Ray, just a couple of comments before I have to go to work....
To answer your question, "What happens when Citizens lose faith". --
it very much depends on the Gestalt of the situation. In the USA, loss
of faith in political systems generally translates into voter apathy
(63% voter turn-out in 2008). In Russia, during the Communist heyday,
voter turnout generally was remarkably high (98-99%), but many voters
would use the paper ballots to make suggestions for improvements or
things they wanted to see done. And the politicians frequently
responded to these types of suggestions.
A theoretical basis for systems of culture? I'm not sure this is
really necessary, but I can certainly understand the desire to have
one. Purpose of each system - yes, that seems to be essential and
something we've managed to lose over the past few decades.
"Business and morality are polar opposites." - I don't know if I'd
characterize this as opposites or as inconsistencies in the
application of ethical considerations. Morality/ethics is for humans -
businesses can act in immoral/unethical ways because the humans in
control of the businesses allow it to happen. If the CEOs and CFOs act
in ethical ways, the business tends to be run in a more ethical way,
too. It may be too much to ask of most CEO to take actions that run
counter to the immediate interests of the shareholders, but I've seen
it done in rare instances. Those rare instances suggest that it is
doable and that the failing is in the ethics training of young people.
That is a societal problem, not a business problem, other than that
businesses are part of the society.
On Aug 8, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Ray Harrell wrote:
This is the root of the questions that I have with Barry on that
“What happens when Citizens lose faith” thread. If you are to
truly have a modern advanced society do you not need a theoretical
basis for the systems of culture? Do you not also need to know the
purpose of each of those systems and how to design better, more
humane, more efficient systems as planning for your future?
All cultural systems, seem to be, flawed in some major ways. The
big flaw is that a society based on any one of them tends to act
like a cancer in the body and eliminate and mess up the rest of the
systems.
Look at Religion and Science today. The scientists are fighting a
battle with the metaphysics of their own brain and have little to
nothing to do with the religion of the theologians that I studied
with in Presbyterian College who essentially were Scots from Saint
Andrews in Scotland. They were tough scholars and had no issues
with scientific theory. But the scientists don’t go to people like
them to explore religion and the religious system in humanity.
Instead the scientists go to the “preachers on the street” who are
authority freaks and who believe nonsense about thousands of year
old books and have no real understanding of semiotics and the
problems of translation. In short they like to pick on people who
are the equivalent of me asking physics majors from Ivy League
Schools now CEOS for major corporations about the place of
theoretical science in the market. They may be smart people with
big responsibilities but their specialties and life experiences make
them inadequate to understand the necessities of things like
Environmentally testing Genetically modified plants or acting like
a Doctor testing an experimental drug on himself because he hurts
and wants to be healed first.
They also have problems that makes it impossible for them to
seriously plot environmental consequences down to the seventh
generation. Consider that dam in China as an example of a colossal
enginering success and failure at the same time. We rarely plot
the implications of large scale systems before we put them into
effect. Look at today’s Congress or the handling of Nuclear Power
where we are all the guinea pigs for a severely compromised private
sector.
Business and morality are polar opposites. Considering the mass
experimentation on military personnel by the research scientists in
the 19th and 20th centuries as well as helpless minorities and
hapless animal species who share systems with us, one could make the
case for science being amoral as well.
There has been so little serious research and education into the
roots of morality, and how the human has handled it, that we are
currently at the mercy of amateurs both in business and science when
it concerns morality. Neither business nor science has been very
successful at finding the reasons for the purposes of Artistic
Systems in human development and culture; and although both Science
and Business are under the super structure of education, both
science and business treats teachers and the design of the education
system like poor trailer trash.
But it is the religion cultural system that is assigned the worst
treatment of all and business has decided that its sole purpose is
as the opiate of the masses so that they can be manipulated
strategically. In that case, the best religion is a mega-church
under a single individual with only tentative connections to other
churches. It’s easier to handle “local” strategically than the
Catholic Hierarchy or their Systematic Theologians who are some of
the toughest warriors I’ve encountered.
Business and economic science has recently begun to tear into the
science part of public health because of its costs. What does
this resemble most? My friend who was a wonderful human being
whose cancer was inoperable because his heart was too damaged by the
chemistry of his work before he retired and whose funeral is tomorrow.
REH
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of D and N
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2011 1:15 PM
To: Keith Hudson; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] GM foods - the US experiment
As a follow-up to the last post (by Darryl). Keith, your blindness
re: corporations and your comments from a personal and obviously
uninformed POV once again astound me. Genetic mutilation is
insanity. The only underlying design I can understand from the
effects of this 'science ' is to gain total control over the
ownership of all foods worldwide. Economics (profit, profit, profit)
is a 'Farengy' (read more Sci. Fi.) attitude which has now developed
into full-blown warfare against the future of humanity in this realm
of reality.
Darryl
On 8/8/2011 6:14 AM, Keith Hudson wrote:
Barry,
At 13:09 08/08/2011, you wrote:
You may want to look at some of the information at
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/impacts-of-genetic.html
I'm afraid that I'd take no notice of the Union of Concerned
Scientists. Worthy though it seems, attractive though its website
is, there isn't a single scientist mentioned as a patron or a
researcher or a member. Is that not a teeny weeny bit odd?
As I wrote before on this thread to Mike, there are thousands of
scientists who work outside the GM industries and whose career
depends not one little bit on whatever they might say about GM food
who would have something to say (and would be prepared to give their
name to) if there was any specific danger that is presently
conceivable.
Keith
Barry
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
