----- Original Message -----
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "BRIN-L@cornell. edu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 10:22 AM
Subject: Loneliness in America
> I'm disturbed by the reaction to my words and others in recent postings,
to the
> effect that criticism of capitalism, in particular, equals advocacy of
socialism.
Well, the alternatives we seem to have are variations of letting the market
go and community regulation/control of the market through the government.
I've read through your posts and I see no more than vague descriptions of
"something that will be coming."
I don't mean this as personally critical, because I think you are trying to
envision a whole new system: something that is very rarely envisioned. So,
while I am accusing you of failing to meet the bar, the bar is indeed very
high, so it shouldn't be considered a personal affront.
What I see you writing is "new system" mumble mumble, "like the Internet"
mumble mumble, "more freedom" mumble mumble, " biology research" mumble
mumble. There is absolutely nothing of substance to argue against.
Further, I think that the present arguments out of biology have all the
validity of Social Darwinism or the application of special relativity to
morality in the '20s. While that's not zero, its close to Planck's constant
in magnitude in my book. (No, Ronn, I don't consider that 1.)
>That's as narrow-minded as the opposite assumption, which would
> be that criticism of the excesses of capitalism can only be controlled via
a
> return to conservative political values.
Well, it is worth noting that the authoritarianism of the followers of the
single strongest criticism of capitalism was actually more complete than the
power of the kings in the feudal era. The dictatorship of the proletariat
was not pretty.
Western countries, of course, have a mix of government control and open
market, with the mix being the source of debate. The belief in some mix is
agreed to by everyone I've seen post on the list: JDG just advocated
government intervention in the oil markets to raise prices and cut
consumption while Sonja and Jeroen speak favorably of small business owners
trying to make a go of things.
If there is a third way, you haven't articulated it very clearly. Further,
I've seen no real evidence of us going that way. I think the internet, as
great as it is, has been hyped way beyond what it is. The massive dot.com
failures is a reflection of the bubble bursting and reality settling in.
> The socialism of the left and conservatism of the right are known; I think
we're moving into a >largely unknown system that will be as foreign to us as
our system would have been
> to medieval people.
Evidence? I see a dearth of innovation in the political arena. Nowhere do I
see phenomonologists/experimentalists of the magnitude of
Jefferson/Franklin/Washington out there now. Can you give one example of a
group of people who match them?
I've heard the next revolution in though a zillion times from futurologists
over the past 30 years. Each one takes a 5 year trend, extrapolates it over
100 years, and then predicts a brave new world. Physicists are taught the
dangers of this very very early in their career.
I won't argue that our great grandchildren will not live in a world that is
significantly different from ours. But, I don't see much substance in your
arguments. If you want my guess of trends that make a difference, it would
be:
1) The number 1, number 2 and number 3 powers in the world are not arming
against each other. They squabble over how they should work together, but
fighting a war against each other is beyond belief. (I'm assuming that the
US, the EU, and Japan count as 1, 2, 3)
2) The number 1 power in the world is becoming truly multiethnic. Europeans
will be a minority in the US in 60 years. For the most part, this is
happening very peacefully, and is not the focus of intense political debate.
How it happens is a matter of debate, but not whether it happens.
> Now, on to loneliness and capitalism.
>
> As an argument against the notion that capitalism and democracy can be
> completely trusted to give people what they want, I'd like to consider
> George Gallup Jr.'s polls that show that U.S. citizens consider themselves
> among the loneliest in the world and that loneliness has been a steadily
> rising phenomenon over the last few decades. How can this be reconciled
> with the belief that our economic and political system is giving people
what
> they want? If we live in a system that delivers what is wanted, why would
> people take society in a direction that opposes a most fundamental human
> want (and need)?
Well, we are a lot less capitalistic than we were 75 years ago. So, its
hard to argue that capitalism is at the root of loneliness. I can look at
other social changes and see much more obvious causes:
1) Divorce
2) People moving away from families
3) The decrease of religion as a force in the US
4) The acceptance of a wider range of freedom; fewer social norm restraints
5) The acceptance of sex outside of a committed relationship
6) Job hopping
I, for one, am not very lonely. I have a loving, supportive family and
church community. I'm married to the same person for 23 years, and have
three children that fill my life. I admit, working at home I sometimes feel
a bit out of touch, but I work on maintaining my network. Now, I will
probably feel a bit lonely when the kids move out, but that reflects 2.
Indeed, my being relatively unaffected by 1 and 3 probably explains my lack
of loneliness.
Other countries do not have a stronger religious base, but they have much
stronger social norms. The US is strongest on personal freedoms.
Loneliness is often the price of being out on one's own.
Dan M.
