Haha! It's not how many they need, it's how many they want. Try telling my missus and most women that they have too many handbags, shoes ect and see how far it gets you! Good luck!
A Resource Based Economy
- Thread starter edgray
- Start date
Haha! It's not how many they need, it's how many they want. Try telling my missus and most women that they have too many handbags, shoes ect and see how far it gets you! Good luck!
And this is why equal wealth is a terrible idea. People spend what they haven't got. That is why debt from people in a singular mould is still in evidence, especially in this era of the year where you spend a lot more. But if you spend your money wisely, don't spend what you haven't got and therefore are not in debt, then you will be fine. You're the smarter man.
But it is a person's choice. I don't buy that people can ever blame corporations for being in debt, they have brain cells, they are sound of mind, therefore they are capable of making their own decisions in regard to buying/not buying something. It's bullshit that people are stupid enough to blame corporations because Uncle Harry lost his house because he bought an Ipad.
The point of that post was to highlight what current modes of thinking lead to.
As Kimmeh said, how do we know it won't work until it's been tried? There are so many ways it could be organised, the possibilities are endless.
And besides, if we don't even consider it, we'll never get beyond the highly uncivilised societies we have nowadays.
The point is to avoid the super power problem, which is exactly what we have now. We have 1 super power consuming 25% of the world's resources, creating 25% of the worlds waste, and creating mass starvation, slavery, poverty, war and death as they're doing it.
Human beings aren't anything by nature other than inquisitive. Any non generous behaviour is guaranteed and perpetuated by the unnecessary scarcity within which we're forced to live. A different model would bring out different traits. Greed, corruption and selfish behaviour are simply products of how we live now.
Such as?
If they understood the REAL cost of them, perhaps they'd think twice, and that's the point.
Do you think that the handbags and shoes women by are made by people working in humane conditions? Do you think they're paid a reasonable wage? Do you think they have rights? Perhaps if people realised that they might think twice.
I really don't know all of the possibilities involved. It would be a monumental task that would take people with incredible technical knowledge to figure out.
My personal idea would resemble a libertarian socialist society, much as I've spoken about in the past.
Some ideas:
- Food would be grown locally in vertical urban farms.
- Energy captured from the sun at local level.
- Work would be organised into committees, and workload would be split to meet the technical needs of the requirements of communities.
It would require 100% involvement for everyone.
There are so many options, I will draft some ideas in depth tonight and post them tomorrow.
Well there have been TV shows on which highlight where they are made and who makes them. And while people may have been concerned about it it wasn't as big a concern to make them stop buying it. It's highlighted though, very much so, but the appeal to women of these handbags (doesn't have to be women, it could be males with the latest trainers) is much greater. And that's my point about the economic side, people would rather spend spend spend. I'm not opposed to that IF they have the money, it's when they don't and then go into debt and the sliding scale begins again what I talked about where the problems start.
Well only part of it has been highlighted, and it's the TVs job to make you buy stuff, so anything on there is going to be very watered down. They detach it from your purchasing actions by simply placing the blame on the corporation involved.
What isn't shown is the whole picture. That "The Story of Stuff" video Kimmeh posted should be shown to everyone, and then couple that with what globalisation causes around the world: poverty, starvation, exploitation, slavery.
You're right, people generally don't seem to want to care. There is an adjustment in values that is required. An adjustment away from pointless consumerism (and the debt problem you mentioned)
You really think most people would don't you? You really are clueless to human nature!
then explain to me human nature Peter. I'd love to know, as would everyone else too.
As far as I can see, human nature is that humans are adaptable, inquisitive, and, well that's pretty much it.
Please enlighten everyone as to the answer of a problem that scientists all over the world have yet to solve.
People are quite often greedy bastards and will trample over others to get what they want. People are not going to stop buying hand bags because they were made by some kid in a third world country on 2 pence a day.
My evidence - the whole of human history, wherever you live
Clearly you think of "the whole of human history" as what is considered very recent history, that being of the past 50 years. If you look into times before that, you see an entirely different picture.
Also a big no about the whole "where you live" thing. You need to look into different cultures Peter. Have a look at the south American tribes for a start, Plains Indians second, then come back and tell me any of that is "human nature".
Human Nature, like I said, begins and ends with Inquisition and Adaptability.
Everything else is just environmental conditioning, and your specifics are very recent conditioning too. If you look back just 50 years you see a world where thrift was a cherished and highly valued trait. What you're talking about is the past 50 years, nothing more, and coincides with the rise of consumerism. It's not a great leap to see that the rise of consumerism created your "human nature."
Native American's were no different. The myth of the peaceful noble savage living in harmony with nature was squashed years and years ago, it only persists to play on the conscience of the white man.
If you can't see the similarities between the mass war and consumption driven worlds of the Inca, Triple Alliance (colloquially known as the Aztecs) and Maya peoples, and then the ritualistic forest burnings of the North american natives then you truly do see the world though rose tinted glasses.
Yes they were no different. They valued greed and rewarded selfishness, didn't they? They had a consumerist based culture as well, spent all their time manufacturing junk...
The similarities, however vague they might be, show nothing other than different societal structures create different value sets. The obsession with buying useless crap cannot be compared to, say, how the Sioux Indians lived.
That's not looking through rose tinted glasses. It's just looking and observing.
So, tell me, why weren't we consumer driven before consumerism? Why was thrift so valued before consumerism and mass production?
And, that myth you speak of, I never claimed anyone was a noble savage or anything of the sort, so please don't put words in my mouth to regurgitate an argument you've obviously had with someone previously. My point is that anyone is better, nor that how anyone has lived previously is a superior way of living. I couldn't care less about that nonsense. The point is, and let me spell it out:
HUMANS ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONDITIONED.
Greed is what creates consumerism, of which the Sioux suffered equally. Your right, greed is an environmental conditioning. But you're wrong about what causes it; it's the world., not some obscure modern societal model. The second man set foot down in Africa, he claimed a rock for himself and forbid others to have it. Just by perceiving a natural resource, man learns that he wishes to be in possession of it.
The sioux, similarly, despite being a nomadic people, defended their borders vicously against the pawnee and blackfoot among others.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, fighting and scalping people over tribal disputes and sacrificing people to your gods with barbaric savagery was a trully peaceful, utopean way of life!
:sarcasm
The indians never scalped before the French taught their indian allies to do it to strike fear into the British (it sort of backfired when the Huron switched sides lol)
Not to detract from your point, but its just an interesting piece of information I thought.
No, if you look back throughout history, greed simply isn't a common trait. The few are greedy, if any, certainly not the majority.
Claiming a rock as your own isn't greed. And in those times, it was necessity and survival, that is not greed. Greed is taking more than YOUR share at the expense of others. This is a modern phenomenon. A very modern phenomenon.
Many of the Indian tribes fought. War was a part of their life. That doesn't mean it was greed driven. They needed their land to survive.
Ok I never said a thing about utopia, or anything of the sort. Don't put words in my mouth because you can't come back with anything please.