> As traditionally defined, you're correct. Herman Daly & many others have
> written about "steady state" economies which don't eliminate capital. Great
> source:
> http://csf.colorado.edu/sustainable-economics/daly/
>
Is there a theory you could sum up? If you are
eliminating profit-growth, you are eliminating capital.
> Re distribution scheme, nothing wrong in theory; but scarcity causes
> competition, and scarcity(per capita) increases every day.
>
Hm? There's no scarcity of houses, yet there are a multitude of
homeless people, same goes for good cloths, food etc even
in our "best" economies.
> > > I indicated that historical & literary lore was
> > > based on group memories and passed on myths...cultural heritages. These
> > > indicate *differences* based both on nature & nurture.
>
> > So? Do these indications have necessarily a base in reality?
>
> Yes. What other explanation can you posit?
>
So all the supernatural lore is based in reality, and not on
the ignorance and pattern making ability of human imagination
in the absence of scientific data,
describing storms, vulcanoes, sun and moon - and human stereotypes,
such as women and slaves are animals, foreigners talk gibberish and
have dog-head, barbarians, infidels, sons of satan , etc, etc.
> > Even if it was true that jews tend towards intellectual stuff,
> > it is not genetic, it is a historical conditioning.
> > They were not allowed to own land in lots of countries,
> > they had to learn trades, they
> > had to learn, so ambitious learning is in family history.
>
> nature/nurture mix most believable IMO (natural selection & adaptive
> fitness)
>
Homo sapiens had not much chance to further evolve their physiological/
hardware equipment in their brief presence of cca 100K years.
And presently they probably stopped altogether, as there is no more
scope for selectivity, and there is a wide range of mixing in the
last few centuries.
>
> That makes sense; (undomesticated)animals maybe 95% nature, 5% nurture
> (GUESS ONLY)
> Humans (since pre-history) ??? more % nurture than other animals is a good
> bet.
>
Most human behaviour is "software development",
cannot be inherited. The capacity for connections has not
a lot of variability. We can all be very intelligent and creative,
if different ways/areas, given an environmental chance.
This idea that hard work, diligence and cleverness should
earn individuals more earthly goods, when they only
acquired said characteristics by environmental chance
and earthly goods are not status symbol anymore
is basically as senseless and useless
and should be as obsolete as slave-keeping.
> Please forgive me if I don't respond to further posts for a while.
>
no problem... however as I bothered with this one before
i spotted your last line, I might as well send it -
besides, I would contradict your stereotyping of
my genetics if I won't have the last word...
Eva
> Steve
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
