I wonder if it were feasible to dismantle these dynasties... like you can only pass on $10 million or less per person. — Judaka

Yes, this is perfectly possible. After the excesses of the late 19th century gilded age, the progressives in the US passed much higher taxes on wealthy people. It was really the "Reagan Revolution" starting in 1980 where wealth taxes were cut and we headed back into another "gilded age". Here's a chart showing the 20th century history of economic inequality.

I may have to read Capital myself and see what he is saying precisely. — Judaka

Good idea. I haven't read it myself--just excerpts and summaries by others. Not reading books I recommend others read is not commendable, but... one can only get so much done in a day.

I assume at least some ultra-rich will make some businesses and be a bit productive, invest into companies and make them more productive... things like that. The main problem appear to be the social and political implications. — Judaka

Well, taking Warren Buffet and Berkshire Hathaway as an example again, Buffet has nothing to gain by wrecking his various corporate assets. If Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad is badly run and starts falling apart, it won't do Buffet any good at all. Same for all the various businesses which capital owns: They need to be operated successfully to hold their value.

It seems more logical to assume that increased capital can only increase economic growth. — Judaka

One of the means by which capital became so very fat was by getting tax law changed to cut estate taxes (allowing more to pass to heirs after death) and slash income taxes for the richest bracket. These changes starve governments of revenue, and displace the tax burden onto those less and least able to pay.

Government plays a role in economic growth, but in order to do its part, it needs adequate revenue. How does it stimulate growth? By building and maintaining big infrastructure -- roads, airports, locks and dams, canals, ports, railroads, and the like. These projects facilitate economic activity and put people to work, increasing prosperity and broad economic activity. With adequate income the government has subsidized education (K - PhD) to maintain a strong intellectual base. In many countries the state operates national health insurance which controls costs and improves broad health outcomes [which is why, without a national health insurance plan, the US compares so poorly to other countries on health outcomes per dollar spent].

So: diverting income to the super rich through favorable taxation plans starves government and burdens the working classes, all of which cuts the standard of living over the long run. Here's an example: the states used to support colleges and universities at about 75%. This enabled higher education to offer large numbers of people affordable tuition, and at the same time do research and public service. Now, most states pay only 25% of university costs which means much higher tuition, fewer public service programs, less pure research, and more corporate involvement.

Starved of taxation, government (federal down to local) have difficulty delivering the services which are critical to maintaining economic growth (g).

Can you explain your reasoning as to why this leads you to believe inequality leads to lowered economic growth? I am not saying you're wrong but I don't quite understand it.

What ramifications are there for r>g for the mid-level entrepreneur that make him different from the ultra rich? — Judaka

People in my age group -- I'm 72 -- grew up in the post-WWII boom. This boom lasted from the end of the war up to about the end of the 1960s, give or take 15 minutes. During this time economic growth (g) was actually pretty high. I don't know what the percent was, but millions of upward mobile minded people were able to buy houses, cars, have children, go to college, and create some new wealth for themselves. Around the beginning of 1970 (maybe 1973, the Arab Oil Boycott) the boom fizzled out. Since 1980 the trend has been toward continually increased inequality, and we are now back to where we were in 1910--very unequal.

I am not an economist, please understand. As I understand it, the very rich who own capital assets (like land, large shares of corporations, and so on) can count on a steady income from their property--at the rate of 4% to 5%. they don't have to do anything, really, to keep the cash flowing. They tend to become risk averse. They don't want to rock the boat of their wealth. They invest safely in assets that will return a steady and reliable yield.

Entrepreneurs, on the other hand, who either borrowed money or obtained it by some other means, can't afford to sit on their assets. They want to find business opportunities where their $100,000 investment will increase rapidly -- not at 4% a year, but by by 15% a year, at least for a while. In order to get high rates of return, one has to take more risks, which means betting on innovative technologies which may or may not pay off.

Entrepreneurs--for better and worse--drive economic activities in new directions -- toward the electric car; toward the new app; toward the high volume low cost airline; toward the non-farm method of making meat (cultivating cell cultures in a vat, rather than cell cultures on the hoof) and so on. Micro-breweries are a recent innovation -- never used to exist. All the apps on a smart phone never used to exist.

Some old businesses will always be around: Mining and smelting metal, for example; agriculture and food/fiber processing; transportation in one form or another; forestry and wood products; construction, etc. But take a look at construction: Maybe the printed house will be the next big thing to invest in -- it will be risky, but it might pay off for some.

Economic growth doesn't come from owning large blocks of Manhattan property. (Many New York skyscrapers are on leased land which has been owned by the same family for generations.) It comes from what is done on top of the property--by entrepreneurs.

Take Warren Buffet, owner of Berkshire Hathaway -- one of the richest people in the world. Buffet invests in businesses that have already proved themselves to be successful -- like Dairy Queen, for instance, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad. He is very unlikely to invest in a company making "beef" in a factory. When Buffet dies, his heirs will come into a huge fortune which will carry little risk.

The difference between the entrepreneur and the rich is that the wealth of the rich is pretty much guaranteed. The wealth of the entrepreneur is on thin ice and has to be looked after. The entrepreneur can go broke overnight if he isn't careful; the rich are in no risk of going broke (short of some sort of cataclysm).

Entrepreneurs can become very rich if they are very lucky. If they are just somewhat lucky, they may make a decent income. If they are unlucky, their investment will break even. If they are very unlucky, they may have to consider which dumpster will offer the best pickings.

The best way to get rich is to be the sole heir of a fabulously rich old man with heart disease. (So I have heard, anyway.)

I'm all in favor of social welfare programs, but welfare is not socialism. Socialism entails industrial democracy where the workers own the economy and direct its activities. (Most people are workers, so you'll be a participant.).

Automation and "artificial intelligence" is already cutting into white-collar and managerial jobs too. Labor, in general, is viewed as an unfortunate expense, so the more the entrepreneur can get rid of employees, the better. The work-force liquidating entrepreneur is short sighted, however. Who will buy his products and services if large swaths of the population are jobless and impoverished?

The solution proposed, nowhere implemented, is the guaranteed living wage, where the government pays the many jobless a fixed sum. This enables the jobless to take care of themselves, and it provides them with an income which ends up being spent on goods and services -- driving the economy.

Finland recently terminated a 2 year experiment of giving a random group of unemployed people a fixed sum every month. The control group did not receive the funds. The upshot is that the recipients of the cash were happier and healthier after two years, but were still not employed for the most part. Neither was the control group employed.

Do you have any resources about economies becoming less productive because of inequality? I'd like to learn about that if it's true. — Judaka

The problem of concentrated wealth in a nutshell is this: The uber-wealthy, who control such a large share of capital, have little incentive to innovate or invent. Continual growth of their already great wealth, and inequality, is pretty much guaranteed, short of a revolution or disaster (like WWI/the great depression/and WWII) which dispossessed them of much of their assets.

According to French Economist, Thomas Pikkety... r > g, where r = return on capital, and g = economic growth. In the long run, (like the last 250 years) r has been about 4% to 5%, and g has been about 1/10 of 1% -- a little bit above zero. So, obviously, those who own capital (land barons, traditionally, but also big share holders in Amazon or the RAMJAC Corporation***) get richer and richer, and everybody else does not.

Here is a PBS News Hour segment on Pikkety (a little over 6 minutes)

Here is another -- Bill Moyers speaking with Paul Krugman about Pikkety's book CAPITAL. (24 minutes)

NOTE TO @HANOVER: Pikkety is not a Marxist.

***RAMJAC Corporation is an invention of Kurt Vonnegut. In the novel Jailbird, we discover that RAMJAC Corporation owns 19% of all the wealth in the United States.

I was speculating on what might be the case in 200 years, per your request. I think overstating the case would sound like "In 200 years several city-satellites of a million people each will orbit the earth." OR "in 200 years the earth's human population will have disappeared."

How can one overstate any 200-year estimation? Do you know what will exist in 200 years? If Thomas Jefferson had speculated about life in 2018, could he have over- (or under) estimated anything? He hadn't seen the first train in the US. (Jefferson had seen a steam boat in the late 1700s). Could Jefferson have predicted the ball point pen? An electric iron? Digging oil wells (started just 30 years after his death)? The means and end of slavery? A light bulb. A simple box camera?

Given that the various governments, corporations, and NGOs are unable to mobilize themselves and the population to sharply reduce the use of fossil fuels, it seems inevitable that we will continue to add a lot of CO2 and methane, and other green house gases to the atmosphere for quite a while. Technological turn-arounds are possible, but generally take quite a stretch of time. By the time we achieve significant CO2 reductions, it will probably be too late.

Am I unaware of the progress we are making? I am aware. I know that many electric utilities are now on track to produce a significant share of electricity (like...25%) from wind and solar within the next 5 to 7 years. I also know that oil is relatively cheap and most people are still buying new cars. The population is still growing, and people aspire to higher standards of living--both of which promise an enlarged CO2 output.

We didn't have a lot of time to make alternative arrangements when Global Warming became a thing back around 1985, and that was 35 years ago. Now we are chewing through the 10 years that we thought we had to make big changes, and we haven't made them yet (on a local, et alone global scale).

So, yes, I am pessimistic about our chances of avoiding the negative consequences of run-away global warming. However, I'm not expecting eco-armageddon next week. (more like... maybe 2050?)

One thing that is for sure, Capitalism isn't going to solve the problem.

In 200 years? in 2219 we will be living in an altogether different environmental regime. IF we continue to use hydrocarbons and exhaust the supply, continue to burn coal, continue to to pursue consumption over conservation, then global warming will have been beyond control for roughly 200 years. The climate will be warmer, oceans much higher. The asian glaciers will have melted (and will no longer feed the major asian river systems). The population of the planet is likely to have already dropped significantly and its lower carrying capacity will continue depopulation (natural depopulation will be brutal.)

Of necessity, the most useful technology will be simple and or primitive compared to the Hanover's BEST 100 list. As James H. Kunstler has shown, our whole productive system is predicated on cheap hydrocarbons. For its complex molecules and abundance, there is no substitute for petroleum. (Coal? Don't bother.)

Predicting what economic system will prevail in 200 years is out of the question. We don't know how much turmoil, upheaval, and chaos we will be dealing with 100, 150, or 200 years from now.

The 100 best list is, as they say, for "tech-loving super nerds".

Sharpening the axe doesn't make the axe new and different. A lot of the stuff on the list is just sharper axes presented as stunning innovation--aka, bullshit.

The driving force behind all this axe sharpening is increased sales of axes that look, and may even be, slightly sharper. The first smart phone was an improvement over the simple cell phone that was 99% a phone, and not much else. The second through nth smart phone are just sharper axes.

Now, if XYZ Corporation came up with an actual, usable anti-gravity device (not just a magnetic levitating system) that would be worth writing about. A small pickup, no.

There was nothing "end-times" about my post. What I said was that quantum computing would not solve existential matters. That is a long ways from saying "the end is at hand." There are lots of things we can do with existing technology to improve food, population, drinking water, and other matters.

Maybe the end is near. If it is, we'll soon find out. My personal feeling is that our collective demise is somewhere off in the distant future.

It's the ecology, stupid. — unenlightened

Absolutely.

Ecology hangs over every discussion of the future and is often--quite amazingly--ignored. The rate of global warming, ecological disruption, sea-level rise, more severe swings in weather events, and so forth cut across projections of future economic growth.

Even educated, technologically sophisticated people, have difficulty getting their minds around the concept of "peak oil", let alone the implications. We are now on the long down-side of the curve. Oil isn't just energy, it is also the cheap feed-stock of a vast share of economic activity. Hydrocarbons have no attractive replacement. You can walk instead of driving, but your high-tech walking shoes are made out of oil. Forget about oil-derived polyester -- you can use cotton. But cotton for all depends on many tractors using oil and cheap fertilizers. So, you can wear leather instead. Alas. There are just not enough animal skins to cover 8 billion people.

What to wear will be the least of today's young people's problems as the planet's ecology changes from familiar and predictable to strange and chaotic.

It's not just a matter of revolutionary discoveries, but also in novel ways of using existing knowledge. — Hanover

Yes, your cell phone integrates old radio technology with a miniaturized computer. A rule of thumb is that it takes about 50 years for a new technology to be fully deployed. Large clunky cell phones made their practical debut around... 1980, so... 40 years on, they are pretty well deployed everywhere.

I am speaking loosely, but the first useable computer was during WW2, and since the transistor made them ubiquitous, I don't see an equivalent novelty in the last 70 years. Nuclear physics, relativity, electromagnetism, evolution are all old stories that are being tweaked, nothing more. — unenlightened

If there is a "next big thing" it isn't on the horizon. Quantum computing will not solve the problem of too many people, not enough jobs, too little money for the price of bread, global warming, and other such existential matters.

My understanding of this is that the economic potential from late 19th - early 20th century inventions and new technology have now been fully exploited. Computers (and automation which depends on computers) is being exploited, and has not reached full exploitation. Whether labor-eliminating technology represents a heap of potential or a pit of deprivation isn't entirely clear. I'd bet on the latter, because a lot of jobs remain that machines and computers could do just as well.

The idea of distributing corporate income gains from automation as a guaranteed income is a long ways from being

Elon Musk is developing astro-mining. It's a several trillion dollar-industry calculated as of late. — Christoffer

Elon Musk is doing no such thing. He's thinking about it, but lots of people have thought about it.

Inequality is rising but overall everyone is better off. Capitalism will trend towards greater socialism as the capacity for government spending and spending efficiency increases and people are replaced by increases in efficiency and technology. — Judaka

Inequality is an major economic problem quite aside from moral concerns. Concentration of wealth in the hands of a 1-2% of the population leads to less productive economies because too much capital is in too few hands.

Capitalism trending toward greater socialism? What sort of hocus pocus thinking is that?

"I think bigger is better" (I may disagree with that some portion of the time, but I just realized that I am speaking with someone who prefers the company of men and this may have a loaded meaning). — ZhouBoTong

Thank you for catching that double entendre.

"pizza is better than hamburgers" — ZhouBoTong

You emphasize the importance of modifiers and context. If two executives of a frozen food company are discussing products, they might agree that "Pizza is better than hamburgers" as a product that can be frozen, reheated, and still appeal to consumers. If, on the other hand, two people are in the food court, the one who likes Italian-type flavorings might say that "pizza is better than hamburgers". On the other hand, the lactose intolerant person is likely to think that "hamburgers are better than pizza".

My personal opinion is that DIGIORNO® frozen pizza -- "It's not delivery, It's DiGiorno!" is better than several brands of made-to-order pizza that are delivered, like Dominoes. I have had definitive pizza shop product that was exquisite, but that place is no longer in business. (see Nobody ever went broke underestimating American taste.)

"Americans are better than everyone" — ZhouBoTong

True, but don't tell the French that. Les Français sont facilement ennuyés. (see One Thousand Years of Annoying the French)

The thing about language is that it works. True, one needs to be fluent in a language to handle all the multiple layers of meaning and usage for which any language can be deployed. The "quirkiness" of language trips up the language learner, and it doesn't matter what their native or new language is. But quirkiness is also what makes word play fun, and allows for double entendres, and the like.

We can analyze language until hell freezes over, and as long as you enjoy doing that, great. Meanwhile billions of people wield language effortlessly 24/7. We are designed to wield language. Babies start learning it immediately (at least, they are listening, soaking it up).

apart from avoiding essentialist associations between a gender and some sort of preference or behaviour... — TheWillowOfDarkness

I am much more of an essentialist than a constructionist, so essentialist associations are not something I would be anxious to avoid.

But, we are not so genetically programmed that there is no room for a range of behaviors to exist.

There aren't really any stereotypes though, just people being themselves (or not, as the case might sometimes be — TheWillowOfDarkness

What do you mean, "there aren't any stereotypes"? Your statement is contrary to the facts. Lots of stereotypes exist, some positive, some negative, and they seem to be quite influential.

The article got my back up very early on: "And now researchers have discovered it also can promote ethnocentrism, potentially fueling xenophobia, prejudice and violence."

I doubt it very, very much. There aren't any "ethnocentrism" hormones or neurotransmitters; no chemical to make people prejudiced. There are neurotransmitters, hormones, and other chemicals that are required to express/experience love, lust, hate, generosity, greediness, and so on. The brain can not play tic-tac-toe or add 2+2 without neurotransmitters being on hand.

If people spontaneously spout ethnocentrism or sexism, or whatever, it is probably an instinctual (genetic) trait. Neurotransmitters don't "cause" thoughts as much as they facilitate the processing of thoughts.

It would not be surprising if a hormone or neurotransmitter played contradictory or peculiar roles. I use eyedrops to control intraocular pressure (glaucoma) which is derived from a female hormone. Beats me. If you give a man testosterone to boost circulating male hormone (in hopes of getting buffed faster) it often backfires because if the testicles notice there is enough or more than enough T in the blood, they cut production. Better to let them make it themselves.

All it's really doing is decoupling the idea certain behaviours or preferences are the exclusive nature of one gender or another. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well put, but I am not enthusiastic about this decoupling.

Hey, I'm 72. At some point one has to decide which cutting edges to sit on, and which cutting edges to avoid. Decoupling sex and gender roles is too edgy at this point. Once upon a time the idea was more attractive than it is to me now. In the first flush of gay liberation -- early 1970s -- this sort of thinking was de regueur. Many flushes later, 40 years worth, I'm tired of the topic

How will all this come out in the wash? Most individuals are going to track standard heterosexual gender/sex role stereotypes and live happily ever after. Some people, some of them homosexuals, are likely to trip over stereotypes until they can sort out the variables. Most gay men are going to do what most gay men do now -- adjust standard heterosexual male stereotypes to homosexuality and live happily ever after. (I don't speak for dykes--waaay too risky.)

It's interesting how minor (not an insulting term) thinkers can have a major influence. My minor thinker is Daniel DeLeon, who died... 1914? He bounced around, like Fresco did, and eventually settled into the editorship of the Socialist Labor Party -- now a largely moribund organization. My exposure to him was through some former SLP people who started the New Union Party, which lasted for about 35 years. The SLP/NUP idea is that, "in a democratic society, it is far more sensible to use democratic means to further socialism than to resort to violent revolution. (The Bolsheviks, whatever else they were, were not residents of a democratic state.) We advocated militant unionism, public education, party organization, and eventually (dream on) winning over the populace to industrial democracy.

I noticed that Fresco worked with Earl "Madman" Muntz. Muntz, I know, was involved in the development of television early on, and among other things 4 track tape. (Unless you are into audio visual stuff, 4 track tape isn't very interesting.)

There are a lot fo ideas floating around out there that can, should, and ought to be at least tried, if not applied, but there are also a lot of fossilized vested interests that won't, can't, and will never stop blocking progress.

As that famous progressive Republican Senator, Hiram Johnson, said about identity wars, "The first victim of the gender war is truth."

on what empirical or philosophical plinth do we stand — Baden

Upon whatever plinth we are precariously perched, I propose we are probably preaching to the persnickety practitioners of professional nit picking. I want the whole pillar.

Oh no they're not! — unenlightened

OK, OK, but people do rather regularly lie to themselves and others.

But is it not also possible to discuss together why you each think your way is the best? — unenlightened

If we really are leaving it to the Badenses and Hanovers to raise their children as they see fit, then there is no reason to discuss which one is the best. If the Badenses end up beating their children, and the Hanovers regularly send their children to bed without supper, we'll just have to let the blood spatter and malnutrition fall where it may.

I would suggest that gender neutrality as described is rather refraining from imposing an ideology of what character is appropriate to each sex. — unenlightened

They who claim to be gender neutral are probably lying, quite possibly to themselves as well as to others.

There are regular doubts raised about the validity of social sciences, psychology included. A good deal of what passes in the social / behavioral sciences for science is, in fact, doubtable. Psychologists are good at measuring cognitive performance, for instance. They can tell you just how, and to what extent, a traumatic brain injury or disease has impaired mental functioning. Tests and measurements in cognitive functioning (learning, memory, problem solving, etc.) have good validity and reliability measures.

The assessment of personality is a much less solid area of psychology--despite its being the most interesting, or maybe because it is the most interesting. Measuring personality traits is dicey, and the validity and reliability of personality tests is not all that great.

Then when it comes to theorizing about personality, and proposing what a psychologist or psychotherapist should work toward, psychologists can not be unbiased, and nobody else can either. "What are desirable and undesirable human traits?" can not be a neutral question. Psychologists have both an official and unofficial policing function. Sometimes the policing function is specific (psychologists working in forensic settings) but most often the policing function has to do with policing the boundaries between what a psychologist or therapist thinks are acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, as he or she experiences it in the social context. The authors of the APA document would not be free of any of these limitations.

"Psychology" is an professional practice; it is also a business. The profession has needs: maintaining some sort of consistency across hundreds of thousands of practitioners is one need. Maintaining the need for psychologists is also a need. The more deviant conditions that can be identified, the better. Consequently the DSM gets bigger and bigger with every revision.

Professionals--with 1 or 2 expensive post-baccalaureate degrees, and either membership in or aspirations to join the upper middle class--come with class biases too, which may be quite discordant with working class biases.

The upshot: Take the recommendations with numerous grains of salt.

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves..."?

Look at socialism/communism. If you read it, it sounds perfectly noble but it's not practicable because we're, by nature, greedy, selfish, power-hungry, etc. — TheMadFool

I too think there is such a thing as human nature, and it is true that we often demonstrate that we are greedy, selfish, power hungry, and worse. Unfortunately for your negative conclusion, we also demonstrate that we are generous, altruistic, peacefully inclined, and better.

The fundamental problem of our human nature is that we are driven toward conflicting goals. We want to walk through the valley of death and fear no evil but, unfortunately, we sometimes find that the only way we can do that is to be the meanest son of a bitch in the valley.

There isn't any way we are going to change our perversely contradictory nature. The best we can do is arrange society in such a way that being the meanest son of a bitch isn't the best way to get ahead. Predatory capitalism is one of several meanest-son-of-bitch systems. Surely we can do better, without resorting to some utopian scheme.

We are certainly aware that bad policy put into effect can have disastrous consequences.

What Brexit seems to mean is that a lot of people are going to get totally screwed.

The only way it would be true that nothing is better than, larger than, hotter than, faster than... is if we lived in a two dimensional universe (which is impossible to imagine). We would have no perspective. We couldn't perceive that less is more, bigger is better, good food is better than bad food, or anything else. Comparison would be out of the question because we wouldn't see differences. Quality and quantity wouldn't exist in a 2-dimensional world.

Fortunately for us highly opinionated, judgmental, comparison prone beings, we do live in a 3-dimensional universe. Make that 4-dimensional if you include time. Better than, worse than, before, after, useful, useless, good, bad, and so forth exist in this world.

Since we are capable of perceiving moral differences, and because we have moral preferences, we can say that Gandhi is good, Hitler is bad, (or visa versa if you are THAT kind of person), and, yes, people are better than ants.

It's possible to get all tied up in word games, and some people like that. "People are more than ants." Well, that may be true, but "There are more ants than people."

For my money, good food is better than bad food. Bigger is better. People who are honest, decent, kind, and loving are better than people who are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels. Ants are fine in their place as long as they don't get too big and move in with me.

Whether any of this would still be true (or false) if a supernova destroyed earth tomorrow, is not clear. We'd have to try it and see what difference a vaporized earth made to our discussion. Do you happen to have a handy star about to NOVA?

However I think it would be irresponsible to leave that world for future generations — hachit

Irresponsible, indeed. Most unkind -- but that is what we are doing. People who are in their 20s or younger, and everyone who will be born later, are being screwed out of a decent future. I'm glad I'm 72 and not 22, because I think the remainder of the century is pretty much down hill in terms of the environment and global warming, (and continuing down hill in the 22nd century and later).

James Howard Kunstler, who writes about ecology, global warming, peak oil, and so on, wrote a quartet of novels under the heading "A World Made by Hand". Kunstler's story is post-collapse, post apocalyptic. He doesn't dwell on the event that finally collapsed society, but here we are in a small, up-state New York town, representative of where the world is at. No oil, no electricity, no internet, no telephone, etc. etc.

People are required to live (at best) at a 19th century level (not that bad, really) except they don't just naturally know how to do that. They have to figure it out. There is of course a huge population loss. Even though the people in the novels understand what causes disease, they don't have the means to deal with infection, for instance.

Despite all that, the novels are fairly up-beat. In the end, enough people survive well enough that they can have hope -- provided they are very disciplined, and maintain the steep learning curve of 19th century survival skills. (In some ways, "19th Century" has to refer to the first quarter -- not the last quarter of that century. In other ways, people will be forced back into the 17th century -- simpler technology. Unfortunately (and this is the message of another very good novel, Earth Abides) succeeding generations will know less and less about the 20th/21st century ways and means. The most pessimistic approach to this problem is A Canticle for Leibowitz which is set in a desert monastery after nuclear war. Society, such as it is, has been pushed back to the medieval period. It takes roughly 2000 years to fully recover, at which point they have another nuclear war. Great novel.

For instance, one can make soap out of used fat and a caustic extract of wood ashes -- but one has to know how to do it (otherwise one just ends up with gritty grease, not soap). One can preserve meat without freezing, but one has to know how, exactly, to do that -- otherwise, one will die of food poisoning (botulism, for instance). It's not hard to preserve cabbage as sauerkraut, but if not done correctly one ends up with a stinking mess--the sort of thing one finds in the distant reaches of one's refrigerator every now and then.

Will humanity die out? No, I don't think so -- but a lot of people might wish they had died sooner, once social collapse gets under way.

Well, I'm in favor of eliminating capitalism and replacing it with a hybrid variety of industrial democracy, socialism, and anarcho-syndicalism, but capitalism, capitalists, and their defended system are so deeply entrenched, the chances of such a hybrid coming about make a snowball's chance in hell seem downright rosy.

Is there any way to "unentrench" capitalism? Sure. Every system is vulnerable--in the same way that any system is dependent on the consent of the population (ultimately). People could just say NO to capitalism, stop going to work, stop buying things, stop cooperating with the government, etc. etc. etc. That would require a revolution in the way people think, before such a revolution could be instituted.

So what -- an eternity of capitalism? No. Unfortunately, what will undo capitalism in the most unpleasant way is capitalism itself. We are experiencing one of the consequences of capitalism -- global warming -- which seems to be happening faster than climatologists thought it would even 10 years ago. When climate warming gets bad enough, economies will collapse, and with it, the survival systems of billions of people.

Economic exploitation and perpetual growth can't go on forever. Unfortunately, the denouement of over-exploitation and zombie growth is economic collapse -- again, pushing the survival of billions into oblivion. (And this would eventually take place without global warming.)

What happens in the future, in a very real sense, is nobody's choice: We are riding history, we aren't driving it.

So, our only option is the highly unlikely rejection of capitalism. Snowball in hell, again.

Otherwise, in a century or so of climate change and continued depraved exploitation by the remorseless engines of capitalism, we might be wondering how could we possibly think that we are lucky to be alive.

Opens up a door I don't want to walk through. Here I am supposing there's ''good'' reason for blaming one person, in this case Hitler, for the evils of WW2. — TheMadFool

I'm still having difficulty as to how the unfortunate cop has a choice. — TheMadFool

Let's bring WW2 and the Cop & Gang Story back together. There were at least a few million Germans in the policeman's shoes. "I, a good German, must either cooperate with the murderous Hitler regime or I will be murdered."

Hiding Jews, for instance, could get one killed. Openly opposing the regime could result in arrest, torture, death, or a trip to a concentration camp (like Dachau). Too much complaining could result in at least a trip to Gestapo headquarters and threats of worse things to come. The vice grip of control over Germans tightened over the course of the war.

There were 70 million Germans--80 million if you count annexed Austrians and the Sudeten Germans. How did the Nazis control everybody? A highly efficient civil service and police establishment, tight control over information, served to isolate dissenters. One either ran with the herd (with a reasonable level of enthusiasm) or one tended to get pushed to the edge where one would get picked off by informers, spies, the Gestapo, observant party members, and the like.

Plus, a good share of the 80 million Germans herd did not need to be coerced into the Nazi corral. They were willing members of the Gang. Who, in this vicious gang requiring the cop to kill or be killed, was responsible? The Top Thug, or the whole gang of thugs?

Probably the Top Thug was more responsible than everybody else. The TT had probably built up the gang by similar acts of coercion. But the rest of the gang can't be dismissed as victims, surely. There would be too many acts of criminal commission.

I too have known some psychologists who, likewise, seemed like quite decent folk.

I don't find Jordan Peterson objectionable, but maybe that is a matter of taste (degustibus...) and of course I don't know the guy -- beyond text and video.

Those trained to the doctorate level seem more reliable than the masters level, or less. "Counseling" can boil down to providing what a good friend provides -- a patient ear, common sense, stuff like that. Not to devalue having a "good friend" whether paid by the hour or not paid at all.

Psychiatrists, being MDs and having the power and competence to prescribe drugs and admit patients to hospital, are essential for the management of major mental illness, like schizophrenia, bi-polar, severe depression, psychosis, etc.

I've been in consciousness raising groups and have led group support meetings. Individuals can sometimes gain solid therapy for themselves from the group of untrained participants. Peer-led mental health support groups seem to be helpful for people, even if they are no substitute for psychiatric care.

One of the problems I see with counselors is that like some other professionals, they are out practicing on their own. They're not part of a group, and they don't have much oversight. "Psychotherapy" is not as well defined as dentistry, for example. (And unsupervised dentists can be bad news, too,)

There are alternatives to the version of capitalism that we have. We could certainly have an essentially capitalist economy with a much stronger welfare state. We could have an essentially capitalist economy, but institute a guaranteed minimum wage. We could have an essentially socialist economy, along with democratic institutions.

There is nothing bizarre about public ownership of at least some industries. Most water systems in the US are government owned and operated. In some countries, the water works are private businesses. North Dakota operates its own bank. Many utility companies have been municipally owned and operated. GM wouldn't be in business if the US Government hadn't propped it up. The same can be said for a few other large concerns.

Capitalism as we have known it, as we know it now, and as we might know it in the future is delivering disaster. For-profit corporations apparently can not respond to the problem of the vast costs which they have externalized: CO2, methane, chlorofluorocarbons, plastic trash and plastic micro-bits from the north pole to the south pole, PCBs, oil spills, unemployment, obesity, diabetes, cancers, etc. For the sake of our home planet, capitalism needs to be either replaced or brought to heel (like a dog, trained to obey social commands).

I expect their bangings on to at least be based on scientific research, — Baden

You are going to be disappointed again.

Despite training in counseling, despite working as a counselor, despite receiving psychotherapy (some good, some indifferent), I do not have much confidence in the whole enterprise of psychological services. Of course there are good, bad, and indifferent workers in the field, but the main problem with the field is that it focuses on individual problems, often with the explicit aim of helping the client achieve a better fit in society as it is. That's understandable. People experience life as individuals in a social context (which they may or may not like).

It seems clear, though, that the largest part of mental suffering is the result of social craziness--(Erich Fromm: The Sane Society, 1958). (Sane Society PDF)

Psychotherapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, social workers, etc. are in no position to take on a crazy society.

It's one thing to respond to the Quillette piece; it's quite another to respond to the APA document--31 pages worth, loaded with statements with which one might argue, or affirm. That includes the bibliography which is worth taking a look at.

Just for instance, the APA highlights "gender strain". I know a thing or two about that, and can affirm that sexual partner preference and most comfortable gender role can put one in conflict, not just with the dominant society but with one's preferred deviant sexual subculture as well. There also are the gender strains having more to with occupational roles, and competitive performance on the job. And more besides.

The APA claims there is such a thing as "Masculinity Ideology" which "is a set of descriptive, prescriptive, and proscriptive of cognitions about boys and men" including

anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence. These have been collectively referred to as traditional masculinity ideology

Is there such a thing as "Masculinity ideology"? Probably not. Is there a preference among boys and men for masculine behavior (whatever all that might mean), achievement, (at least the appearance of) strength, pleasure in adventure, tolerance of risk, and a certain tolerance for violence (at least in some situations)? Most likely.

I know what fascist ideology is; I know what capitalist or communist ideology is. They exist. They're been formalized, elucidated at great length. Masculinist ideology? No. There is a much stronger argument for a feminist ideology. Where does the APA stand on feminist ideologues?

What about the degree of blame assigned to Nazis. Hitler is literally blamed for the whole thing. Doesn't this show that moral responsibility is graded according to the degree of autonomy one has in one's actions? — TheMadFool

As you say, Hitler is literally blamed for the whole thing (see: great man theory of history). In a different context, American presidents like to take the credit for a good economy, and they are blamed for a bad one. It's absurd. There are far too many powerful economic players for the president to claim much credit or take much blame.

The Nazi era sprang from deep roots. Authoritarian government, antisemitism, rigid social systems, elitism, militarism, and so on and so forth were present before Adolph Hitler's parents were born. The new unified German State of the 19th century was not particularly liberal, even if some progressive programs existed.

What Hitler managed to do was precipitate out a new political party from the turgid turbid mess of Germany following WWI. He led. Lesser but very able leaders gathered around him and more minor leaders and many followers flocked to the Nazi Party. Hitler didn't have to invent very much. The SA, for instance, the brown shirted storm troopers, were essentially the Freikorps--unemployed demobilized soldiers with nothing to do. The Krupp family's huge armaments business in the Ruhr anticipated future business well in advance of Hitler. Big Business in Germany didn't especially like decentralized, competitive free enterprise. They appreciated the Nazi's approach, for the most part.

Had Hitler not committed suicide, had he been arrested, he would certainly have been executed. There were many more who were not arrested, not tried, not convicted, not executed for war crimes, who ought to have been. Hitler didn't pull off his various evil works single handed.

If I remember correctly only the top Nazi members were executed for the Holocaust; the soldiers who actually did the killing were pardoned or their sentences commuted because they were just “following orders”. — TheMadFool

I'm not sure that is correct. When the allies closed in on Germany proper, they had a list of top Nazis who they sought, and if found, arrested. Some (like Hitler, Goebbles, Goring, Himmler, and a few dozen others) committed suicide. Some escaped (Eichmann, Mengele and others). Those who were not tried for various crimes against humanity were subject to the not very thorough denazification program. It isn't that the allies didn't care about punishing nazis, it was that there were too many less-than-top-level nazis to deal with--hundreds of thousands, if not a few million. Plus, having pulverized much of Germany, having killed many Germans, having won the war, having occupied Germany, the allies had their hands full and were, I gather, anxious to be done with the whole thing.

"Just following orders" was not an acceptable alibi at any of the trials, Nuremberg on down to the present. It didn't work for Eichmann at his trial in 1961. (Eichmann was responsible for organizing much of the Holocaust effort; he was a high level administrator, not a low level operative.) It didn't work for those who were tried immediately after the war. It didn't work for lower level SS officers who were, at one time or another, tried. It isn't an acceptable defense in those cases where prosecutions continue (even in 2019) of the occasional now aged concentration camp guard who is identified and brought to prosecutorial attention.

What saved most of the Nazis from trial--from low level operatives to the SS Einsatzgruppen who followed the Wehrmacht into the USSR and conducted huge Jew-killing operations by firing squad (3 million?) to mid-level Gestapo was the inordinately complicated task of combing out and sorting all these people. There were around 8,000,000 Nazi Party members. Not all party members were engaged in criminal activities, and many people who were engaged in criminal activity were not party members. The Nazis kept very good records, and the mass of records was so great no single investigative team could plow through very much of it quickly.

By the early 50s the occupation was wound down and investigations and prosecutions were turned over to the German Courts. Not surprisingly, the German courts were not terribly anxious to to pursue all the potential cases.

where does morality reside — Taneras

Surely in the real world.

I understand that this is an extreme hypothetical situation. I get that part.

It may not even be all that artificial. I gather that gangs and cartels at least sometimes perform rituals which are similar to the hypothetical.

It is not clear to me what the purpose of this sort of exercise is. Placing someone in this hypothetical situation where there is essentially no moral choice available and then asking what the moral choice would be is pointless.

I don't doubt that gangs as vile as this exist. The purpose of this sort of exercise is to bind the subject to the group by drinking from the trough of guilt and moral degradation. Should the undercover agent carry out the murder, as ordered, he or she will survive to face further impossible moral choices. I can imagine that a Mexican drug cartel like the Sinaloa gang might trap people through this sort of maneuver.

Just as vile but small local gangs (operating in a neighborhood near you) are known to require a felony crime of new members -- at the very least, an armed robbery or rape. Purse snatching won't suffice.

The morally appropriate approach would be to seduce a member of the gang to become a prosecution witness for what goes on in the gang.