Seasons

Sir Rahz, you intrigue me. No panic button here, but I wouldn't say poverty in Africa (for example) is *necessarily* their fault or anyone's fault (though there are plenty there who definitely contribute to the problem!). However, suppose you were to redistribute the entire world's wealth equally around the world. You would succeed in keeping average wealth the same but not average standard of living, since each individual would have insufficient funds to keep themselves in anything better than subsistence-poverty. Furthermore, by dispersing all collections of capital, you would destroy the means for improvement and progress. The imbalance of wealth is really a kind of self-perpetuating ladder in which everybody rises, though again not at an equal rate.

I agree with you and Eugene about Microsoft -- they have operated out of the bounds of the free market and need to be "re-freed", but there should be no expectation from any company that they will produce a better product than consumers are happy to buy, unless they are pushed by competition...

And, trying to keep it all short, economists do not discount leisure time, etc. -- these are part of utility, where we measure the way people value these goods by how much money they are willing to spend (or not earn) to get them.

Part of increasing standard of living is to also increase choices and opportunities. The fact that there is so much more available than living in poverty is why those of us who choose not-poverty have less leisure time than our ancestors who had no choice in the matter did. But as Marx predicted, in the long run we will find our power of production per/person is so great that we will find it easier and easier to sacrifice earnings for leisure. We (except for the richest of us) are just not yet at a stage you might view as idyllic for leisure time; however I will definitely say compared to the recent past, running water and flushing toilets are DEFINITELY idyllic.

Speaking of idyllic, I think we actually do agree with each other on most of the points we're bringing forward. I guess it's to be expected, after all, we're all pretty much in the sci-fi-cyber-punk category!

I'm really enjoying this public debate. This is a little off topic (off a topic which was already off topic!) but I was reading an essay recently that was saying that back in the early 1900s when newspapers started becoming popular in the US and before anyone realised the potential they had for advertising revenue, newspapers were the place for public debate. People were encouraged to submit articles (and wanted to) resulting in all sorts of different points of views. This was a place where the public could discuss politics, religion, economics and anything they felt the rest of the world should stop and think about. At the time, the voting percentage (read, public interest in politics) was at an all time high! I'm not going to get too deep into this, but simply put, because newspaper revenues no longer come from copies sold to the public, but rather advertising, the content of the newspapers (and any news source that counts on advertising) is primarily to satisfy the people who pay for ads, meaning the richest people in society. Thanks to the Internet, we once again have a place for public debate (for how long though?)

Back to the subject, I really wouldn't want to try and turn our economic system upside down over night - this would translate into total anarchy for the entire planet (rather than partial anarchy for most of the planet?). Some people have lost all hope in humanity and as a result, believe that total anarchy might not be so bad, for a while anyways. I'm not one of those people, I'm still amongst the people that would rather sit in my cozy little home with all my digital toys, but would still rather live in a fare world.

I think our current system needs to be gradually improved on. One of the best outcomes of our economy, is all the scientific advancements it's brought us - especially the Net! But, we need to realize that nothing is permanent, not even a constitution or the "best economic system we've known so far". People spend their entire lives, sometimes even generations, fighting for what they believe in... then, once it's finally in place, no one would dare admit that it's already outdated.

You're right Eugene, human misery is caused by our basically not so good human nature, but since these companies have the most money and power, they're the ones that have the most influence.

Also, there is a better, more reliable and "fair" operating system out there - it's called Unix! Ben Baird would be a much happier person if he lived in the Unix/Linux world! Except they're non-lucrative so they won't advertise or push the product, you just have to try it. Yes, you can open Word documents on a Unix machine, yes you can surf the web and check your email. No, it won't *ever* crash (unless you drop your computer or something).

We're an intelligent bunch, but I think everyone has a right to be intelligent... at least the chance to anyway! There are ways to achieve this, gradually, smoothly and without taking away anyones possessions (what a relief!) and without the need to figure out a way to distribute everything equally.

Say, for example we all wake up one day and realize that we don't really have a single word to say in the policies that are decide by our governments and most of the time, neither do our own governments! If a company like Nike has the power to create or destroy hundreds of jobs, depending on such and such a tax cut... they just negotiate and move around from country to country without a second though about instability that's created wherever they open up (sweat) shop. Our governments job is to basically to try and keep us the very least informed or interested in politics all together, otherwise we'll all realize the obvious: the political situation is far from fare or free and doesn't represent the public's interests in the least! Let's keep it confusing, let's make it so only specialists can have a say and then let's switch to petty crime, sports and underage celebrity breast implants! After all, that's basically what satisfy's the advertisers, keeps the rich rich and the poor busy making ends meet (so they can pay the debt for the bedroom set "no one should live without...").

What I suggest is installing a government run by the people - yes, even the stupid people! This was pretty well impossible at a time, because of physical restraints involved (going across the nation on horse back collecting everyone's opinions about a new law or policy). So, at the time we naturally decided to let a few elected individuals take care of the entire nation's best interests. Unfortunately, over time this has translated to letting the elected individuals make all decisions "in our own best interests..."

In other words, according to a small percentage of people at the top, we don't need to know what's really going on, since most of us are just too stupid to have an opinion on the most important matters that will determine the way we live our own lives. Who agrees with this? I sure don't. I don't like to think of myself as someone who has no chance in understanding the way the system works (BTW, sorry, no advanced studies in economics, mostly the school of life).

What if we were to use the internet and computers to vote - daily, weekly or monthly - on the most important decisions that are to be made in order to run our nation? Now that we have the opportunity to do so, wouldn't this be a natural step in human evolution? We won't fire George W or any of the other politicians, they can still go around trying to change peoples minds... but it will be for a cause they believe in, not for the power! I have this system already planned in my head from start to finish, but I'll spare you the details. Just tell me what would inevitably not work in this system? Are we scared of ourselves? Is it too much responsibility?

In this system, which basically changes and evolves depending on public opinion, one might suggest that maybe there's a little too much advertising around. We could then decide, as a truly free nation, that advertising should be taxed and that the money collected should go into creating a real free public press for television, radio and the web (without ANY need to satisfy advertisers, just the readers). Would this make our economy fall apart?

Everyone hates the idea of a society where everything is decided for you by some horrible corrupt super structure, but in a way, that's what our society is coming to if we don't do something soon! Just think of where technological advancements will be at just 5 years down the road from now? We'll have wireless, thinking, self-charging gizmos all over the place! If we just do whatever we *can* instead of slowing down and regulating the inventions popping out around us, we're bound to destroy the human race (you know, the limited resources, etc...).

I think it's a natural part of evolution for any (still hypothetical) intelligent species on a planet. First, they figure out how to use fire, ten thousand years later, they figure out how to manipulate the masses through religion. Another couple thousand years go by and then they spend a few centuries figuring out and admiring the perfectness or the natural evolutionary system we're all actually a part of. Then a couple centuries where they have to control they're "nature" now that they've evolved to a powerful enough level of intelligence. These are hard times for us and we should all appreciate the power we have to choose in life. The past hundred years of evolution have gone at an unprecedented rate, we're kind of like teen-agers going through growing pains - all the while thinking we're invincible!

I don't want to change the world, the world *is* changing. How it changes is up to us.

I'll be happy to continue this conversation directly via an eMail list if we feel it's just too off topic... Although, I think we may have pretty well said what we have to say. Thanks again Crab and Eugene for taking the time to share your opinions.

We're having record breaking temperatures right now over on the East coast, so the weather's great!

I too enjoy debate -- it's an opportunity to clarify and test my opinions.

But when I read the above, Rahz, and you're saying we're in agreement, I must not have expressed myself at all! You just told a horror story!

You said the fact that advertisers are paying for newspapers means they are determining the content. What do you mean? Advertisers don't pay to see what they want to read -- they pay because they believe the most people (or the demographic they're selling to) want to read it! This is a far more equitable system than 200 years ago, when printing presses were rare and you basically printed something if you wanted other people to read it, rather than something being printed because people wanted to read it. And in the past 100 years since that editorial newspaper phenomenon, we've found so many additional ways to communicate and express ourselves that the newspaper as a medium for the common folks like you and me is close to obsolete, and while such papers do exist they are small circulation. Hell, look at us -- we could form a newspaper to have this conversation, but luckily, we don't have to. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that the accumulation of capital and the fact that revenues come to newspapers from advertisers means that you get more widely-distributed newspapers at a huge discount compared to the cost of bringing the news to you. The quality is, in my view, generally piss-poor, but that is because the public clamors for piss-poor reporting rather than more objective reporting that sounds dry by virtue of its lack of invectives. We get what we want, and they get what they pay for: the miracle of capitalism again!

I don't think in this country we could pass a law to kick advertisers out of the press. That would be a violation of free speech. However, supposing we could, we would instantly bankrupt any number of periodicals and increase the cost to you the consumer of those that remained. Or, if it were government funded as you seemed to suggest, we could keep them all open but at a still greater cost to us. Then on top of that we will have content issues: suppose I don't want my tax money going towards editorial I regard as blasphemous. And etc.

The point of all that was that newspapers are actually better (by which I mean, a better fit with what we want them to be) the less governed they are by some dictator, whether that dictator be an editor or be a majority vote of the public. I don't know how it is in Canada, but one of the fundamental principles of government in the U.S. is that the minority must be protected from the will of the majority. Hence the Bill of Rights, hence the protection of religion and free speech, and so on. The "people" may not all be stupid, but even if not we are busy, bigoted, and far from expert on any number of matters. Certainly I don't think we should be given unchecked vote authority over every aspect of the law, courts, police, and government. Of course, putting elected officials in those slots is not generally much of an improvement. But the solution to this is not to give MORE power to the institution of government, it is to limit the power of government as much as is feasible.

What I thought you might take from my earlier comments was that, in economic matters, I'd like to see the government limited to actions intended to ensure the functioning of the free market.

You seem to be choosing government power over corporate power, and I have the exact opposite reaction, for two reasons:
1) I understand the motives of the corporation, and to the extent they work towards profit the ends will be good because of the miracle of capitalism. The motives of government are far less predictable and, in my view, potentially much more sinister.
2) the corporation (to the extent it's not shielded by government, which I would not allow based on the above limitation) is accountable, whereas government is not. The corporation has to make a product we will buy if it is to make money or stay afloat, whereas the government can bribe us with our own money.

I wouldn't say any of us has "no chance of understanding how the system works". But I will say none of us should be obligated to, and I'll say that most of us don't. As for are we scared of ourselves, we should be if history is any indication.

So...I don't know that I want to get into a debate about this here, but does anyone else not accept evolutionary theory as scientific fact?

it's iffy...

Short answer: nobody says it's a scientific fact, it's just a scientific theory. So far, the only scientific theory.

2 points:
Coming from the advertising industry, I totally agree with the statement that advertisors control content, because the threat of fiancial loss at having an advertizer pull out over a sensitivity toward certain types of content is usually enough to keep TV and magazine producers walking on eggshells.

Evolutionary theory can be spit into two categories commonly labeled "vertical" and "horizontal" evolution.

Horizontal evolution occurs within a species and accounts for subtle gradual changes, usually relating to enviornmental adaption. It is absolutely observeable and nigh-indisputeable and generally founded on solid deduction.

Vertical evolution, in contrast, is a speculative theory that, without any physical evidence, attempts to account for huge "ontological gaps" between species by explaining how one species could grow into an entirely different one. It isn't observable because it either takes place over long periods of time (though it leaves no evidence) or happens spontaneously and almost instatnaneously. It's founded completely on shaky indictive reasoning.

Dogmatic Christians ignorantly dismiss both as false and dogmatic scientists ignorantly accept both as true. The truth lies somewhere in-between.

I accept Darwin's theory of evolution, it is possible although not proven.

A lot more prove than the other theory...

Crab, how many Nike, Xbox and Tommy logos are we willing to plaster all over the place in the name of free speach? What about the freedom to open your eyes and not having to think about buying something?

Thanx Rex, for the back-up about the advertising industry. That's basically it too, advertisers aren't the ones actually writing the content and they aren't really even interested in it. But they are interested in who's looking at their ad. Newspaper managers know this. They keep it in mind when they hire graphic artists, journalists and the rest of the staff. If you're a journalist, and you want to be successful, you have to keep that in mind as well or you simply won't get promoted - but of course, everyone's free to write what they like... I mean, they are protected by the first amendment (sorry, there's the pun again). The result of this, is lot's of piss-poor reporting. News is not a form of entertainment! It's not supposed to satisfy anyone! It's a serious matter that should not be influenced by the need to make money in a society that cares about what's being said to it's nation.

This is not satisfying me at all. So where's the miracle of capitalism now?

I didn't say anything about kicking anyone out of the press - I did say something about taxing the ads. In my opinion, the nightmare is happening now. When I see all the innovative ways that companies are using to get our attention, it's really gotta' be slowed down... A tax on advertising space is a simple way.

Although, you are right about the fact that we have many more ways to communicate now and it is a lot easier to do. You can thank the need for profit and capitalism for this if you like, but I think the human spirit needs to evolve and would have gotten around to it anyways eventually.

We also agree that giving government more power is a bad thing. And I agree that there's no need to force everyone to be interested in participating in every single decision. (I've thought of this too, but I'm still going to spare the details).

But wait a second now... The government is protecting the minority? How's that? Once again I'll have to get you to explain this to me... because I don't really understand how our government would be the least bit interested in protecting the minority. What for?

We have been brain washed by sayings that don't really mean anything... Like our system is set up to protect everyone in the land of the free... What does that mean? It's not just because you go and say something that it's true (or maybe that is the way things work?)

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how freedom of speech is protecting the homeless.

Here's a stat you can't refute: more than 95% of the global wealth is controlled by less than 5% of the global population. This 5% of the population, has enough money to buy the which ever side of the government that gets elected. Then they pressure the governments to the extent that bills are passed without any consideration for the population, never mind the minority of the population. All our governments want to do is get re-elected in order to get their hands on all that cash again... You may argue that they need to at least satisfy the public during election campaigns. But they don't really have to satisfy us during these times, just spend enough money convincing us that they will. A voice is no longer a vote really, but a dollar sure is!

Even though companies are accountable for financially, doesn't mean they have any scruples. And most of us don't. That's why we need to take control of the things that get out of hand. We don't have to control by direct interjection... But we need to find some other way to encourage everyone's best interests and keep earth's human population as well as all the other species healthy.

You often refer to this miracle of capitalism that's the best we got to satisfy the consumer. I'm still not convinced though. Companies try to make money - regardless of whether or not the consumer is happy. Take cigarettes for example. Everyone knows that they'll kill you and every smoker wants to quit at one point or another. This type of company can just as easily say that they're just satisfying the demand and wipe their hands clean, but you and I both know that they spend billions of dollars researching new ways to get everyone as addicted as they can. How does this benefit anyone other than the owners of the tobacco company?

The tobacco company is just an example, but if you think a company won't sell us addictive crap if they have a chance to, you're in serious denial. Every company wants you addicted to their product in some way or another.

How can we possibly let this sort of idealism run our lives in the name of freedom?

To me it seems that the most miraculous thing about capitalism is that we haven't blown ourselves apart yet. You're saying that we can't be trusted with important decisions seeing how we've acted in the past, but these days, anyone with money can produce tools of mass destruction - I'd rather trust the public.

Capitalism has been great in bringing us to this level of evolution, but we've now outgrown it. If we're still around in a few hundred years, we will be laughing at the idealistic phrases we ranted and raved during the era of capitalism.

I know you wanted to avoid the debate Eugene, but you started it!

I think the question about religions vs evolutionary theory is something that's on a lot of peoples minds these days (and has been since the evolutionary theory was brought forward). I know no one is suggesting that they actually believe in god, but I have this feeling that the topic is in the air...

As we make advancements in our discoveries, we constantly have to admit that most our previous theories on the matter were actually wrong (except maybe one). There a numerous examples of this in history, but the most popular is the discovery that our planet is round and we aren't the center of the universe. It's extremely difficult for people to admit they're wrong (it's that god awful human nature doing it's work again), so you can imagine how difficult it was for us to admit we were wrong about something we'd believed for such a long time.

I think we need to face it, we believed in god for long enough, now it's time to stop assuming and inventing answers to our questions and just admitting when we don't know something. We don't know for sure where we come from, but the answers aren't in the stories told by religion.

I've made so many people depressed by saying this so bluntly, but I just figure they would have "seen the light" eventually anyways.

There's a lot of good in religion too though and we need to keep those aspects of it. We should treat each other like we want to be treated and we do need to be in touch with our inner selves. But we should do this in the name of health and happiness, not because we're scared of hell or bad karma. We need to thank religion for keeping us together for the time it did, but now, we've outgrown it as well.

Nonetheless, I don't think science can really explain what my thoughts are. Why am "I" me? What's a conscience? What's the software that's running this system? Gaia? Is that you?

In my opinion, religion is passé, but science still has a long way to go.

I don't mind the debate, I just don't have much time to contribute to it.

First of all, I have no problem in admitting that I believe in God, or that I am a dogmatic Christian, depending on what you mean by "dogmatic". (My apologies to Mr. Crab, who is, I think, under the impression that I am an Orthodox Jew -- I've been trying to contact you and tell you otherwise, but whenever we've been on at the same time the website has had problems.) But I don't deny the existence of what you call horizontal evolution. Changes within a species are what Darwin actually observed. He assumed that horizontal evolution would lead to vertical, and that evidence would be found to back this claim up. We're still waiting.

Also, there are those who claim that evolution is scientific fact. They aren't scientists, and they usually aren't the kind of people who would visit this website. But it is the opinion of much of the general population. I met an exchange student who had never heard that *anyone* questioned evolution until he came to the U.S. He called home and asked his parents to send him proof for evolution, assuming it existed. He became very upset when we suggested that something a scientist had said could be wrong.