Yes, Ray, I do believe it is possible for humans to create a social structure and culture that will be efficient and allow for the maximum development of the individual, the group and respect and protect the natural environment as our home and allow for a degree of freedom we can't even imagine.
The reason I believe that is possible is that there are examples of American Indian societies like The Wintu and The Hope that were very much like that. That is not to say that we can have that structure and all of those cultural values without some major changes because they were, of course, very small and homogeneous. But the fact that they existed tells me, as a social scientist, that there is nothing in human nature to prevent it from happening. And I believe we can learn a great deal from some of the basic principles that were part of those and other similar cultures. Freedom is not an issue in a society in which there is deeply rooted respect among individuals. One of the ways to have that respect is to raise kids to understand that every human being is precious, including themselves, and to understand that people are not valued for what they have or what they can do but simply because they exist. In the modern world we have the technology to feed, house, clothe, educate and care for (medically, etc.) everyone. So having a 'good' society should be easier than it ever could have been in the past. I know I will be attacked for all these ideas as being utopian or whatever-(at my age I have come to the wonderful place where I consider ad hominem attacks the problem of the attacker); I would love to have the issues raised here be challenged in any and all ways. I strongly believe that, if we want to or have any hope of creating a better society, we MUST have at least some idea of what we would want it to look like so that we can begin to try to make the changes that would turn us in that direction. Probably, as we try to do that, we will find that our strategies will change constantly, but we must have some sense of what our goals are. For me, the goal is to have the kind of society and culture Ruth Benedict called a synergistic society, in which all individual behavior was a benefit to the group and all group behavior was a benefit to all the individuals in the group. As I said above, we know it is possible because it has existed among humans. The task of exploring just what principles are involved and of devising strategies to change from our present structure and culture is mind-boggling, to say the least. I don't see that as a reason not to think about it and to try. Of course such a society would not value material goods in the way they are valued in Western society. Possessions and power would not be the way people find fulfillment and satisfaction. I believe that the quest for possessions and power is a substitute for a kind of spiritual fulfillment that is and has been lacking for a long time for many people. Part of the way the social structure and culture have to change is to incorporate spirituality in the everyday lives of people. Selma ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "mcore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 2:20 PM Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > Your point is well taken Selma. The Utilitarians built modern economic > theory on the statement that systems with the most Utility would create the > greatest happiness. I think we are finding that to be a colossal over > simplification and thus a failure. Harry makes an interesting point about > land but, given the European property systems, I don't see how they could > change. In the words of their Savior I can only imagine it if they went > back into their Mother's belly and were born again. It is an issue of > culture and much will have to change for them to give up their ideas about > money, land and automobiles. > > What it seems to come down to is this. One group believes that it is > impossible for humanity to design their governments for both maximum > efficiency, maximum freedom and maximum social welfare. They feel that > the power is more appropriately gathered in the hands of families that have > been successful at gathering wealth over those who have not. What they > ignore is that these same families and I include corporations in the concept > of family, have a vested interest in keeping the outer groups outside and > out of the loop. It is the old argument between the Founding Fathers here > which gave us the nightmare of the electoral college. That was a sop to > the wealthy who believed that only the landed should have the right to the > vote. I get regular mailings from the Cato Foundation, the so called > libertarian think tank which is founded by one of the most disfunctional > families on the planet, the Wichita Koch Oil brothers who have been in court > for years fighting each other. One can only wonder what freedom means to > such a family although they prattle on endlessly about it and fund Cato > which claims to be dedicated to it. The resent mailing sent a small > "pocket bible size" copy of the Declaration of Independance and the > Constitution. Cato also has on their board Thomas Szasz the Psychiatrist > who emptied the NY State mental hospitals and started the homeless epidemic > here when he claimed that mental illness was a chimera and a state run > social program for people to get free drugs and live comfortably on the back > of society's "productive souls." The legislators were all too happy to > cut off funds and follow this alleged "expert". The human suffering has > been unbelievable all in the name of Freedom. > > So I would pose the question: Is it possible for humans to design a system > or systems that > 1. build maximum social efficency without creating "losers" as the food to > energize the system's successes. > 2. creates a reasonable freedom, > including the freedom to work, > the freedom to develop one's talents > the freedom from ignorance > the freedom from avoidable illness > the freedom from incompetance > the freedom from physical oppression > the freedom from unreasonable abuse by both public and private > systems. > 3. create resonable social welfare design, > 4. create an environment that is beautiful, balanced and that > -respects heritage > -lives in the moment > -stimulates and develops creativity. > -that leaves a world that does all of the above for our descendants > as well. > > What do you think? The opposite of the above is "let it be." I'm an > Indian I never have believed in the virtue of "wildness." > > Walk in balance > > REH > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Selma Singer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ross James Swanston" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 10:22 AM > Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > > > > Hi Ross, > > > > Your point about too much work interfering with the quality of life is > well > > taken. I think the whole issue of profits and power and money and 'making > > it' revolves around the idea that we value ourselves in terms of what we > > have; in terms of our possessions and accomplishments. > > > > A thought I've been playing with is that capitalism might work as one > > economic tool in a system that is based, in general, on other values. > Values > > that value humans for themselves. Such a system would not deny the > > importance of material comforts and convenience but would subsume their > > importance to other things; it would also recognize that basic material > > necessities must be met in order for other developments to occur. > > > > As I say, I'm just playing around with that and would welcome anyone > else's > > thoughts on some possible strategies that would be involved. For example, > > how would our educational and socialization strategies change if we were > to > > let children know that they were loved and considered precious even when > > they don't 'perform' the way we want them to. This is not to say that we > > should allow anti-social or self-destructive behavior. How might we do > that? > > > > Selma > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Ross James Swanston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2002 4:58 AM > > Subject: Re: Privatizing the Public: Whose agenda? At What Cost? > > > > > > > At 10:13 AM 4/17/02 -0700, you wrote: > > > > > > > Selma, > > > > > > "It is a mystery to me, given what is constantly being revealed about > the > > > attempts of various corporations to strangle competition, how anyone can > > > argue that laissez-faire can work for the public good". > > > > > > I think that the problem is that in the attempts of various > corporations > > > to strangle competition and create monopolies with the ultimate goal of > > > unchallenged profits, we move into an ever faster world because we > > > shouldn't just single out corporations to blame - everybody is doing the > > > same thing. > > > > > > You are quite right Selma. Unfettered competition or laissez-faire > cannot > > > possibly work for the common good. I would define laissez-faire not so > > > much as the absence of competition, as Harry Pollard seems to imply, but > > > more to mean too much competition. > > > > > > To quote one or two of the facts to support that assertion. A litle > > while > > > ago, Karoshi, or working yourself to death was thought to be a uniquely > > > Japanese phenomenon, but now the Americans have taken over that > > distinction > > > as Matthew Reiss explains in a recent article. Under relentless > pressure > > > to be better than everybody else because of the consequences of too much > > > competition, Americans are now world leaders in overwork which of course > > > takes its toll on family life and reduces the general quality of life. > > As > > > Matthew Reiss shows, Americans now work an average of 1979 hours a year, > > > about three and a half weeks more than the Japanese, six and a half > weeks > > > more than the British and about twelve and a half weeks more than the > > Germans. > > > > > > Now how anyone can argue that all this can work for the benefit of all > is > > a > > > complete mystery to me. Sure, it is all a matter of trade-offs. What > > sort > > > of world do we want? Do we want profits or do we want quality of life? > > We > > > cannot have both because there is a conflict of values so for my money > and > > > since I put quality of life above material gain I am prepared to > > sacrifice > > > certain things to gain what I see as a better world. > > > > > > Well that's all for now > > > > > > Ross > > > > > > > > > >
