Brad, I will reply below. ********************************* Henry George School of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ********************************* >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brad >McCormick, Ed.D. >Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2006 2:20 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: 'Christoph Reuss'; [email protected]; 'Cordell, >Arthur: ECOM' >Subject: Re: [Futurework] From 9 to 5 to 24/7 > >Harry Pollard wrote: >> Brad, >> >> A little more on this. >> >> I rather think that in the natural order of things > >Human beings do not live in a "natural order of things", >unless we want to call each individual's pre-reflectively >introjected ethnicity of origin "natural".
Let's not get complicated. Are you suggesting we live in an "unnatural order of things"? >And, of course, each ethnicity is "natural" in the sense that >it was not self-critically.reflectively designed but rather >evolved prereflectively [I equate pre-/non-reflective with >"natural"]. And, as [the well-known science popularizer who >died recently and whose name I can't at the moment recall] >said: "Nature is in love with the idea of the individual, but >not with particular individuals." The "natural order of >things" don't give a shit about any person, but only >-- albeit only >metaphorically at that... -- about the "survival of the species".... Brad, old lad, that's a great answer should the question ever come up. Never said that nature cared about us. In fact, I've often pointed out that nature doesn't even not care - and that applies to the "survival of the species". Whether we survive or not is of no consequence - whether as individuals we survive is apparently of great interest to us - or we wouldn't be 6 billion. The quote means nothing. >> people have >> families. Certainly, not having much money makes raising a family a >> difficult proposition - but the rewards are huge. >> > >There is no such thing as a huge reward (or any other size >reward, or even a reward as opposed to a penalty...), except >in terms of some specific set of values/goals, among other >diverse and even often divergent alternatives. A statement of the obvious. Yet, how can you therefore declare there is no reward while saying there is. >I would "simply" like persons to evaluate their values/goals >instead of just evaluating the things they encounter in their >lives in terms of the values/goals they were childreared into >having without any choice in the matter. [OK, replace >"persons" with: I have struggled my whole life to try to >extricate myself from the semiotic virus with which I was >infected as a child. Let other be infected unwittingly if >they so wish (that is, of course, a self-contradictory >statement, since a person cannot wish for anything without >being witting about it). > >> Six of us arrived in Canada (four children) in the mid fifties. >> Now, our extended family is 30. We all like each other and are also >> attached to our English cousins. > >I would never argue against that a good family is a very good >thing -- would that I had had one. But I know from experience >that bad families are bad things, too (for one artistic >example, see, e.g., the film: "The Return of Martin Guerre"...). I enjoyed "Martin Guerre" and also "Sommersby" the American remake. But, I thought a film that touches on this theme - "A Very Long Engagement" - was better than both. I would suggest that most families are good on the evidence that there are so many of them. >> A close friend of mine - pretty well heeled - has no >children because >> of global overpopulation - a pretty potty argument in my estimation. >> But different strokes, I suppose. >> >How silly to try to solve global problems locally! The person >would perhaps do better to just despair. Or be happy that he has nade the right choice. One of the things I teach in my courses is "be careful about accepting what a person says - believe in how he acts". >> I doubt anyone refuses to have children to avoid dilution of the >> 'labor pool'. >That's a shame: It could be a powerful social strategy -- of >course the "ringleaders" would probably get incarcerated at best.... Well, perhaps social strategies are in love with the idea of the individual, but not with particular individuals. >> Nor do I think that that in the West children are conceived to be a >> personal social security system. In the LDCs this is often true, but >> not here. >> >Here we agree -- on the putative facts. I do believe part of >George W Bush's war against Social Security is aimed at >changing this so that people here have to have children if >they want a personal social security system. The >Enlightenment (the Kantian, not new-agey kind!) may yet be undoable! >"Cheers!" > >\brad mccormick > >> Harry >> >> ********************************* >> Henry George School of Los Angeles >> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >> 818 352-4141 >> ********************************* >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brad McCormick, Ed.D. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 3:23 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: 'Cordell, Arthur: ECOM'; 'Christoph Reuss'; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Futurework] From 9 to 5 to 24/7 >> >> Harry Pollard wrote: >> >>> Of course things would be different if there was a shortage of >>> available labor instead of an abundance. >>> >>> >> There are *so many reasons* for the not-well-to-do to have few or no >> children, including to be able to apply their meager earnings >> undiluted to meeting their own needs, and also to reducing >the pool of >> available "labor power". >> >> I know there are also down-side considerations (I, for one, >would not >> like to understand that the reason I was born was to be my parents' >> "old age and disability insurance", however), but at least our great >> universities could do the relevant research, to "quantify" >the option >> space, couldn't they? >> >> \brad mccormick >> >> >>> Harry >>> >>> ********************************* >>> Henry George School of Los Angeles >>> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >>> 818 352-4141 >>> ********************************* _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
