as much. And large cities will never be completely self-sufficient within their boundaries, foodwise most of all. But why on earth must most of our clothing come from the other side of the world? Also as already mentioned, planned obsolescence is a drain on the environment, everything, and everyone, except to those selling the products. But even they are affected eventually.

ssu
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa

The floor is yours, Frank A.
2 hours ago
Reply
Options — ssu

Thanks.

I've had my say.

Oh; but, how the Japanese circa the end of WWII disagree here, along with the scientists that created the atomic bomb felt guilt and repugnance at their own creation. — Wallows

Agreed. I would propose that each “tecreation” (product of technology) exists within a “spectrum of help or harm”. Some products, like lamps, have very little harm built into them. (Although almost anything could be used as a blunt weapon). Some things, like nuclear weapons, are solely for the purpose of killing. They seem unable to be “beat into plowshares”, so to speak.

Because we NEED IT, dammit, no time for politeness.
— 0 thru 9

No, no, no... We want it. Needs have been met a long time ago. Wants and values are endlessly manufactured out of thin air. It's amazing really how malleable expectations are, and how this endless lack is perpetuated ad infinitum... — Wallows

I meant that line to be read ironically... as in the character of a capitalist mining boss (with dangling cigar) or something. Sorry, should have put it in quotes. Anyway, I agree with your statement that wants are endless, even though needs are not. We are like the hungry ghosts of Buddhism.

Our weakness is not our intelligence, but our stubbornness, fear, and isolation. These weaknesses are encouraged by the powers that be. But as powerful as they may be, it is not them who must be overcome. It is the ideology behind them that is antiquated, toxic, and overdue for a change...
— 0 thru 9

Hmm, this is somewhat distorted. Homeostasis eventually tells us, through self-regulation that we have enough, yet we endlessly watch TV and other outlets that perpetuate our alienation and disenfranchisement with ourselves and others. And, this is why I dropped out of college. The noble institution that it once was has been perverted and subjugated to the demands of the economy. I see no solution to this problem. Perhaps, I need to become more religious to stave off the wallowing. — Wallows

Sorry if that wasn’t clear. May have been in semi-rant mode, lol. I meant that all of us in general have enough intelligence. The issues are more in the psychological realm than the intellectual one. And that is perhaps better not to fight against particular “bad guys”. Rather maybe better to perceive, then attempt to change/improve the system of ideas, feelings, and images. Change the mythology, if you will. (Mythology being used neutrally here as meaning a system of beliefs that underlie a culture, mostly subconsciously. Religious or not, functional or not.)

If you give the government enough power to radically redistribute the wealth in society and centrally manage all large scale economic activity going forward, they will almost certainly abuse that power. — Dusty of Sky

This characterises "government" as something malevolent, something external. It is neither. Government is simply a collection of individuals we have appointed to make decisions on our behalf, so that we don't all have to spend our lives doing so. We are the government; the government is us. Government does (should do) what we ask it to, whether we ask for a little (right-wing) or a lot more (left-wing).

@Janus
(Hope you don’t mind that I’m responding to your post from another similar thread by the same OP here, since this thread is getting more traffic. From here.)

Yes, I think what is needed is a change of consciousness as I already said. I don't know if that change will come easily, or if it will be forced upon us by dire circumstance.

Our worldview, as Charles Eisenstein points out in The Ascent of Humanity (2007) is based on the perceptions that we are all ultimately separate entities and that resources are scarce, that nature is not an abundant giver, but is "red in tooth and claw", and must be conquered and forced to yield up its secrets so that they may be exploited to the maximum. Our worldview is based on the perception of separation, scarcity and threat, which leads to our desperate, mindless pursuit of having at the expense of being in order to "protect" ourselves from nature. Another symptom of this is that accumulations of knowledge are privileged over transformations of wisdom, both practical and spiritual.

Now, contrary to that dire view of nature, it has in fact been extremely bountiful, the rise of technological humanity from the cradle of agriculture has been possible due to that profuse bounty, not the least of which has been the super cheap energy of fossil fuels. The gloabl aspect of nature's providence has been a remarkably stable climate. But that bounty is dwindling fast, while we are continuing to be stuck on the need for constant growth and acquisition.

Credit just is the promise of greater abundance in the future; but that greater abundance, barring some unforeseen technological miracle, is simply not going to materialize. How many people can accept this simple fact, though? It seems that most of humanity is still in a state of denial.

So, I think what needs to be accepted is that our super prosperous lifestyles have been a flash in the pan evolutionarily speaking, and that they will not be possible for much longer. It will not be possible to raise the poor of the third world into middle class lifestyles. Middle class lifestyles will soon be a thing of the past.

That we will be mining the asteroids and traveling to the stars, or even that renewable energy will allow us to continue our prosperous lifestyles are hubristic, deluded techno-fantasies. We should be accepting that we must change our lifestyles, probably returning to more locally based, agrarian ways and forget about globalization and world travel, since it will most likely not be possible without abundant, cheap energy, or unless population is drastically reduced.

Another helpful change of viewpoint would be to recognize that no one is really in control, it is like we are on a freight train careening out of control, inevitably to be derailed and crash, no one knows exactly when, while we party on, oblivious to what is unfolding. — Janus

Charles Eisenstein, as you mention, has IMHO some very creative, interesting, and useful thoughts on the general topic of “Western civilization” (ie. Where are we? How did we get here? Where are we going? Can we improve anything?) For me, he kind of picks up where the late Daniel Quinn left off, and builds upon that foundation, and that of Jared Diamond and others, as well. For those interested, Mr. Eisenstein generously has the excellent book you mentioned, The Ascent of Humanity, as well as several other of his works on the general topic, available to read for free on his website. (Donations graciously accepted, of course... And Amazon has a deal on the combo print and audiobook versions of The Ascent of Humanity $14.99 for both. Good deal, as the audiobook is over 27 hours long, lol!)