# Let's Step Outside Our Primitive Box



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

I know this is not going to go over well...Too bad

Money has got to go. Its the power of money and its scarcity principles that enable suffering on a world-wide scale.

Unfortunately our society today can not fathom a world without money. There are numerous reasons...

an education system corrupted by the elite's monetary system - They teach our children about how to be a good worker, how to be more productive, how to get and maintain a good credit score....what they don't teach is how to be a thinker. As Rockefeller said after he founded the General Education Board "i want a nation of workers, not a nation of thinkers"
The education system simply exists to continue the system of a slave work force.

Scarcity - We begin our existence only knowing scarcity. Shortages of food, water, clothing, etc forced humanity to covet hoarding. This led to today's system of profit. We know nothing else and the powers at the top of the pyramid don't wish us to know. It would end their power. However with today's technology there is no need to force scarcity on us. Its artificial.

The solution is obvious, abundance of resources. We have plenty to go around. We could give every human being on this planet an acre of land and it wouldn't fill up the country of Australia. We've been lied too, there is plenty to go around.

Abundance would mean the end of money. This in turn would lead to the end of power, slavery, and control by the global elite. It would end wars and poverty. It would make crime significantly decline as there's no need to steal and rob to survive anymore. Drugs would practically disappear as there's no more profit in it and the users will have no need to escape their pain.

So how do we achieve this abundance....through technology. Technology can free us from mundane tasks. It can give us more leisure time. It can end hunger. It can end inefficiency and waste. We have the knowledge today to end dependance on fossil fuels and the solution is abundant in nature.

It is a waste that I have spent my life competing for a portion of the money supply to support myself (along with everyone else). The only reason I choose to participate is because I really have no other choice. I am handcuffed by the chains of money. I am not really free. 

I would rather spend my life THINKING about how to improve technology for the benefit of all. Not running on the wheel in my cage.

Thoughts from you loyal Capitalists? (I know I am a hypocrite)


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In my opinion, you are right on all counts.

I believe the question of what to do about it......will be answered by future generations of young people who will be so displaced, so desperate, and so angry that they violently reject the status quo.

There will be violence and insurrection. Of that, I have no doubt.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Spending too much time staring at your ipad?

It takes money to create and maintain technology.

lol


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

It takes money to create and maintain technology because that is the way our society is designed. The reality is that it takes resources and technicians to create and maintain technology.


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

That's true but what's the motivation to help other people create things if there is no benefit or reward for the extra effort..in a world where everyone is equal and has the same things i invision a lot of laziness since they're really is no motivation for the effort you would put forth...the old let someone else deal with it mentality. I would foresee a boom culturally and in the arts in a society like this. resources may be abondant world wide but some sort of trading would have to be developed between areas...which seems to be a seed to restarting the capitalist society over again.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

All of us need to eat. It's a fact of life. You wouldn't have your precious technology today without money because there would be no one to design and build it.

Stay in school.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

While it's true that capitalism drives incentive, it also drives corruption, greed, war, poverty, crime and environmental destruction. I think that incentive stemming from capitalism is based on self-centered goals such as wealth, power, and property. 

If we have global abundance (food, energy, etc.) as a result of technology, thus no need useless paper money, there would be no 'financial barriers' to personal incentive and innovation. Other concepts and ideas would emerge that we could not even fathom today, just as a human beings 150 years ago couldn't even fathom a cell phone, never mind a space shuttle or an ipad2.

Incentive is a far greater problem to have than war, poverty, and crime. In my opinion anyways - each to their own.

I know this is radical but I actually think the world is insane. Maybe I'm insane. lol


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Although I agree that there is plenty in our current economic system that needs improvement, I think your thoughts are extremely naive, sensfan. Yuo may be right in theory that there is enough land on the planet for every human being to be given an acre of land - somewhere on the planet. Where would you like your acre - just a little south of the North Pole?


----------



## DanFo (Apr 9, 2011)

I'd would say war would be plentiful in any society, if not for wealth, power and resources it will be on a difference of ideals and religion.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

sensfan15, you are not insane.
The argument you are making against money is the same one made over 200 years ago by Marx and his followers.
His (their) idea was to advance technology so much that scarcity is eliminated.
Modern economy is largely about resource allocation (i.e. scarcity management).
Without scarcity, there is no need to have a managed economy and thus no means of exchange, no means to value goods and services and thus no need for money.

Anyhow, the earliest Marxists envisioned technology to advance so much that all scarcity will be eliminated and thus money would be eliminated.

Thus the big push in the Soviet USSR starting in late 1920s for technological advancement.
Or Mao's "Great Leap Forward".

Hasn't quite worked out the way it was planned 

Getting back from utopia back to reality, I think we are far, far away from eliminating scarcity of any resource.
In fact, I'd say we are moving in the opposite direction i.e. depleting our resources faster than nature can replenish them.
Since the Industrial Revolution, resource scarcity has increased and thus the importance of division of labor and thus money.

I don't see that changing anytime soon (unless we find another Earth-like planet and conquer it).

Technology cannot solve the problem of money.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

It simply won't work because of the lack of incentive and the need of money to live as others have said.

This of course doesn't mean there isn't anything we can do to make the world better. 

Off the top of my head maybe the world and the companies in it should hold to certain minimum standards or they cannot sell to other countries. So if workers are not paid or treated in a fair way then those companies will not be able to sell anywhere outside their country. If they abuse the environment then they will not be able to sell their goods to other countries and so on.

People who are paid to much can have their salary and bonuses reduced despite the contract they sign if they destroy the company they work for. So when the bankers screwed everything up the government or whoever can go ahead and eliminate their bonuses and lower their salaries without worrying about the contract they signed.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

FYI we made fire without capitalism. Incentives don't always have to be monetary.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

The truth is capitalism is a pyramid scheme, it collapses without exponential growth and unlimited resources, taking us with it. Working age populations are decreasing everywhere, unless we discover a new way of life, and become less stubborn about that transition, we have no future.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

sensfan15 said:


> While it's true that capitalism drives incentive, it also drives corruption, greed, war, poverty, crime and environmental destruction. I think that incentive stemming from capitalism is based on self-centered goals such as wealth, power, and property.


This kinda sticks in my craw....my mom grew up in Lenin & Stalins dream society...of the 8 aunts I had only 2 survived. My grandfather was executed in front of my mom for hiding a pail of potatoes on the collective farm.

I think you can take your Socialist leanings & shove them up your ___.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

Eder's post sums up why we're heading for the end of civilization. If the masses consistently dislike change and experimentation, a sense of belonging to each other, we're left with the existing Darwinian/"last man standing" society. Good luck, we won't survive that, we won't survive devolution. The Earth has billions of years on us, we'll just prove to be another insignificant "transitional" species.

You talk as if capitalism is a saint. It's not, you (and many others that can afford to use a computer to post on a site like this) were just blessed to benefit on the receiving end in a period of hyper-globalization, and how long those benefits last is debatable.


----------



## el oro (Jun 16, 2009)

I agree with Karen and Harold. Noble but naive thoughts. You should study some history if you're actually interested in this topic. There isn't much that's new today in terms of how nations are run.

Sure, there may be enough resources on the planet for everyone today but what kind of standard of living do you think people would have? What about at a world population of 10 billion? 20 billion? One interesting note in history is that one positive outcome from the Black Death was the end of serfdom in Europe. Supply and demand applies to people too!



> While it's true that capitalism drives incentive, it also drives corruption, greed, war, poverty, crime and environmental destruction.


 These things pre-date capitalism. In our world, I'm a well paid professional. Take away my incentive and I'll happily do the bare minimum. Technology just doesn't advance as well in that environment.

To sum up:

*The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;
the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
-- Churchill*


----------



## jcgd (Oct 30, 2011)

This guy, Hans Rosling, makes some very good points (using numbers of course) that the world population should, and can stop growing and around 9 billion. Check out this video.

Essentially we need to get to the point of a developed world (we are close, just waiting for some lagging countries like Afganistan to get with it) and sustainability is possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

We won't transition away from non-renewable energy by 2050 because 

1) Technological efficiency eliminates jobs, unemployment rates would inevitably rise - decisions like this are politically unpopular
2) Developing economies still receive a majority of their tax revenue from the natural resource industries and governments will do everything they can to protect them

If the population stopped growing in 2050, the economy, as it is designed today, would also stop growing. The aggregate amount of credit available in our economy is directly related to the amount of people with the ability to spend it. These macro themes will play a big role in the next century. If you want to know why Japan's market has been stagnant for 20 years, all you have to do is look at their declining population and fertility rates since 1970.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Sensfan - I think you are attributing more power to money than it deserves. Money is simply a convenient means of exchange, nothing more nothing less. What I think you are trying to get rid of is greed and people taking advantage of one another. Those things can easily exist without money and exist in one form or another in both capitalist and socialist systems.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

Spidey said:


> Sensfan - I think you are attributing more power to money than it deserves. Money is simply a convenient means of exchange, nothing more nothing less. What I think you are trying to get rid of is greed and people taking advantage of one another. Those things can easily exist without money and exist in one form or another in both capitalist and socialist systems.


Exactly. Money is nothing more than a medium of exchange. In a world without money, greed would still be rampant. Corporations that produce everything are still going to produce everything. They'd just be exchanging it for something else. You work at Wal-mart, you now get paid in product (cheap clothes, low quality groceries, crappy electronics). People barter and exchange for goods, but its still those that own the factors of production (factory owners, farm owners, landlords etc.) that end up with all the material goods. 

Money only exists to facilitate the exchange of goods and services. Without money, a farmer would have to pay 4,000 chickens for a tractor. John Deere would then need to find a steel mill that would accept 4,000 chickens as payment for the raw materials needed to make a new factory. A world without money is just plain inefficient.

If you look at basic necessities (food, clothing, warmth, shelter), those that owned the production of these necessities would now hold all the power. Just because we eliminate money doesn't mean all of a sudden people will grow food just for the greater good. The world would still revolve around supply and demand, and the reality is that people will always want more.

Sure we have the capacity to feed every starving child around the world, but the truth is, given the choice of high speed internet or feeding a child for a year, if you're reading this right now, you've chosen internet.....

What you're advocating is a world wherein everyone makes huge sacrifices for everyone else, and frankly, that's a pipe dream right now. Even the most hippy of hippies won't sacrifice their own well being for that of an unknown on the other side of the world. Sure peace and love is great, but only after I've got my 80 inch TV, granite countertops, stainless steel appliances and new BMW.

In a perfect world, we'd all work our asses off to improve everyone's life, including our own. But we live in the real world where we're all looking out for ourself and ours. We're a long way off from any alternative.


----------



## ddkay (Nov 20, 2010)

I agree money is not the problem, the problem is an underlying need of exponential growth for everyone forever to maintain a stable society.

It's human nature to be greedy short-sighted and unconcerned with the welfare of strangers. An energy crisis or financial crisis, sequence doesn't matter, are inevitable in this century and will take care of our overpopulation issue no problems. The difference between Black Death and now is the threat of economic/trade wars devolving into use of nuclear or biological weapons that can pulverize or paralyze millions of people within seconds, effect the food supply for years, and leave lingering health effects for generations after. So back to my earlier point, good luck surviving that...


----------



## jagger (Jan 12, 2011)

The OP's original post makes no sense. What proof do you present that currency is the root cause of poverty? Countries which have free market policies have always been better off than socialist countries. Just look at Hong Kong, it's a rock in the middle of the ocean, with no natural resources. But in justt 50 years it went from third world to first world, now the average salary in Hong Kong is about same as North America. Yet nearby China and India are still poor. South Korea is another great example, where capitalism has revolutionist their society.

The other thing you mention is solving resource scarcity through technological innovation. No matter how good we get at manufacturing or producing, there will always be some resource that is scarce. Life will never be like Star Trek, where you don't need to work, you have the holodeck for recreation, and replicators to instantly create anything. A better idea is to get rid tariffs on imports good. Simply buy goods from whoever can produce them the most efficiently. This is the easiest way to make products affordable to the poor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA&feature=related

The other thing you fail to point out is HUMAN PREJUDICE. Most of us don't want others to be better off. Which is why we set immigration quotas, forbid immigrants from getting good education, and discriminate against certain ethnic groups. Most of us like to think that we don't, but we do, otherwise such stupid laws wouldn't exist. We often pass laws to help such groups, but these laws have the opposite effect. 

Capitalism may not be perfect, but there hasn't been any other system, that's any better. Milton Friedman had this right, decades ago. Most cases of poverty are the result of a failure of government, not the free enterprise system.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ddkay said:


> The truth is capitalism is a pyramid scheme, it collapses without exponential growth and unlimited resources, taking us with it. *Working age populations are decreasing everywhere, unless we discover a new way of life, and become less stubborn about that transition*, we have no future.


With any pyramid or high growth scheme there can be weakness or
unforseen events that can can trigger collapse. 

Some major factors contribute to "working age populations decreasing everywhere"

- globalization of the economy
- available cheap capital to produce consumer goods
- cost of maintaining an aging population
- Advances in modern medicine to keep people going (beyond their working years) longer.
- Population growth. Means more people around and more retired people as a result..and more to pay benefits to.
-Gov't pensions/medicare to provide for aged people to keep them going longer.
- a system of investment schemes to provide income to sustain those aged people.

the common denominator?..money and it's availabilty

"discovering a new way of life"?..maybe... but one thing is for certain, we as a society, can never return to the economic way of life we had 50 or a 100 years ago...
too much change has happened in the meantime.


----------



## Dmoney (Apr 28, 2011)

carverman said:


> "discovering a new way of life"?..maybe... but one thing is for certain, we as a society, can never return to the economic way of life we had 50 or a 100 years ago...
> too much change has happened in the meantime.


Maybe the Amish had it right all along....


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

I agree with the spirit of the OP, though I do think money is not the root of all problems here. It is a conduit for what is truly the problem, mankind.

That's why there are gross injustices within capitalism, socialism, or any other ism you can think of. The system isn't to blame, nor is the currency. It is us.

There is enough wealth and resources for everyone to live comfortably, no doubt about that. We pay farmers to NOT grow crops, while others starve to death every day. We protect pharmaceutical patent laws that inflate prices of drugs way out of the range of the third-world countries that need them the most to combat massive pandemics, such as AIDS. We talk about freedom while overthrowing democratically-elected leaders in other countries just because they nationalize oil (see the US and UK overthrow of Time Magazine's 1951 man of the year Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iran, replacing him with a bloody murderer).

It's us. The problem has always been us.

Edit: What a dreary way to start my Friday


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

I was listening to the radio today about the consequences of the democracy in Egypt and Iraq. People are electing extremists that will give Iran a possible ally in Iraq or Egypt will become much worse for the west then what was there before.

Over here many vote for a government by its party or vote for it because of hand outs or gains in your area. We need voters voting for governments for the right reasons and not just for one reason we think is right despite all the other bad stuff they do. A good example was forcing out Gordon Campbell for what he did on the HST, he deceived us and thus should pay for that. Many on the forum would turn a blind eye because the HST is a better system but in return they now have a dictator on there hands.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I have to agree money is not the root or cause of these issues. It's the people. 

Though, hypothetically speaking, there is a way to feed everyone in the world so the 'needs' are met. There is no way to give everyone what they 'want'. Therefore you'll still have scarcity. 

Even with technology, you would still need to either have everyone obtain the exact same standard of living, or some how match a standard based on their wants, as long as their wants don't require more. Also, who determines what the standard is? 

While it would be a wonderful thing if everyone could get everything they needed with working, and that people didn't want anything, and just did things because it's the 'right thing to do' or because it helps society. I think that system would quickly collaspe as some people realize that they could do nothing to get what they wanted, while others did the right thing. Soon those doing the right thing would start to feel taken advantage of if there is not recognition or reward.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Plugging Along said:


> I have to agree money is not the root or cause of these issues. *It's the people. *


I am amazed that this topic has raised some very good points on what is the real problem with society as a whole today...and those 3 words summarize what may be probably the root.

It's not about money but how money is perceived and used in today's society.


Warning: U.S. history lesson coming up, with comments on the statement above. 

In the US, I'm sure that their present financial woes..is not because of the statement in their constitution written in 1776 (235 years ago)..
when the original 13 colonies of Britain (2.5 million) would through revolution..formed the new gov't of the US..

[from online sources]
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America...." [end]

etc..etc....

a bloody civil war ending in July 1865 with Pres Lincoln's famous Gettysburg address/speech....

[online sources]
"here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—*and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth*."
[end]
..as well as going through some World Wars, and insurretions...the U.S. has now arrived in the present with a population of 311 million, an economy in trouble... and public debt of "we the people" approaching 15 trillion...

[quote online source]
"As of December 8, 2011 the gross debt was $15.05 trillion, of which $10.39 trillion was held by the public and $4.66 trillion was intragovernmental holdings. The annual gross domestic product (GDP) to the end of June 2011 was $15.003 trillion (July 29, 2011 estimate),[5] with total public debt outstanding at a ratio of 100% of GDP, and debt held by the public at 69% of GDP. [end]

What went wrong???




> Though, hypothetically speaking, there is a way to feed everyone in the world so the 'needs' are met. *There is no way to give everyone what they 'want'. Therefore you'll still have scarcity*.


Yes that is true to a point..but it is an artificially created scarcity... created by the ruling class of the people themselves. IF ALL the countries in the world stopped spending a big percentage of their GDP on defence and
"swords".. and spent that money on"ploughshares" (food technology)... I'm quite sure that as a collective (world) unit..starvation could be eliminated completely, as
well as disease (cancers etc)...

So what is wrong with the people to allow this to happen???



> Even with technology, you would still need to either have everyone obtain the exact same standard of living, or some how match a standard based on their wants, as long as their wants don't require more. Also, who determines what the standard is?


and this ( your statement)..P.A. 
...is the key I believe to the the current situation we face today..



> While it would be a wonderful thing if everyone could get everything they needed with working, and that people didn't want anything, and just did things because it's the 'right thing to do' or because it helps society. I think *that system would quickly collaspe as some people realize that they could do nothing to get what they wanted, while others did the right thing*. Soon those doing the right thing would start to feel taken advantage of if there is not recognition or reward.


So even in a Utopian society..where everyone is perceived as equal to each other..there still lies a fundamental problem with humans...


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

I actually doubt humans will go extinct even if civilization collapses. Humans are supremely adaptable... I think it'd be darn hard to kill all of us without something truly cataclysmic. 

As far as capitalism goes... our current abundance is only possible with a system that efficiently allocates resources to their most productive use. Capitalism is the only system we've devised that can accomplish this on a large scale. Socialism only works on very small scales, like a small commune of very tightly knit people (extended family, say) as it relies on trust.

Of course, some of the effects of capitalism are undesirable, such as poverty, environmental degradation, etc. These are areas where we can use government as a harness for capitalism to guide it. Capitalism is not an ideology--it's a tool.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Carver, there is scarcity because of the natural physical limits of the universe. We can't all have a mile of tropical beachfront for our vacation properties because it doesn't exist.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

andrewf said:


> Carver, there is scarcity because of the natural physical limits of the universe. We can't all have a mile of tropical beachfront for our vacation properties because it doesn't exist.


I'm reading that as some injected humour, I presume.
The last thing (for examp;e) the Somalis need, where many have already starved or in the process of starvation, is to
be concerned about any scarcity of any luxuries..such as 
you mention. 
Here is and example of a country that doesn't seem to have a central gov't to bring their nomadic descendents into the 20th..ok the 21st century. 
So even if the "well to doer's" in the world collected their amassed fortunes for one day, and bought enough food
to feed the starving people there for a year..it would end up staying in airport warehouses, or on ship unloading docks..until the pirates running the country
were promised payment to allow distribution to the starving masses.
So the political landscape as well as human greed have a lot of influence in distribution of equity between the "haves" and "havenots" of the world. 

In the civilized world, easy access to credit, food banks and welfare systems
help to support the havenots because of capitalism..so compared to outright
dictatorships or paramilitary factions running the country.

..we have a lot to be thankful for..we know where our daily bread is coming
from and we also know we can get it too.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

Appreciate the discussion. It is very interesting. 

I think in order to get to the point in which I describe, a single fundamental change must occur BEFORE anything else. It must occur WITHIN every single human being on the planet from Canada to Zimbabwe to Brazil. We must begin to see the similarities between all human beings REGARDLESS of religion, race, culture, occupations, etc. Our differences are rather trivial in comparison to our similarities. Every single person NEEDS clean air, nutritious food, clean drinking water, and shelter. Everything in the universe is inter-connected. The atoms that compose our bodies, cigarette butts on the street, computers, et al. are made of the same materials everything else in the universe is composed of including the sun, planets, moons, gases, and on and on...Our planets vegetation is dependent on the sun and we are dependent on vegetation which acts as the Earth's 'lungs'. Is it not obvious that we are all one?

This is the spiritual revolution that is taking place on earth. When people begin to see themselves in everything they look at.

I admit, we are still a long ways off.

Another comment regarding governments of the world....it is obvious that governments do not have the capacity to solve problems. Technology solves problems and thus this is where our focus should be. Our political institutions are now obsolete given the knowledge that we now have today.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Nobody can argue with your "wouldn't it be nice" philosophy, sensfan, but I expressed my opinion that your original post was naive, and I have to say the same about this one, only more so. Good grief - people on this forum can't even agree about such things as environmental issues and basic matters of human rights; to suggest that it will ever be possible for people of every country, religion, and culture to come to any kind of consensus simply isn't being realistic. I don't mean to belittle your ideas; nobody wishes more than I do that your vision of a future world had a chance of coming true, but it doesn't, and the sooner we face that and get on with looking for more practical solutions to the ills of the world, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sensfan15 said:


> Another comment regarding governments of the world....it is obvious that governments do not have the capacity to solve problems. Technology solves problems and thus this is where our focus should be. Our political institutions are now obsolete given the knowledge that we now have today.


Governments _are_ technology. They are social technology. And without viable political institutions, you get Somalia. Sorry to say--Hobbes was right.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

Karen,

Naive? Sure. I am only pointing out what I think needs to happen in order for the world to become more sane. Like I said, this is a revolution that must begin from within each of the 7 billion people on the planet. Personally, I am able to see past these trivial differences that I have described. I have been to many parts of the world including South Asia, SE Asia, NE Asia, Europe, and NA. I know that people are just people regardless of language, religion or cultural differences. I am willing to welcome someone with open arms kneeling on a rug towards a picture of Mecca just as much as someone attending mass at Christmas time. I know for a fact I am not the only one.

I can see someone responding to this with: "Would you welcome a terrorist with open arms?" My answer to that is that human being is just as inflicted by this insanity as the power and money hungry corporatocracy. Of course I wouldn't welcome someone with open arms that put a gun to my head, but I would be WILLING to if that person dropped that weapon as he realizes his own insanity.

I know I sound like a spineless hippy, but I frequently ask myself if I am part of the solution or part of the problem. Others should ask themselves the same; or if not, continue to submit to the cynical viewpoint that "this is just the way things are and nothing will ever change".

Your choice.


andrewf,

I understand your point. I have not heard the term social technology before, but I would assume that it's definition could be something related to increasing the quality of life for a society. Are the world's government's achieving that when you consider that roughly 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2/day? 

I think we also need to remember that we are all born naked and completely vulnerable in this world. As we grow up we become conditioned by our experiences. You could argue that the lawlessness in Somalia is a result of basic needs not being met. Children in that country practically grow up with an AK-47 in their hands at all times. Saying "And without viable political institutions, you get Somalia." is extremely simplistic.


----------



## sensfan15 (Jul 13, 2011)

I also acknowledge that it may be too late for us. We have seen rising tensions throughout the world. 

One incident COULD trigger a major conflict that draws in the following countries:

Israel/U.S/Iran/Syria/Pakistan/India/China/Russia/N.Korea/S.Korea

Then as we see mushroom clouds rising off in the horizon we will be asking ourselves what have we done (or rather what have our governments done) 

The root of a major conflict like this would be traced all the way back to one thing: control of resources


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sensfan15 said:


> andrewf,
> 
> I understand your point. I have not heard the term social technology before, but I would assume that it's definition could be something related to increasing the quality of life for a society. Are the world's government's achieving that when you consider that roughly 50% of the world's population lives on less than $2/day?
> 
> I think we also need to remember that we are all born naked and completely vulnerable in this world. As we grow up we become conditioned by our experiences. You could argue that the lawlessness in Somalia is a result of basic needs not being met. Children in that country practically grow up with an AK-47 in their hands at all times. Saying "And without viable political institutions, you get Somalia." is extremely simplistic.


The majority of those who live on less than $2/day live in countries with deficient government institutions.

Niall Ferguson has articulated this quite lucidly, I think:
http://www.ted.com/talks/niall_ferguson_the_6_killer_apps_of_prosperity.html


----------



## jagger (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10&feature=related

You've made an excellent point here. Most liberals are good, conscientious people. They are﻿ more than welcome to help out the less fortunate. The problem is that they try to implement paradise solutions that simply can not work in the real world, which will never, ever be a paradise, no matter how they may wish it so. They don't teach fishing, they just give fish. Someone else's fish. And never do they understand there's no endless supply of fish.

Milton Friedman had so many things right, decades ago. I don't know why people hate this brilliant economist. At least he was a proponent of real world solutions, instead of advocating the creation of some fairy tale utopia.


----------

