Subject:
|
Re: From Richard: "It's all bad news - Chaos is my fault"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 20:22:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1496 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun wrote:
> > 80% mortality? Not likely. In fact, the opposite is true;
> > that's what's helping the problem of overpopulation along.
> > The real pushing force is the *labor value* of children; in
> > agricultural societies--or, better put, societies that still
> > maintain agricultural values systems, which would include
> > most of the "third world"--children equal a support system
> > for the family. At least, that's how it's supposed to be in
> > a subsistence or near-subsistence economy; beyond the goal
> > of accounting for pre-reproductive-capacity death, you also
> > have the positive goal of producing kin that equal social and
> > economic capital. It's not a cold calculation (children = $$)
> > but rather one that's made without concern for money itself.
>
> Are you sure about that? Children have very little labor
> value in our society, and I still see the have-nots reproducing
> faster. You've hit ONE reason, but not nearly ALL reasons.
Value systems die very hard. I was speaking primarily
about the "third world" (or as we like to call it, the
"two-thirds world"), but it's not hard to see that when
people come here, the values system that promotes large
families tends to have a certain inertia that takes
generations to overcome. It exists amongst people who
are already in this society, too, but again it may have
to do with a very different prioritization in life.
Having met, again, a lot of folks while in southern Africa
who have huge families, and seeing just how vital the
extended kin network is to their sense of being and their
lives, I can see this. Right now, however, with 80% un-
employment in some township areas (!!!), large kin networks
mean it is that much more likely that ONE person has a job.
That one person then supports much of the family. It's a
lousy dynamic, and far removed from the days of bridewealth
and cattle kraals, but it still tends to encourage fecundity.
For all one hears about family breakdowns, too, these folks
really *do* love all their children. It's heartening.
> > This is part of the reason that wealth has almost always
> > been the chief correlation to low reproductive rates--the
> > wealth itself provides those benefits, and children are a
> > net drain for the first 14-18 years of their lives on the
> > family economy. Sure, some do defy that trend, but even in
> > the poorest countries infant/pre-18 youth mortality is not
> > even close to eighty per cent.
>
> Hmm, is that wealth the cause, or the result? Or are they
> both the result of something else? I'm going with answer 3.
Correlation was what I stated, but it's a little bit of
both. The trouble is that people get very little benefit
from starting with lowering reproduction; it's far more
likely that some amount of wealth comes first. Certainly
the existence of law that protects said wealth is a help,
which is something Larry pointed out.
> > As for what Don pointed out--that the have-nots reproduce
> > faster--that has always been true; but the conclusion he draws,
> > that it will swamp the "haves," is only so if the labor of the
> > added population does not add value to the total system. Given
> > that it does so, and at least at present faster than the rate of
> > both inflation and rich-poor imbalance, some of those "have nots"
> > will continue to become "haves"--it is more a ratio than a hard
> > and fast number. If you want examples, just look at those
> > immigrant communities of the 1960s and 1970s in Britain and
> > the USA, or better yet, look at the last 10 years in South Africa,
> > and the total wealth creation.
>
> I hope you're right, but I have trouble believing it. It seems
> so difficult to measure.
When you have over six billion data points, it's very very
hard to measure. But think about it this way: people have
been screaming about the collapse of society into a sea of
indigent mouths, or worse, since Malthus broached it centuries
ago. It hasn't happened, and in fact the rate of wealth creation
in what we might consider "real terms" (it's so hard to make
good comparisons, sadly) has kept pace with the population.
We've generally, as a planet, found ways around the gloom and
doom, though that is of course no guarantee that we always will.
I'd tend to err on the side of optimism, however, given that I
know a fair number of people who have made good in countries
ranging from the amenable (UK, US, Netherlands) to the less likely
(South Africa, Zambia, Senegal). I have a certain faith in the
ability of human beings to rise when they are not subject to
predation by forces beyond their knowledge, which is sadly
very often the case in the corrupt and/or neocolonial regimes
of the Third World.
> > What is the statistic that appeared in the Independent today?
> > If your surname is "Patel" in the UK, you are something like
> > four times more likely to be a millionaire than if your surname
> > were "Smith," despite there being ten times as many Smiths.
> >
> > So yeah, it's both worse and better than you think. The real
> > solution is for the "have have haves"--those in the West who
> > make the millionaires look dirt-poor--to stop collecting such
> > obscene wealth, and use some of it for job creation in the areas
> > with those "capitas." The problem is not that they don't want
> > to work and succeed, but overwhelmingly that unemployment is
> > kept high so that wages may be kept unfeasably low and, thus,
> > profit margins obscene, which in turn gives the "obscene-haves"
> > their obscene, er, havings.
>
> That's one of my pet peeves with the republicans. They do a
> good job of pruning the trees so they produce more fruit, but
> then they like to claim ownership of the trees. The democrats,
> on the other hand tend to distribute more fruit, but let the
> trees fall into disrepair. And of course those distributing
> the fruit always keep more for themselves.
I tend to believe that most philosophies have some basis
in reality, and speak to some great truths, and would all
generally work if they could actually take into account
the way things ARE as opposed to the way they SHOULD BE.
That's something Machiavelli, for example, understood; and
it does tend to militate against optimism to bear such a
mercenary view of humanity in mind. I mean, the "invisible
hand" of the market is a great concept, and in theory works
well, but human beings know how to screw each other well
enough that it doesn't work. And communism? Same deal,
only even worse because it requires the uncorking of the
genie of violent revolution and makes the farcical suggestion
that human beings will willingly dismantle a government.
Some might, but not enough to make such a fantasy work.
> > The answer to the problem isn't communism or capitalism; rather,
> > it's a healthy sense of moral responsibility to those who make
> > the wealth of the insanely rich possible. If for nothing else,
> > I have respect for Bill Gates for a certain acceptance of that
> > (though only to a point).
>
> Or bring back the Death taxes. Make 'em decide between a charity
> of their own choosing, or the nasty government beaurocrats. If
> you could find a politician selfless enough to do this, I'd probably
> vote for 'em. The wealth does us no good if it stagnates in a
> few lucky pockets. Put it back into the society that generated
> it.
The trouble is that some of us didn't inherit a whole lot,
but the realization that one's children can inherit is very
powerful indeed. The money of the super-rich does tend to
do work, it just works mostly in the cause of extracting yet
more wealth from people who have very little. It's easy to
engage in highly unethical (if not outright immoral) commercial
activity when you never actually have to deal with any of the
people you're visiting your interests most heavily upon.
And that's my biggest beef with globalization. If the shanty-
towns of SE Asia and Africa were all over the US that consumes
those cheap goods, we'd behave very differently indeed.
all best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
163 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
