Teaching culture/morality/ethics

[dilettante]

The following thoughts were spawned by listening to an NPR report on American MBA programs. Apparently, in the wake of financial crisis, business schools are expanding their ethics-related curriculum and striving to teach their students the importance of social responsibility as well as the pursuit of profit. They want to instill in their students the desire to "make the world a better place" via their business practices.

Assertion: We (humanity) currently have the ability to end world hunger, nearly eliminate suffering from disease and disorder (relative to the current amount), end war, murder, rape and abuse, provide every child with a high quality education and every individual with a combination of employment/luxury/free-time superior to that enjoyed by the vast majority of the population, even in first world countries, today.

Notably, we don't do this. We certainly possess the necessary technology, mechanical knowledge, physical resources, and labor force required to pull it off. In fact, I'd hazard we could manage it in a decade if we all worked in unison. That we do not do this is now entirely a reflection on us, indicating the limitations of the human mind and, speaking collectively, culture, rather than the species’ physical/technological capacity.
This situation is a relatively recent development. As late as two centuries ago (perhaps even later, but I'm sticking with an era I'm familiar with), one could persuasively argue that such achievements were physically impossible. No matter how unified, altruistic, trusting and devoted they were, the people of that period would still experience widespread and intense misery and death due to forces they could neither understand, control, nor compensate for (e.g. weather, germs, human, animal and plant biology, etc).
But this is no longer the case, or rather, it is only marginally the case. We have the ability to make earth a universal Eden compared to almost any historic situation. We could, but we don't.

The reason we don't is, in a sense, all in our heads. If we were all good, trusting, altruistic, unified people we could do all this. Of course, we aren't all those sorts of people (I refer you to the actual state of the world). My question is: Should we be working harder to become them? Should we be teaching ethics before business school? Should we be actively pursuing a “good, trusting, altruistic, unified” culture?

The issue of culture/morality/worldview is something we liberal westerners proudly confine to the private world of the personal. We cringe at the idea of teaching these things in school, but perhaps we shouldn't. We tend to be repulsed by the ideas of an acknowledged and promoted "national/global culture," but perhaps we need one. We are "multi-cultural," pluralistic and heterogeneous, but simultaneously disunited and ineffectual.

In practice, we hold to the curious “a rising tide lifts all boats”-theory of making the world a better place, trusting that if we can just produce enough stuff and develop enough technology then it won’t matter if we’re all greedy, self-serving bastards. History (and the present) indicates that this is, at best, a remarkably inefficient approach.

[The Drunk Guy]

I would ask if you've seen Zeitgeist: Addendum, but I already know the answer. ;) So, instead, here (http://www.thevenusproject.com/getInvolved.html)'s a link to a wonderful group who has an amazing dream that will be shit on for many years to come. It's a cerebral man's paradise and I want it more than anything and it crushes my soul to know it will never happen in my lifetime.

[dilettante]

I would ask if you've seen Zeitgeist: Addendum, but I already know the answer. ;)

I haven't actually. Should I?

So, instead, here (http://www.thevenusproject.com/getInvolved.html)'s a link to a wonderful group who has an amazing dream that will be shit on for many years to come. It's a cerebral man's paradise and I want it more than anything and it crushes my soul to know it will never happen in my lifetime.

Looks intriguing, and I always like technological concept-art. :)

Kind of ironic that, after talking at some length about the "Obsolete Monetary System," the first three suggestions of "What can you do?" involve either donating money or buying something from them.

[Donkey]

Great post Dilettante. My short answer is "hell-fucking-yes."

My long answer will probably come out of the discussion.

[Dominick]

There's a much simpler explanation for why 'we' don't do this. It's not in the interest of those in power, that's all. And as long as there is institutionalized power, it never will be. Exploitation of humans, resources and nature is financially rewarding and the whole of society is designed towards that purpose.

[dilettante]

There's a much simpler explanation for why 'we' don't do this. It's not in the interest of those in power, that's all. And as long as there is institutionalized power, it never will be. Exploitation of humans, resources and nature is financially rewarding and the whole of society is designed towards that purpose.

Indeed, as long as people consider explotation to be "in their best interest," then our problems will persist.
But then "best interest" itself is largely a culturally defined notion, predicated on what is and is not considered valuable and/or desirable. Could it be that we have become overly focused on teaching people how to achieve what they value/desire and neglectful of teaching what their values and desires should be?

[Michael]

Should we be teaching ethics before business school? Should we be actively pursuing a “good, trusting, altruistic, unified” culture?
I'll say 'yes', though I do have some reservations here as to how far this should go. :D

In practice, we hold to the curious “a rising tide lifts all boats”-theory of making the world a better place, trusting that if we can just produce enough stuff and develop enough technology then it won’t matter if we’re all greedy, self-serving bastards. History (and the present) indicates that this is, at best, a remarkably inefficient approach.

Yes, I agree that the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats" is the general 'theory' used in 'western capitalist liberal systems in order to generally advance the interests of making the world a better place. And yes, I agree that this theory is popular because it is extremely self-serving for the top half of the economic pyramid. I strongly disagree that it is an inefficient approach - all things considered that is.

I respectfully submit that the economic system used prior to capitalism was in a large part, predicated upon 'good, trusting, altruistic and unified' culture of feudalism where everyone was born to their place in society and couldn't be fired or replaced or kicked out. The peasant had duties and responsibilities to the lord and the lord had duties and responsibilities to the peasant. There was real security there, order, altruism and unity all built on multi-generational trust. Unfortunately, this also meant grinding poverty and endless back-breaking labor for 99% of the planet.

It is the adoption of capitalist techniques that have enabled us to break out of that economic model of society and advance to the one we have now. I admit, our present economic model isn't all that pretty or benign, but it sure as heck has delivered a massive increase in the efficiency of production and distribution of 'products', a massive increase in world-wide wealth and a massive increase in world-wide population because of this. At the very least, that exclusive 1% of the feudal society that actually had some 'liesure and liberty' is now a substantially larger percentage that must be close to 25% of the world-wide population. Sure that's not perfect, but that's a massive improvement - though it can be argued that life in the bottom 10% world-wide is much worse than the bottom 10% of pre-capitalist feudal society. For that, some improved altruism and generosity might help!

Bottom line is that the 'rising tide' (supplied by the applied capitalist technique of production) appears to be a necessary process in order to raise living standards around the world in any substantial way. On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree that this 'rising tide' might not be sufficient to carry out this task to everyone's satisfaction or timeframe of expectation and as such, political, community or charitable activities to address this are to be considered to be generally desirable or beneficial.

[dilettante]

I'll say 'yes', though I do have some reservations here as to how far this should go. :D

That is the question, isn't it?


Yes, I agree that the expression "a rising tide lifts all boats" is the general 'theory' used in 'western capitalist liberal systems in order to generally advance the interests of making the world a better place. And yes, I agree that this theory is popular because it is extremely self-serving for the top half of the economic pyramid. I strongly disagree that it is an inefficient approach - all things considered that is.

I respectfully submit that the economic system used prior to capitalism was in a large part, predicated upon 'good, trusting, altruistic and unified' culture of feudalism where everyone was born to their place in society and couldn't be fired or replaced or kicked out. The peasant had duties and responsibilities to the lord and the lord had duties and responsibilities to the peasant. There was real security there, order, altruism and unity all built on multi-generational trust. Unfortunately, this also meant grinding poverty and endless back-breaking labor for 99% of the planet.
...

Bottom line is that the 'rising tide' (supplied by the applied capitalist technique of production) appears to be a necessary process in order to raise living standards around the world in any substantial way. On the other hand, I'm inclined to agree that this 'rising tide' might not be sufficient to carry out this task to everyone's satisfaction or timeframe of expectation and as such, political, community or charitable activities to address this are to be considered to be generally desirable or beneficial.

Well, I wouldn't dispute that the "rising tide" approach does, in fact, work in a kind of broad generalized sense. However, I stand by the assertion that, if the goal is to make the world a better, happier, healthier place for humanity, then it is breathtakingly inefficient compared with what could be accomplished with the our existing technology, material and labor resources if we operated under a different, unified, culture.


But I have three thoughts in response to your comments and then two new points to present:
1) Unquestionably the "western capitalist liberal system" has accomplished remarkable things. It is, and I believe has long been recognized to be, the best system for mitigating the detrimental influence of "greedy, self-serving bastards" because it sets them against each other competitively. In other words, IF people aren’t going to work together in a unified and altruistic manner, THEN this system may be the best we can come up with.
So, in a way, there are really two avenues of advancement here: A) Come up with a better system that works more efficiently in the given culture, or B) Change the culture so that even more efficient options become feasible. I think we’ve focused heavily on the first option, and continue to do so for the most part. I’m wondering if we shouldn’t be paying more attention to the second.

2) The feudal system provides an excellent example of a system at odds with its culture. While feudalism, in theory, assumes these matching sets of duties and responsibilities between lord and peasant, in practice the lords rarely gave a d-mn about their peasants happiness, so long as they were kept in line. In other words, feudalism was a system meant for good, altruistic, trusting people (the king & lords were supposed to be God's chosen) but unfortunately filled with greedy, self-serving bastards. As such it didn’t work terribly well, and our capitalist system (which is meant for greedy, self-serving bastards) works much better.
So I’d argue that the new system isn’t inherently any better or more efficient than the old one (actually, I’d argue its potential is less), but that it is better designed to deal with human culture and so fulfills more of its potential. However, it seems importing to recognize that human culture can be changed. Perhaps it should be.

3) On a related note: I tried to insert a little bit of history into the OP because I think it’s a significant factor. Even if the people in feudal times had actually been good, trusting and altruistic, they would have still faced tremendous suffering and unhappiness because no matter what socio-economic system they employed disease , climate and limited productive technology would still set a hard limit on what was available to them. Its possible that, given the geography, climate, population, and infectious ecosystem, there was no way that the majority of people could live happy, healthy lives.

But this is no longer the case. We could actually feed everyone now, even in years of “bad harvest.” We can cure most diseases and treat those we can’t cure. We have the productive capacity to give everyone a home, food, education, and even limited set of luxuries. This technological/productive progress changes the game.

We have more options than maintaining the present system or returning to feudalism.

Which is good, because I’d suggest that our present system is in trouble. The “rising tide” theory depends on a rising tide of productivity. It says that if we just produce a lot more stuff, everyone will get a little more than before, even if some people get a lot more than others. But we may be approaching the point at which constantly increasing levels of production will cease to be practical/possible: it’s doubtful that we’ll be able to keep the tide rising forever. We may need a culture that can work benevolently and stably without constantly increasing production; we see foreshadows of this in environmental concerns.

Finally, and this is something I should have stressed in the OP, I want to emphasize the different between being happy and being productive/wealthy. There is certainly some amount of material prosperity that directly and inevitably effects one’s happiness; on the most basic level, one must have enough to eat and be able to remain healthy and free from harm. But beyond that, happiness and well-being are culturally shaped sentiments not necessarily tied to one’s material prosperity.

I’m reminded of how 18th century European fur traders were surprised that when they offered to pay more for animal skins, many native American tribes would hunt less rather than more. The traders lived in a culture in which increased wealth was assumed to lead to happiness, whereas for the native Americans, beyond a certain point of necessity and stability, that connection did not hold. The European system of pursuing more and greater material production certainly led to a greater level of material wealth for even their lower classes then the Indians possessed, but at the price of consuming more and more natural resources every year, and it remains debatable whether their lives were actually any happier or more fulfilling.

I wouldn't suggest that we institute a system of ownership similar to that of native American tribes, or that communism is the right idea after all. I don't think the system is the problem; I think the culture is the problem. I think we may be at a point where teaching people to be "good" may become more important than teaching them to be productive, efficient, innovative workers.

(Edit: My apologies if this is disjointed; I'm in the middle of a sort of cooking extravaganza for memorial day and coming back and forth from the computer. Tonight, we have homemade potato salad, grilling jerk chicken (from a homemade recipe), and grilled pinapple with a couple salads, lemon sorbet and homemade cookies! Yeeha!)

[Americano]

You almost got me but chocolate sorbet is my absolute favorite.

[dilettante]

You almost got me but chocolate sorbet is my absolute favorite.

I've never had chocolate; I'll have to try it sometime.

It was 85-90 degrees Saturday when I ducked into our local ice-cream parlor and sampled the lemon; my first thought was "Ah, this is why God made summer!" Needless to say, I realized it we required more of this delightful substance for memorial day. :D

[Michael]

Warning: :offtopic:

I've never had chocolate; I'll have to try it sometime.

It was 85-90 degrees Saturday when I ducked into our local ice-cream parlor and sampled the lemon; my first thought was "Ah, this is why God made summer!" Needless to say, I realized it we required more of this delightful substance for memorial day. :D
I should think that chocolate sorbet would ruin the primary function of serving sorbet? :eek:

Or am I way too gastonomically cultured here? :ummm:

Sorbet (usually lemon or orange) is served after dinner to make a break from the dry red wines with dinner to enable the shift to dessert wines, liqueurs or port served after dinner.

[Americano]

Warning: :offtopic:


I should think that chocolate sorbet would ruin the primary function of serving sorbet? :eek:

Or am I way too gastonomically cultured here? :ummm:

Sorbet (usually lemon or orange) is served after dinner to make a break from the dry red wines with dinner to enable the shift to dessert wines, liqueurs or port served after dinner.

When it comes to some foods I don't stand on formality or function. I like chocolate sorbet as a dessert more than our hundred million calorie home-made chocolate ice cream.

[Michael]

When it comes to some foods I don't stand on formality or function. I like chocolate sorbet as a dessert more than our hundred million calorie home-made chocolate ice cream.
Food is what is served to go with the wine in my book. :D

[Americano]

Food is what is served to go with the wine in my book. :D

I had to remove that procedure from my life. I always feel at least a bottle of applicable wine between courses for myself is far superior to a glass of anything and I don't drink beer to chase food. I drink well or bottled water with food and it has brought looks of you asshole at dinner parties when a host has carefully constructed a meal with food and wine complementing each other. I always smile politely at rude suggestions to 'try it' knowing the host would be devastated and pissed when I asked for constant refills. No one even blinks an eye about water refills.

Sorry for the off-topic wandering, I'm done.

[Donkey]

Food is what is served to go with the wine in my book. :D
Oh that is toooooo bad. Food can be so delicious!

[Michael]

The topic is teaching culture/morality/ethics. Lets get this thread back on topic please. :)

[andrewl]

The following thoughts were spawned by listening to an NPR report on American MBA programs. Apparently, in the wake of financial crisis, business schools are expanding their ethics-related curriculum and striving to teach their students the importance of social responsibility as well as the pursuit of profit. They want to instill in their students the desire to "make the world a better place" via their business practices.

Assertion: We (humanity) currently have the ability to end world hunger, nearly eliminate suffering from disease and disorder (relative to the current amount), end war, murder, rape and abuse, provide every child with a high quality education and every individual with a combination of employment/luxury/free-time superior to that enjoyed by the vast majority of the population, even in first world countries, today.

Notably, we don't do this. We certainly possess the necessary technology, mechanical knowledge, physical resources, and labor force required to pull it off. In fact, I'd hazard we could manage it in a decade if we all worked in unison. That we do not do this is now entirely a reflection on us, indicating the limitations of the human mind and, speaking collectively, culture, rather than the species’ physical/technological capacity.
This situation is a relatively recent development. As late as two centuries ago (perhaps even later, but I'm sticking with an era I'm familiar with), one could persuasively argue that such achievements were physically impossible. No matter how unified, altruistic, trusting and devoted they were, the people of that period would still experience widespread and intense misery and death due to forces they could neither understand, control, nor compensate for (e.g. weather, germs, human, animal and plant biology, etc).
But this is no longer the case, or rather, it is only marginally the case. We have the ability to make earth a universal Eden compared to almost any historic situation. We could, but we don't.

The reason we don't is, in a sense, all in our heads. If we were all good, trusting, altruistic, unified people we could do all this. Of course, we aren't all those sorts of people (I refer you to the actual state of the world). My question is: Should we be working harder to become them? Should we be teaching ethics before business school? Should we be actively pursuing a “good, trusting, altruistic, unified” culture?

The issue of culture/morality/worldview is something we liberal westerners proudly confine to the private world of the personal. We cringe at the idea of teaching these things in school, but perhaps we shouldn't. We tend to be repulsed by the ideas of an acknowledged and promoted "national/global culture," but perhaps we need one. We are "multi-cultural," pluralistic and heterogeneous, but simultaneously disunited and ineffectual.

In practice, we hold to the curious “a rising tide lifts all boats”-theory of making the world a better place, trusting that if we can just produce enough stuff and develop enough technology then it won’t matter if we’re all greedy, self-serving bastards. History (and the present) indicates that this is, at best, a remarkably inefficient approach.

I disagree with your assertion. Specifically the ability for all 7-9 billion people to live beyond the luxuries and free time enjoyed "even in first world countries" today. The resources required (and the capacity of the earth to absorb the waste generated) simply do not exist.

Further to this the entire techo-civilization system that we currently "enjoy" in the first world depends on the exploitation of others, and the continued domestication of the human species. We might end up solving hunger, disease (unlikely to ever happen in a domesticated setting), and war, etc... only to find ourselves completely disembodied from the natural world living in a state of anxiety, temporary drug induced euphoria, and ultimate loneliness and depression.

To speak more directly to the suggestion that ethics/world-view/morality are taught i can imagine this only in a comparative setting (where everything from tghe status-quo to radical primtive-anarchism is taught. Otherwise who would decide what ethics to teach... would it only be the world view of those in power?

Andrew

[dilettante]

I disagree with your assertion. Specifically the ability for all 7-9 billion people to live beyond the luxuries and free time enjoyed "even in first world countries" today. The resources required (and the capacity of the earth to absorb the waste generated) simply do not exist.

Well, I don't feel overly committed to that a specific level of luxury. However, I'd say the resources most certainly exist but are simply use and allocated along very different lines than they would be in a culture committed to unified, trusting altruism.
But we could even scale it back to what would today be considered a "decent, comfortable, healthy life".


Further to this the entire techo-civilization system that we currently "enjoy" in the first world depends on the exploitation of others, and the continued domestication of the human species. We might end up solving hunger, disease (unlikely to ever happen in a domesticated setting), and war, etc... only to find ourselves completely disembodied from the natural world living in a state of anxiety, temporary drug induced euphoria, and ultimate loneliness and depression.

While the current system depends on exploitation, that does not mean that exploitation is necessary in order to achieve the beneficial effects of the system. Exploitation requires a lack of empathy/altruism on the side of the exploiter; one can certainly imagine a unified non-exploitive culture.

Additionally, its worth noting that exploited labor may be efficient on a production/wages scale, but is generally inefficient on a production/person scale. We have the technology to vastly increase the effiicency and ease the burden of countless jobs generally performed by exploited peoples. We merely lack the values that would justify investing in such technology or would drive us to help the displaced workers achieve a better, life.


To speak more directly to the suggestion that ethics/world-view/morality are taught i can imagine this only in a comparative setting (where everything from tghe status-quo to radical primtive-anarchism is taught. Otherwise who would decide what ethics to teach... would it only be the world view of those in power?

Andrew

I'm not sure what this means or what the question is here.

The question of what culture/morality/ethic should be taught in order to best achieve a better world is a good one and open to debate. Clearly it should not teach us to be greedy, self-serving bastards, but the specifics may be harder to pin down.
I suppose one could begin by trying to figure out the culture/morality/ethics that would be accepted by a unified, trusting, altruistic society.

[andrewl]

Well, I don't feel overly committed to that a specific level of luxury. However, I'd say the resources most certainly exist but are simply use and allocated along very different lines than they would be in a culture committed to unified, trusting altruism.
But we could even scale it back to what would today be considered a "decent, comfortable, healthy life".

How do we teach people to voluntarily consume less when they have the technology and desire to consume more? Would we not have to coerce them somehow?

While the current system depends on exploitation, that does not mean that exploitation is necessary in order to achieve the beneficial effects of the system. Exploitation requires a lack of empathy/altruism on the side of the exploiter; one can certainly imagine a unified non-exploitive culture.

Non-exploitive cultures already exist, and indeed, for the vast majority of the 2 million years of human existence non-exploitation is the norm.

I have trouble imagining this unification of culture on a globalized scale though. Globalization itself depends on exploitation.

Additionally, its worth noting that exploited labor may be efficient on a production/wages scale, but is generally inefficient on a production/person scale. We have the technology to vastly increase the effiicency and ease the burden of countless jobs generally performed by exploited peoples. We have been talking about technology in those terms for decades and decades, yet the more technology we develop the more time people spend working, and the more people (and the non-human world) are exploited.

We merely lack the values that would justify investing in such technology or would drive us to help the displaced workers achieve a better, life.Given that it is our reliance on technology that helps displace people, could we imagine a value system that is anti-technological and anti-globalism? In effect we would just be leaving these people alone to live whatever life is available to them. Hunting/Gathering, pastoralism, subsistence farming, etc... This of course would be quite different from the globally unified techno-utopia you are imagining.


I'm not sure what this means or what the question is here.

The question of what culture/morality/ethic should be taught in order to best achieve a better world is a good one and open to debate. Clearly it should not teach us to be greedy, self-serving bastards, but the specifics may be harder to pin down.
I suppose one could begin by trying to figure out the culture/morality/ethics that would be accepted by a unified, trusting, altruistic society.The problem is like this. Some people believe in technology and progress to the point that they can imagine a future where we solve disease, hunger, war, depression, boredom, etc... where all people are civilized consumers of one global culture (or global village), and the human being is perfected. Imperialism in other words. Other people imagine a more primitive neo-luddite future, where progress is not measured by economic growth, technological advancement, or the creep of globalism. This future is more primitive, less globalized, more connected to nature and community, less technological, essentially more human.

Hence my question on what values to teach and who decides. It seems a safe bet that the values of imperialism will be the ones that are taught (and are in fact taught right now), because it will always be those in power who decide what is taught, and those in power will always have imperial values in their interest.

I completely understand that you are imagining a shift in our value paradigm, and that you recognize it is essential to our long term happiness or for any realization of global justice. It just seems to me that such a gigantic shift would require some sort of organized resistance on the part of the "people" against the entrenched powers (military, corporate, government). And i don't necessarily agree that technology really needs to play a significant part of this shift in values. The more i consider technology the less neutral i see it to be. Technology seem to be heavily biased in favor of Imperial values.

Andrew

[dilettante]

How do we teach people to voluntarily consume less when they have the technology and desire to consume more? Would we not have to coerce them somehow?

I don't see why. At root this is simply a question of teaching and exercising self-restraint, something we all do (and must do, on some level, in order to survive) everyday.


We have been talking about technology in those terms for decades and decades, yet the more technology we develop the more time people spend working, and the more people (and the non-human world) are exploited.

That would seem to perfectly illustrate my point that the problem isn't that we have the wrong (or insufficient) technology, but rather that the wrong sort of people are using the technology.


Given that it is our reliance on technology that helps displace people, could we imagine a value system that is anti-technological and anti-globalism? In effect we would just be leaving these people alone to live whatever life is available to them. Hunting/Gathering, pastoralism, subsistence farming, etc... This of course would be quite different from the globally unified techno-utopia you are imagining.

If leaving a people alone is really the best thing for them, perhaps that would be (and is) the altruistic thing to do. However, even achieving that will require a cultural shift toward a desire to do what's best for everyone/others, which I suppose is what I'm really getting at.


The problem is like this. Some people believe in technology and progress to the point that they can imagine a future where we solve disease, hunger, war, depression, boredom, etc... where all people are civilized consumers of one global culture (or global village), and the human being is perfected. Imperialism in other words. Other people imagine a more primitive neo-luddite future, where progress is not measured by economic growth, technological advancement, or the creep of globalism. This future is more primitive, less globalized, more connected to nature and community, less technological, essentially more human.

I think that's a false dichotomy. As long as we're talking Utopian goals, why not a future where we develop a culture that prioritizes kindness, happiness, health and peace? Such a culture would use technology to end disease and hunger, and would voluntarily reject war, but would also no longer measure progress in economic growth or technological advancement (except to the extent that such advancement directly achieved its priorities).
Such a culture would not necessarily be either primitive or imperialistic, and it would be global only to the extent that the world as a whole thought it was a good idea and took it up.

But for now I'm really less interested in long-term global unification and more interested in the proposition that its time we focused more heavily on intentionally creating a better culture and, as a society, teaching our children to be good people who believe in working together to help others.


Hence my question on what values to teach and who decides. It seems a safe bet that the values of imperialism will be the ones that are taught (and are in fact taught right now), because it will always be those in power who decide what is taught, and those in power will always have imperial values in their interest.

I completely understand that you are imagining a shift in our value paradigm, and that you recognize it is essential to our long term happiness or for any realization of global justice. It just seems to me that such a gigantic shift would require some sort of organized resistance on the part of the "people" against the entrenched powers (military, corporate, government). And i don't necessarily agree that technology really needs to play a significant part of this shift in values. The more i consider technology the less neutral i see it to be. Technology seem to be heavily biased in favor of Imperial values.

Andrew

I'd go farther and say that even an "organized resistance on the part of the "people" against the entrenched powers" couldn't effect a sudden cultural shift on a global scale; that isn't how such things change.

Rather, on the smaller and more immediate scale, I simply posit that we should begin to consider how to teach good, rather than merely effective and useful, cultural values to future generations.

[Michael]

How do we teach people to voluntarily consume less when they have the technology and desire to consume more? Would we not have to coerce them somehow?
I doubt it.

Fact is, the US economy devotes roughly about 2.5% of GDP annually (for the last ninety years except during WW2) to advertising. This is all directed at ecouraging people to buy, buy, buy!

Source (http://www.galbithink.org/ad-spending.htm)

Take that away and I think you might see more than a comparative 2.5% drop in GDP especially after a few years. This money is 'invested' to generate profits.

Non-exploitive cultures already exist, and indeed, for the vast majority of the 2 million years of human existence non-exploitation is the norm.
I think you are being rather too arbitrary with this term "exploitation".

All animals 'exploit' their environments to survive. That is normal and natural behavior that can't be avoided. Non-exploitive species die off fast.

I think the point you are trying to make is that there is a point of balance at which the amount of exploitation that a given species does to the environment can be considered 'non-harmful' to the environment.

And of course, it is generally obvious that present human culture is 'over-exploiting' the environment well beyond the ability of the environment to sustain, but that doesn't change the fact that even the 'hunter-gatherers' in the highlands of New Guinea engage in 'exploitation' of their environment.

[andrewl]

I doubt it.

Fact is, the US economy devotes roughly about 2.5% of GDP annually (for the last ninety years except during WW2) to advertising. This is all directed at ecouraging people to buy, buy, buy!

Source (http://www.galbithink.org/ad-spending.htm)

Take that away and I think you might see more than a comparative 2.5% drop in GDP especially after a few years. This money is 'invested' to generate profits.

I see your point, there is already coercion and it is to consume. Still though, seems unlikely people would voluntarily stop advertising in a mass-consumer society, where the entire culture revolves around commercialism.

Sounds like we would still need coercion.



I think you are being rather too arbitrary with this term "exploitation".

All animals 'exploit' their environments to survive. That is normal and natural behavior that can't be avoided. Non-exploitive species die off fast.

I think the point you are trying to make is that there is a point of balance at which the amount of exploitation that a given species does to the environment can be considered 'non-harmful' to the environment.

And of course, it is generally obvious that present human culture is 'over-exploiting' the environment well beyond the ability of the environment to sustain, but that doesn't change the fact that even the 'hunter-gatherers' in the highlands of New Guinea engage in 'exploitation' of their environment.To a great extent i agree with you, if we define exploit broadly to encompass general subsistence. However, i have always taken the term "exploit" to describe a behavior that is completely one-sided in favor of the exploiter that leads to domination and eradication of other species as opposed to integration and the improvement of an ecosystem. Yes, non-human animals are capable of exploiting or over-exploiting as well, but only when something "goes wrong" in the ecosystem - like the introduction of a non-native species into an established ecosystem, or natural change in geography and climate... we conceive of it as "something gone wrong" when we view it in the wild, but for some reason its just the "unfortunate cost of doing business" when human civilization does it, something that can be repaired with more technology (a common promise never fulfilled, like waiting for the messiah).

Not all animals or human cultures engage in what you call over-exploitation as a rule. What i often just call exploitation.

But i agree that is should be clarified, as this is not the first time somebody has disagreed with my use of the term.

Andrew

[dilettante]

I see your point, there is already coercion and it is to consume. Still though, seems unlikely people would voluntarily stop advertising in a mass-consumer society, where the entire culture revolves around commercialism.

Sounds like we would still need coercion.



Or we would need to change that culture :)