Ed Weick wrote:
>
>
> In response to my argument that man is not particularly rational, Tor Forde
> wrote:
>
> >The best way to keep a society rational is to get "the calculators" to
> >wear the eyes of the common man, that is to avoid the development of
> >excessive poverty and wealth.
>
> Tor,
>
> I see two problems with this. One is that "calculators", as you call them,
> come with theories by which they interpret the world and with pre-conceived
> notions of what things ought to be like. Whether they would recognize it or
> not, they are, as Keynes put it, slaves of some defunct economist (or
> philosopher, or political thinker, defunct or otherwise).
Each person has his own rationality. Find his viewpoint, his priorities,
his situation and his possibilities, and it is possible to see his
rationality. It will be conflicting with others.
A democratic society should develop according to the rationality of its
members. If their rationalities becomes too conflicting the society can
fall apart or only be kept together with massive violence.
The only way to keep it together without violent means is to let people
develop their own democratic institutions which keep them together and
joins their rationality, and gives it power. I am thinking specially of
labour unions.
Countries with strong internal conflicts are contries where independent
labour unions are not allowed. Countries were strong and independent
labour unions are part of the system are much more peaceful annnd
prosperous than countries without unions like that.
Economists and planners have to much power compared to democratic
institutions.
The other problem
> is that there is no such thing as "the common man". We are essentially
> tribal, with each tribe having its own notion of what is, or ought to be,
> common to man. And within each tribe, people vary greatly in erudition,
> power and wealth, and it is not always the good people who wind up on top.
>
The situation is different in different countries.
A country like Sudan ought to be divided into at least two countries.
> I'm trying hard not to be cynical about what is and is not possible with
> respect to the future of humankind as we know it. However, from what I have
> seen around me for several decades, I simply cannot bring myself to believe
> that this future can be planned rationally, or that any coherent plan can be
> devised that will be viewed as fair and equitable by all peoples, or indeed,
> fair or not, that we will all somehow come to our senses and behave with
> enough environmental and social responsibility to pull our global industrial
> system back from the brink toward which it appears to be headed.
>
The crisis must hit and hurt people first, but then it will be possible
to make some changes.
--
All the best
Tor Førde
visit our homepage: URL::http://home.sol.no/~toforde/
email:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
