Record numbers go hungry in the US

carolt

But surely better to aim for a utopia based on a vision of man's lovelier side, than have no aims at all?

lostinrates

carolt wrote: »

But surely better to aim for a utopia based on a vision of man's lovelier side, than have no aims at all?

Why?

when I train other species of animals I work, atleast initially, on using their natural instinct to work for me, what I want them to do.

while I like many of my fellow humans, I never forget we are all animals.

bendix

There is an alternative. And that is what has worked for centuries. It's based on the fact that all boats are lifted in rising water.

Individual freedom to succeed and better yourself. Innovation. Creativity. Competition. Wealth creation - those are the things that over the last 200-300 years have lifted literally billions of people out of mud huts and poverty.

Even the lowest of the low in most societies are better off now than before. They have longer lives, too.

Yes, the rich have got richer, but there has been a trickle down effect, as evidenced by the fact that the gentleman in ninky's example likely would have either been dead 100 years ago and certainly wouldn't have had an electronic motor thing to get around.

Poverty exists, but capitalism has raised the bar for everyone.

It is the ONE thing that has worked, not perfectly but better than anything else.

A staid everyone gets the same utopia creates stagnation - noone is motivated to prosper, and we go backwards. That is the history of all utopias - from the Soviet Union, China, North Korea down to small sixties style communes which inevitably decay due to someone being a leader, corruption, deceit and powerplays.

ninky_2

show me a country without a welfare state in which capitalism can be solely credited for allowing people to prosper?

not all inventions, medical discoveries and so-called progress has come from capitalist economies.

and the country that consistently rates highest on living standards? norway. with a very healthy welfare state and egalitarian ethos.

lostinrates

Afriend wrote: »

I think we're on the same page. For a society to work well, it needs to account for human nature. This will help to get the best from individuals for the common good of everyone.

Yep, same page.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

show me a country without a welfare state in which capitalism can be solely credited for allowing people to prosper?

not all inventions, medical discoveries and so-called progress has come from capitalist economies.

and the country that consistently rates highest on living standards? norway. with a very healthy welfare state and egalitarian ethos.

You just don't get it, do you? It's nothing to do with a country's political system. Capitalism even operates (unofficially) in countries like North Korea (black economy), Cuba and other totalitarian states. And thank god it does - if it didnt their misery there would be compounded.

By capitalism, I mean the all embracing desire of the human spirit to innovate and create to get ahead of others - to succeed and prosper.

In that regard, every significant advance has come about through those means.

The political hue of the governing classes is irrelevant.

What do you think is happening in China today? For decades the political elite tried the egalitarian socialist ideal, forcing literally tens of millions of people to be equally destitute and hungry.

Free things up - introduce the capitalistic principle (or what they laughingly call socialism with a chinese face to save their embarassment at how wrong they were) - and what has happened to living standards of hundreds of millions of people?

Here's a simple truth for you, ninky. People might pontificate about the equality of all human beings at BBC-staff dinner parties where they can all moralise at how terrible it all is, as they sip their wine, but in the real world people don't want to be equal. They want to be better than their neighbours. And quite right too - it is what human progress has been predicated upon for thousands of years.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Why?

when I train other species of animals I work, atleast initially, on using their natural instinct to work for me, what I want them to do.

while I like many of my fellow humans, I never forget we are all animals.

i'm so glad you brought up your horse training analogy. and indeed i agree that humans are animals. straw dogs is one of my favourite books.

so let's look at horses. which ones do you suggest? the wild ones running free across the plains? the working ones used to herd cattle? the minature ones bred for cuteness factor? the muscular arabs? the highly bred and trained dressage specimens? you see, horses like humans vary widely due to differences in both nature and nurture. i've been talking to companion animal behaviourists recently who suggest that many of the traditional ways we train animals lead to 'learned helplessness'. from the outside this looks great. the animal behaves in ways we like and from our perspective is highly reliant and 'adoring' of us, its human owner. yet its behaviour is really similar to the person in an abusive relationship. fight or flight hasn't worked so all that is left is to submit to the will of another.

all this talk of capitalism and human 'nature' is odd. for if we believe in evolution, human nature is no more fixed than the colour of the chameleon. and as we can see our actions have become a little like carp and yeast - species which given the chance have a tendency to eat themselves to death and die in their own excrement. yet i hope we have a consciousness beyond carp and yeast. an ability to see the consequences of our individual and collective actions and see that by sharing and promoting the interests of life beyond our own we serve ourselves better than a blinkered first past the post run for the materialistic finish line.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

By capitalism, I mean the all embracing desire of the human spirit to innovate and create to get ahead of others - to succeed and prosper.

all sounds very thrusting and celebratory. however, i think if we are going to use economic / political terms we should perhaps stick to conventional definitions rather than make up our own otherwise i might as well argue black is white. i think a more typical definition is something along these lines...

–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

i don't think all human achievement can be credited to the above.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i'm so glad you brought up your horse training analogy. and indeed i agree that humans are animals. straw dogs is one of my favourite books.

so let's look at horses. which ones do you suggest? the wild ones running free across the plains? the working ones used to herd cattle? the minature ones bred for cuteness factor? the muscular arabs? the highly bred and trained dressage specimens? you see, horses like humans vary widely due to differences in both nature and nurture. i've been talking to companion animal behaviourists recently who suggest that many of the traditional ways we train animals lead to 'learned helplessness'. from the outside this looks great. the animal behaves in ways we like and from our perspective is highly reliant and 'adoring' of us, its human owner. yet its behaviour is really similar to the person in an abusive relationship. fight or flight hasn't worked so all that is left is to submit to the will of another.

all this talk of capitalism and human 'nature' is odd. for if we believe in evolution, human nature is no more fixed than the colour of the chameleon. and as we can see our actions have become a little like carp and yeast - species which given the chance have a tendency to eat themselves to death and die in their own excrement. yet i hope we have a consciousness beyond carp and yeast. an ability to see the consequences of our individual and collective actions and see that by sharing and promoting the interests of life beyond our own we serve ourselves better than a blinkered first past the post run for the materialistic finish line.

I agree...we, like types of animals are different...but more similar than different. whether its horses or us.

Do you really think horse, as a creature, differ so much in nature? I've had cute, feral, and dressage horses. (often in the same herd at home!)...the phrase ''the zebra in your stable'' is often true. Physiology, and man's influence on breeding has influenced complications...but often these are complications the nature, the mind of the reature is ill equipped to cope with. In many, many groups of horses (and other species) you get the same performances and the same roles replayed by different personalities....not exactly the same but functionally so.

re traditional training...I'd need more narrowing down, do you mean tradition as in BHs? as in classical? I will not speak specifically against any trainer in such a forum as this, but some trainers, and movements in training, I would say have absolutely and almost in somany words encouraged learned helplessness: often wrapped up in ribbon of niceness. In fact there is a big movement across disciplines to tackle a training method where this is an aim ATM, o course, this is being argued by an equally strong contingent who do approve of this sort of thing. This is not how I try and work: but thats probably not something I'll go into further here!

Have you read the theories about animal lead domestication? They do not apply to horses, but are very, very interesting.

We all pretty much want the same thing, food, saftey, survival and sex.

bendix

ninky wrote: »

all sounds very thrusting and celebratory. however, i think if we are going to use economic / political terms we should perhaps stick to conventional definitions rather than make up our own otherwise i might as well argue black is white. i think a more typical definition is something along these lines...

–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

i don't think all human achievement can be credited to the above.

Allright. Fine, we'll play by your rules.

Compare and contrast the achievements - both scientific, artistic and (much more importantly) in terms of the health, happiness and prosperity of their people of the following:

1) The USA 1900 - 2000

2) The UK 1900- 2000

3) Russia / USSR 1900 - 2000

4) China 1900 - 2000

(and by way of interesting contrast):

5) South Korea 1950 - 2000

6) North Korea 1950 - 2000

Half of these were capitalist by your definition. Half chose the utopian muddle-headed approach you seem to favour.

And here's a clue for you. In only three of them has the economic / political system led to millions of their people starving to death at various points during the time period. I wonder if you can guess which three.

While you're at it, I'd be very interested in your assessment of the numbers of people who have tried to leave 3) 4) and 6) in favour of 1) 2) and 6), compared to those seeking to defect in the opposite direction.