Societal Perversion

[scameter]

I have been thinking about this for quite a long time, and have considered it deeply, but taking into consideration a few new experiences of this actually in play has made me realize it's depth.

Money, business, disharmony, egoism, selfishness- all of these things are deep in the human psyche. They have been apart of humanity for as long as organized society has existed, and have existed in a more dormant form before that. At the dawn of organized civilization, when humans began to culminate in various areas and began to work together, these things truly began. Instead of working together cooperatively, compassionately and practically, people prefered the easier route of selfishness, which inspired the creation of money (instead of people simply getting resources and making things and handing them out as people required or desired them). People are led to believe that money is necessary, because it makes people work to produce the things needed for society; but, what if people worked without money, but rather in the interest of helping their fellow man, out of love? The quantity of things made now, considering our technological abilities, is astounding, and is definitely sufficient to supply demand. But, so often, the quality or quantity of something made is hindered by the interests of the businessmen in charge. What if things were made at the highest quality, and at the quantity necessary for everyone to have it? And instead of people taking more than they needed, they could simply take enough of what they needed and desired to satisfy, instead of oversatisfy. Imagine if things such as water, food, housing, transportation, electricity, heating and air, and other necessities were simply done for people by people, instead of people being brainwashed into becoming slaves by choice, where they work in something that means nothing to them, simply to have the money to be alive? And imagine is technology could be so improved, with recent high-tech such as nanotechnology, that things could be created from mere atoms, so that everyone could have everything? Crime would dissipate; war would dissipate; the various nations would have no reason to remain seperate. But... because selfishness is easier, and all people know... they choose to remain slaves. It is both sickening, and deeply tragic.

[Winfried]

Selfishness is a question of evolution. Only after one has taken care for him self, hee could think of taking care of others. Why help another if one needs help himself? Folly, I'd say. I reckon that without selfishness a species wouldn't last very long.

Besides this, you seem to me to be trying to get rid of our monetary system. If this is true, please keep in mind that money is a handy tool for trading. Let's assume we live in a basic agricultural society. I have a couple of sheep. You have a few cows. I'd like to have a cow from you, but you feel no need for sheep. So I ask, "what do you want?" You might say "chickens" so I go to the chicken farmer, who has no need for sheep either, but he would love some pigs, the guy who has pigs doesn't like sheep etc etc. You could say, "It appears no-one wants sheep, try something else" but if I was to find some person who was willing to buy a couple of sheep from me, and trade me money for it, and I could use that money to buy a cow from you, it would be lot easierthan going from the blacksmith to the pigfarmer to the chickenfarmer and finally to you.

:think: This example sounded a lot better inside my head. Hope you get the idea though.

[Thomas Knierim]

I am not sure what you are saying, Scameter. Do you believe that greed and selfishness are ingrained in human nature or is it a consequence of economic and societal organisation? Is it incorrigible or is it systemic? Do you believe that trade and money is the root of it?

Cheers, Thomas

[WanderingTaoist]

Have you read anything by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, scam? I think you might like The Discourse on Inequality, since it is a musing on similiar themes.

I'm not so sure I agree with all of your premises, though. Are you claiming that it is civilization, money, commerce, etc, that ruins us, or is something within ourselves that causes misery? I don't think money would have any effect on us unless there were something greedy in us already.

Money, business, disharmony, egoism, selfishness- all of these things are deep in the human psyche. They have been apart of humanity for as long as organized society has existed, and have existed in a more dormant form before that

Money usually doesn't come into existence immediately; I think the barter system is the dominent form of commerce for most so-called "primitive" societies, and bartering is driven by physical need: I need to eat, you need a hut, so if you give me one of your chickens I'll build you a hut.

people prefered the easier route of selfishness, which inspired the creation of money (instead of people simply getting resources and making things and handing them out as people required or desired them).



Is money merely the result of laziness? It's certainly convenient, but I don't know if I'd call it lazy or selfish. It's more practical to use a monetary currency than be trading in, say, oxen. If a suit (shirt, pants, etc) costs an ox, but I only want, say, a shirt, what am I supposed to do, give you half an ox?

Or, as Winfried said:

Besides this, you seem to me to be trying to get rid of our monetary system. If this is true, please keep in mind that money is a handy tool for trading. Let's assume we live in a basic agricultural society. I have a couple of sheep. You have a few cows. I'd like to have a cow from you, but you feel no need for sheep. So I ask, "what do you want?" You might say "chickens" so I go to the chicken farmer, who has no need for sheep either, but he would love some pigs, the guy who has pigs doesn't like sheep etc etc. You could say, "It appears no-one wants sheep, try something else" but if I was to find some person who was willing to buy a couple of sheep from me, and trade me money for it, and I could use that money to buy a cow from you, it would be lot easierthan going from the blacksmith to the pigfarmer to the chickenfarmer and finally to you.

Not perfect analogies, but I think you see the point: commerce becomes easier with money. Needs are easier to fulfill with money. Commerce is simply a way to organize the exchange of goods and services that people provide for each other. I agree that it has become overwhelmingly corrupt, but that is not because business itself is an inherently corrupt institution.

[scameter]

Selfishness is a question of evolution. Only after one has taken care for him self, hee could think of taking care of others. Why help another if one needs help himself? Folly, I'd say. I reckon that without selfishness a species wouldn't last very long.

That is true of animals that aren't sentient sure. But we are capable of realizing, as I am doing now, that we can help ourselves by helping each other.

Besides this, you seem to me to be trying to get rid of our monetary system. If this is true, please keep in mind that money is a handy tool for trading.

So, because it is easier, we use it, as I said in my original post. Selfishness is easier, because as long as *you* are benefitting, it doesn't matter how many people are suffering for it. Your analogy is rather irrelevant in modern times. The thing that people fail to realize about my system is that we currently make enough of things for everyone (in America at least); if not, people would not be able to buy the amount of things they do. The only problem is that so many people can't afford the things they need or want, and thus go without, even though there is enough quantity of things for everyone. If we took away money, everyone could have everything.

Do you believe that greed and selfishness are ingrained in human nature or is it a consequence of economic and societal organisation? Is it incorrigible or is it systemic? Do you believe that trade and money is the root of it?

For the first question, I believe that humans are naturally capable of greed and selfishness, as we have an ego inherently, but I think that it has been overtly expressed at the rise of organized civilization. That essentially answers your second one I think. For the third question, I believe that trade is perfectly fine, but that money is an expression of the egoism highly expressed in civilization.

Have you read anything by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, scam? I think you might like The Discourse on Inequality, since it is a musing on similiar themes.

No, I haven't. But thanks for mentioning him; I was trying to think of someone who has had similar ideas as mine, besides the creator of the Federation in Star Trek. :D

I'm not so sure I agree with all of your premises, though. Are you claiming that it is civilization, money, commerce, etc, that ruins us, or is something within ourselves that causes misery? I don't think money would have any effect on us unless there were something greedy in us already.

I agree. It is definitely a problem with us, and more specifically, it is a problem with the choices we make. Greed, selfishness, egoism, etc., are all inherent in us, but there is also selflessness, awareness, compassion, etc., which we are just as capable of. But because egoism is easier, it is more often chosen. I would like to think that the modern era of science, reason and democracy would have set aside money in place of a civilized way of living, cooperation and assisting each other. But apparently, my wishes aren't reality.

Money usually doesn't come into existence immediately; I think the barter system is the dominent form of commerce for most so-called "primitive" societies, and bartering is driven by physical need: I need to eat, you need a hut, so if you give me one of your chickens I'll build you a hut.

Certainly. But barter doesn't involve money; money is a conceptual unit of barter which has no meaning or use in and of it's self. It's just paper, or coin etc. We give it meaning. When large-population civilizations began to arise is when bartering was replaced by money, which was easier at the time and still is.

Is money merely the result of laziness? It's certainly convenient, but I don't know if I'd call it lazy or selfish. It's more practical to use a monetary currency than be trading in, say, oxen. If a suit (shirt, pants, etc) costs an ox, but I only want, say, a shirt, what am I supposed to do, give you half an ox?

In modern times things shouldn't "cost" anything. We're so deeply entrenched in this mindset of, I must do something and give you something in order to pay you off for you helping me. It's as if when we're born, we have this huge debt and that to get things we need or want, we have to pay it off. In modern times, we should be able to simply give each other what we need and want, and we could.

Not perfect analogies, but I think you see the point: commerce becomes easier with money. Needs are easier to fulfill with money. Commerce is simply a way to organize the exchange of goods and services that people provide for each other. I agree that it has become overwhelmingly corrupt, but that is not because business itself is an inherently corrupt institution.

You're right. It's the choices of the people doing it. Of course money is easier; chosen slavery, with the prospect of staying alive and having a few rewards along the way, makes one feel secure, content, settled. And so people are willing to waste 65 damn years of their life doing something that means nothing to them, just to stay alive in the process, and then live for a few years in retirement. What if our entire lives were retirement?

[venom mama]

this might be a bit off topic , but you mention that people are willing to waste 65 years of their life doing something that means nothing to them, well , i love my job. by saying what you did you are just reinforcing why college is so important, so you can live the way you want, doing what you want. doing something to make the world a better place is up to us.

[Thomas Knierim]

Scameter: If we took away money, everyone could have everything.

I find this to be a puzzling conclusion. Can you explain how everyone could have everything without money?

Scameter: For the first question, I believe that humans are naturally capable of greed and selfishness, as we have an ego inherently...

Okay, you think it is ingrained in human nature. Well, yes and no. Greed and selfishness are part of human nature, one cannot deny it, but they are not the only characteristic that defines human nature. Human nature is complex. Like you already said, humans are also capable of altruism. There is potential for both, selfish as well as altruistic behaviour. In my view, human behaviour is largely determined by culture and the socio-economic environment. In a culture that emphasises material gain and competition, people naturally become greedy and selfish.

Scameter: ...but I think that it has been overtly expressed at the rise of organized civilization.

No, the word "civilisation" is too big for this purpose. Human civilisation encompasses many diverse cultures, some of which do/did not emphasise competition and greed. The present socio-economic system of the USA, on the other hand, is fairly extreme what concerns materialism, competition, and greed. Since you live inside this culture, you may perceive the problem to be especially acute.

The problem is systemic in my view. All nations that have embraced a free market economy, institutionalised commerce, and development by competition face the same problem. This system does in fact make people behave greedy and selfish, because that behaviour is of the greatest benefit to them.

Scameter: I agree. It is definitely a problem with us, and more specifically, it is a problem with the choices we make.

Yes, indeed. The choices we make define our behaviour. Economics, and microeconomics in particular, is largely about human choices. Economists usually assume that participants in the economy act rationally. This means that people use reason to respond to certain economic situations (demand, scarcity, ...) and that they make choices which are beneficial to themselves. If we take this to be true, then a free market economy turns out to be a stable form of organisation, which basically means it will work on a grand scale, reinforcing itself. This is somewhat analogous to the game-theoretical concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESF).

The big question is: are a free market economy, institutionalised commerce, private property, and everything that comes with it the only stable form of economic organisation or are there other forms of stable socio-economic systems which are more beneficial to mankind and which we have not discovered yet. I think there are possibilities which we have not discovered yet, or at least which we have not applied and tested at a grand scale yet. There are socio-economic systems which emphasise altruism rather than selfish behaviour. Perhaps it is right to say that their time has not yet come.

The world is currently locked into political entities called nations which maintain captialistic free market systems as the dominant form of socio-economic organisation. These systems are not too far from collapse, because they can function stably only as long as they can feed on unlimited resources and as long as there are artificial/cultural seperations between them. Both of these preconditions will cease to exist in the future, and the first will probably disappear earlier than the second, because -obviously- resources aren't unlimited and the global environment is already taking damage on a grand scale. In future, we will have no choice, but find more cooperative means of socio-economic organisation.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

i love my job. by saying what you did you are just reinforcing why college is so important, so you can live the way you want, doing what you want. doing something to make the world a better place is up to us.

And if you can't go to college? What if you have a mental problem, or a lack of money? And, society is run more by those who don't go to college than those who do; there will always be a mass of people who didn't go to college, for whatever reason, and thus became stuck in a meaningless job they hate for the rest of their lives.

I find this to be a puzzling conclusion. Can you explain how everyone could have everything without money?

At the dawn of organized civilization, when humans began to culminate in various areas and began to work together, these things truly began. Instead of working together cooperatively, compassionately and practically, people prefered the easier route of selfishness, which inspired the creation of money (instead of people simply getting resources and making things and handing them out as people required or desired them). People are led to believe that money is necessary, because it makes people work to produce the things needed for society; but, what if people worked without money, but rather in the interest of helping their fellow man, out of love? The quantity of things made now, considering our technological abilities, is astounding, and is definitely sufficient to supply demand. But, so often, the quality or quantity of something made is hindered by the interests of the businessmen in charge. What if things were made at the highest quality, and at the quantity necessary for everyone to have it?

Okay, you think it is ingrained in human nature. Well, yes and no. Greed and selfishness are part of human nature, one cannot deny it, but they are only part of it. Like you already said, humans are also capable of altruism. There is potential for both, selfish as well as altruistic behaviour. In my view, human behaviour is largely determined by culture and the socio-economic environment. In a culture that emphasises material gain and competition, people naturally become greedy and selfish.

Definitely. Which is why it is so crucial that the system *not* be like that, so that the other side of people will be more often expressed than their egoistic side. But, because the makers of this system, namely capitalism, for one were out for their own gain, and for two knew that most people would prefer the easier route of selfishness, they promoted it.

No, the word "civilisation" is too big for this purpose. Human civilisation encompasses many diverse cultures, some of which do/did not emphasise competition and greed. The present socio-economic system of the USA, on the other hand, is fairly extreme what concerns materialism, competition, and greed. Since you live inside this culture, you may perceive the problem to be especially acute.

I do, and I think my position in being able to view capitalism at it's peak so acutely has helped me in my economical philosophical speculation. But, yes there are myriad types of civilizations (excuse me if I use z instead of s there, I've just always thought it was z), which is why I specific organized civilizations, and by that I meant more advanced, systematic societies of a relatively large population. Cities are one expression of this civilization. Pre-organized civilizations, on the other hand, such as the Tibetan monks prior to the invasion of their country or the Native Americans before their invasion, were different; and look at what happened to both by the civilized nations.

The problem is systemic in my view. All nations that have embraced a free market economy, institutionalised commerce, and development by competition face the same problem. This system does in fact make people behave greedy and selfish, because that behaviour is of the greatest benefit to them.

Definitely. And this system is essentially capitalism, which has existed in some form in all organized civilizations.

The big question is: are a free market economy, institutionalised commerce, private property, and everything that comes with it the only stable form of economic organisation or are there other forms of stable socio-economic systems which are more beneficial to mankind and which we have not discovered yet.

Or that we have either tried but incorrectly, or that have been largely ignored, such as socialism and communism. The assumption that a free market economy will work because each participant benefits themself, which would form a whole engine of people helping themselves, by economists, is flawed, because those who are able to participate will attempt to get so much for themselves, and will act only in a selfish rationality, that those without such privelege are left out.

The world is currently locked into political entities called nations which maintain captialistic free market systems as the dominant form of socio-economic organisation.

Including nations that once attempted other means, such as China and Russia, because for one, their original attempts were done so so entirely erroneously that they failed, and for two, that every other nation is capitalistic. Btw Thomas, I'm glad to see how you're considering my views; I had been waiting to post these viewpoints of mine until I had them properly culminated (I've actually been considering them for a long time), and I'm glad to see your reception. Your rationality and open-mindedness are encouraging. :)