My Zen Thought on Competition
She alone does not compete,
And so the world can never overcome her.
Lao Tzu
The sagely person is like water.
Water benefits all things and does not compete with them.
Lao Tzu
I really like these quotes. Too much in life is based around competition. My students don't come into my classroom to learn to be better writers; they come to compete for grades and then for jobs and then for promotions. But for what purpose? They'll pay lip service to the fact that money isn't everything, or even most things. But they're victims of competition nonetheless. It doesn't stop at the level of graduate student or professor, either. If anything, it gets worse. We compete to get into PhD programs so we can then compete for publication and to be the "named chair" of some university that's in competition with every other university. But for what? Mainly for numbers. The quality of education isn't what's considered. If it was, methodologies would certainly change. It's all about the statistics. Nonprofits compete with each other over funding and donations and grant money and media attention and attracting volunteers. Did we forget that our main goal was to solve a problem and not to create other problems in the process?
I have found that I have never lost anything by not competing. That's practically a zen koan, but it's true. I've never lost anything by sharing information with someone who needed it, by passing on a tip to someone when I was interested in it too, or even by offering up my creative work as a way of sharing my thoughts with others.
On the other hand, every time I've competed for something, I've lost. Even when I won the trophy or the ribbon or the scholarship, I lost something: peace of mind, security in myself, something that I gave away. Even at the graduate teaching level, I'm surprised at how often teachers will hold their cards to their chest, like their lesson plan is just too important and must be kept a secret. We wouldn't want to actually share anything that worked and helped students learn. That's not really what we're after, it seems.
--Virgil
Found a neat little activity on Kari's blog. I think I'm going to break mine into chunks, though. Oh, and Kari--you're missing H, I, and K! :D
The A - Z's of Me
A - Age: 29
B - Bands you're listening to right now: Rob Zombie, John Lee Hooker
C - Career: I'm a graduate student in English Literature, I help run a nonprofit that fights illiteracy, and I teach two sections of freshman composition. In short, I'm busy doing too many things at once.
posted by contemplator at Saturday, November 18, 2006
24 Comments:
I know this is probably going to be hard to hear, but this is why I support capitalism, at least to a limited extent. The reason being is that competition inspires one to improve oneself, even if for the wrong reasons. Only the truly wise improve themselves without the coersion of competition.
Mad dog mumbled... I know this is probably going to be hard to hear,
...before quietly shuffling off with his tail between his legs.
It's certainly true, to some extent, that some amount of competition does/can bring out the best in people, but that doesn't mean that competition is valid or valuable in everything.
Often, the competition is best kept to oneself, forcing one to continue to do better personally. One could suggest that, as a teacher, the competition could be a daily striving to do better than the day before.
Students competing among themselves makes the learning process nothing more than competition instead of a process whereby everyone comes out a winner because they've learned as much and as well as they can and continued the process of bettering themselves.
Are you trying to get to the knowledge first? Or are you trying to gain the most knowledge? Or are you trying to create an environment where everyone learns as much and as well as they are able? Only by working together can all students do their personal best. Competition only clouds this.
Hmmm. I wonder what those letters are...I copied the post from another somewhere. Gonna have to look into that.
Thanks.
Samuel: I've always considered personal "competition" to lead to problems for most people. Why not just call it personal growth, I wonder? The connotations are certainly different.
Mad Dog: I used to think that way, too. Usually something following what you just said would be "We've never seen 'true' capitalism at work anyway." But that's just not true, in my opinion. It doesn't inspire you to improve yourself. It inspires you to make a better product. And rather than being efficient, it endorses waste--how many new products are thrown to the side in landfills just so "capitalism" can give us the most effecient, next best thing? We've put an awful lot of gloss on the good things capitalism is supposed to give us, but when you take a good hard look at most processes and actual byproducts, it ain't that hot. We shouldn't we all strive to be wise instead of coerced?
But I didn't think you shuffled off with your tail between your legs. :)
I never said we haven't seen true capitalism. I also never said that people have not got burned from it. I also never claimed to support Laissez-faire economics, which is what people on the far right support. I support a mixture of socialism and capitalism. In terms of the left/right scale, I am probably either center, or center-left in terms of economics. However, I don't think that either socialism or capitalism has a monopoly on all the correct answers.
Lets go over the points:
"It doesn't inspire you to improve yourself. It inspires you to make a better product."
First of all, I think that it is very good that capitalism helps make a better product. I like having good products, don't you? Compare our society to Soviet Russia, in which everyone had second rate televisions, cars, apartments and other consumer goods. To top it off, people there had to wait months to years to get their products from the soviet government for the bigger items, or at least wait in a gigantic lines for more everyday items. Why? Because the government owned the stores. With government ownership of the economy, the store owners had no incentives to do any better, because there was no competition. The store owners had no reason to fear customers going to rival stores, because all the stores worked for the same boss, and the store owner always gets their cut, regardless of how many people got their goods there. (This, by the way, is also the reason why I am against monopolies, as well as full fledged socialism/communism).
I would like you to notice that acceleration of the improvement of cars, computers, electronics and various other innovations which have rapidly occured, even within the past 20 years. Most of these improvements occured within nations that largely support capitalism, especially the United States and Japan. Since the early 1970s, computers have doubled in power every 18 months, with virtually all the advances occuring in the research departments of various small and large businesses. This is but one example of how competition has inspired advancement.
Secondly, I disagree with the idea that capitalism and competition do not inspire one to improve themselves. I even remember in high school and college, when running on the cross country and track teams, all the runners would run better when with a group of other runners. As a result of running with other runners and being competitive, I was able to get into the top tiers of the teams, and even in the top tiers of the inter-team races. Another example of how competition is beneficial:
http://www.knowledgeproblem.com/archives/001284.html
http://www.templeton.org/funding_areas/freedom_and_free_enterprise/benefits_of_competition/
"And rather than being efficient, it endorses waste--how many new products are thrown to the side in landfills just so "capitalism" can give us the most effecient, next best thing?"
Capitalism can only afford to be so inefficient. If a business ends up sending most of what it's trying to sell in to the landfill, then it will have a difficult time making a profit, which will cause it to go out of business. If the waste is truly terrible, then it drives a company out of business, after which, they will no longer be wasting. If the waste is not so tremendous in that it drives the business into bankruptcy, then it is nothing to worry about, unless the waste causes pollution. In which case, the solution is to have the business dispose of the waste properly in such a manner in which it does not hurt the environment. All in all, waste hurts profits, and businesses have an interest in making sure that it is minimized.
"but when you take a good hard look at most processes and actual byproducts, it ain't that hot."
In the words of Winston Churchill: 'It is the worst system, except for all the others'
"We shouldn't we all strive to be wise instead of coerced?"
Nice idea, but do you really think the average person is going to care about this? Based on what I've seen in my lifetime, only the highly intelligent and motivated realistically pursues this, which is a tiny minority of the population. Mostly everyone else is quite self-centered, and looking for convenience, entertainment as well as riches. Among the average person, nobility is in quite short supply.
mad dog: well, since you brought it up....
First of all, I never "accused" you of believing in any specific kind of capitalism. I simply mentioned what I typically hear that follows what you said.
As far as your points go,
1) I think you need to reconsider what having a "better" product means. There are plenty of tradeoffs for having the most up-to-date thingamajig. Cars used to last people well over a decade and a half. They don't anymore. Know why? Because they're manufactured to lower standards because the companies know that people will want to buy something new in 3-5 years. They're made to market trends, not to quality.
If you wreck an older car now, you're more likely to survive the crash rather than if you get hit in your new and improved SUV. That's hardly a "better" product, just a flashier one. And comparing us to Soviet Russia is a bit of a red herring. It's apples and oranges. We can be productive without having to be either wasteful or falling into a totalitarian state.
2) Stop confusing personal enrichment with capitalism. It's ridiculous (not you, the thought) to compare people to an economic system, but that's just what happens in a pure capitalistic mindset. In this, the West could certainly learn something from the East. We become "human capital" and we talk about improving ourselves as if we're adding new features to a cell phone. That very mindset is why most people compete for grades and jobs right now--they view themselves as an appreciable asset.
3) Capitalism is practically FOUNDED on waste. Your computer example is a good one. Do you have any idea where out of date computers go? Giant landfills where poor little children in China play on them. The pictures aren't hard to find. How often are computers upgraded? And techy people like you aside, how often does the average person actually USE all the things his/her high powered computer is capable of? Same with cell phones. How many people actively use all the features on their cell phones? And yet new ones come out constantly.
People don't buy for quality and sustainability. They buy for what's new. And that's a First World privilege we have just got to let go of. Do you know how many gallons of water it takes to make one microchip? Look it up. We can't afford to keep this kind of waste going. It requires a new mindset.
4) You think the average person wants to be coerced instead of wise? Or are you saying the average person isn't capable of figuring it out? People don't have to be noble to be aware, and being aware is half of being wise.
Throwing our hands up and saying they can't be "taught" or something isn't the solution either.
"First of all, I never "accused" you of believing in any specific kind of capitalism. I simply mentioned what I typically hear that follows what you said."
You might not have literally accused me of 'laissez faire' capitalism, but the arguments you make against my arguments seem to indicate otherwise. In case you don't know, 'laissez faire' capitalism basically means capitalism without boundries for the businesses. No government interference whatsoever. It is capitalism in its purest form. I do not support that; in fact, most people don't.
I want to make it clear as to what I do support (in terms of economics):
STANDARD LIBERAL ECONOMIC PHILOSPHIES:
-Universal Health Care: provided that the federal and/or state budgets are balanced, and can pay for it, without significantly raising taxes on the middle and poor classes. ~50 million people in the USA are without health care, and I feel that this is the best solution. A hardcore capitalist, as well as certain moderates are firmly against this.
-Public Schools, with public funding. Hardcore capitalists are against this. Many are in favor of private schools and homeschooling for all children, but I am realistic enough to know that this 'solution' can not work for most families, let alone everybody. I also believe that proper funding improves the schools, as well as paying teachers higher salaries. It has been proven that paying teachers higher salaries will yield better teachers, because the higher pay will not only motivate current teachers, but also make the profession of teaching more enticing to the more highly qualified candidates. It has been proven that lower pay for teachers means that highly qualified candidates who could have been good teachers end up working for the private sector, depriving the schools of quality teaching, which hurts the students.
-You said that competition is bad. Believe it or not, better schools produce better students, which in turn helps them be more competitive in the market. If the schools and students are not held to high competitive standards, then they risk losing jobs to employees overseas, because an employer will always want to hire the most qualified candidate, not some schmo in the middle of the pack. Believe it or not, the liberal idea of better schools/students works hand in hand with competition. Conservatives/capitalists, are effectively against competition in this regard, because they want to take funds away from the schools.
-Social Security. Hardcore capitalists are against this. Social Security is one of the best government programs created, and many republicans foolishly think that privatizing it will help the economy, as well as the average person.
-Federal/state/municipal constructed/maintained roads. Roads have been proven to be too unprofitable for private industry to create and maintain.
-Accurate labeling of products in terms of what materials are in them, as well as expiration date, place of manufacturing, etc. Teddy Roosevelt started this in the beginning of the twentieth century, after visiting a meat factory and seeing the extremely low standards and countless health risks that went into food manufacturing/distribution/shipping. Before this, the prevailing attitude was "let the buyer beware", which is also the hardcore capitalist's argument, as well as the argument of the tobacco industry. After the labelling standards were passed, the quality of packaged food, as well as various other goods increased in quality.
-However, in addition to current labelling standards, I believe in extending it to other consumer goods as well, including for various electronics, machinery and automobiles. To top it off, I feel that the nature of the labels themselves should also be extended. In other words, every car and truck should have accurate information about its expected life expectancy, estimated maximum miles that the vehicle can travel. I also feel that the government should make a far more sincere effort to alert consumers to bad products, especially when the failures of the bad product can prove to be lethal. As it stands right now, the government really pussy foots when it comes to alerting the consumer of a bad product. To get the real story, a person has to dig through various consumer reports magazines, as well as various websites, all of which are produced by non-government sources, from people like Ralph Nader. Because of the fact that the government takes little to no role in informing the consumer, the average person is simply not aware of a product shortcomings. However, the average consumer DOES have access to various published as well as internet sources, and therefore, the consumer is to be partially blamed for this.
-Environmental standards. Because of the massive threat of global warming, the USA should impose the same environmental standards as the European Union and the guidelines set in the Kyoto protocol, possibly even better. If you watched "An Inconvenient Truth", you would have noticed that Al Gore proved that a bad environment is bad for the economy, and therefore bad for business/capitalism. The short sighted coal and oil companies ignore this, and do everything possible to supress this information, and fight pro-environmental legislation.
-I support welfare for struggling families. Less and less people nowadays are able to live within the costs of living in their communities. Anyone who is against welfare entirely likely doesn't mind the idea of seeing poor children starve. It has been proven that virtually anyone making minimum wage, or only a couple of dollars per hour above minimum wage simply is unable to afford the ability to afford the cost of living.
-I am pro-union. Statistics show that most union workers make more money than non-union workers who also happen to be non-business owners. Businesses and Republicans have done much to erode the power of unions in recent decades. As a result, the average worker's wage in real dollars relative to the GDP, as well as spending power has actually gone in recent decades, which is masked by inflation.
-Stop corporate welfare and other government waste. If this were the only improvement to occur, the national deficit could be dealt with swiftly. Our government wastes many billions of dollars on bailing out failing businesses, but mostly large corporations. Take Haliburton for example. Before President GW Bush was in office, Haliburton was going out of business.
After Bush got elected *cough* selected *cough*, Dick Cheney gave a number of no-bid contracts to his former company, Haliburton. Haliburton then went into a period of high prosperity, at the cost of the taxpayer. This is quite obviously a form of fascism, (government being subservient to big business). This was also against the law, as the pentagon is required by law to have bids on all military contracts. Because Haliburton did not have to deal with bidding from competitors, they could charge any price that they wanted to the government. As a result, this nation has lost over 10 Trillion dollars over the course of only 5 years, down from the former surplus of 4 Trillion. Clinton rescued us from the deficit, then Bush and Cheney ruined everything, sending us into an even worse deficit than the one suffered under Ronald Reagan.
As well as Haliburton, there are numerous documented cases of 'pork-barreling'. Perhaps you have heard of the Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere', that would cost several million dollars? Maybe you might have heard of how Dennis Hastert wanted to use federal dollars to build an expressway in his backyard? This is costing the taxpayer billions, not to mention the large ticket military spending on jet fighters that never leave the hangar, warships that never leave the dock, I could go on and on with this. Meanwhile, the utter tragedy is that our infantry in Iraq uses 40 year old M-16's, as well as body armor that can't stand up to an AK-47 round. Some soliders don't even have body armor, or have body armor that is even less effective.
-Corporate windfall taxes. The top 1/10th of 1 one percent of the population controls much of the money in this country. This country could simply impose a mild windfall tax, increase taxes for individuals who earn more than $500,000, and there will be plenty of money to pay for universal health care, bring all public schools up to the standards held in Western Europe, modernize all roads and rail systems, with plenty of government money left over to pay off the national debt. In fact, I read that Ralph Nader proposed that anyone who earns less than $100,000 per year could go tax free if the taxes on the wealthiest businesses and wealthiest individuals were increased. He even claimed that all the social improvements that I mentioned could be paid for as well, with the government still staying out of debt.
-Net Neutrality. I have seen that the big businesses who control the pipelines intend to use them to stifle competitors. The internet was a product created by the federal government, with public money. Having large businesses control something of this nature to be used to stifle voices is effectively state-sponsored fascism. It has also been proven that many businesses will be hurt by the telcom's charging internet tolls/limiting access. What next? Should big businesses be granted exclusive access to our air, charging people for the ability to breathe, and denying air to their competitors?
-Crush all monopolies. Monopolies have been proven to charge as much money as possible, for doing as little work as possible. The consumer gets hurt in every possible way. When there are competing business, prices go down, and services/products improve, because the business is aware that the consumer does not have to shop there. Haliburton and AT&T are clear examples of companies who have virtually achieve monopoly status. To top it off, these companies recieve so many tax breaks and handouts, it can force someone to die of laughter. Case closed.
Other things I support, but are not often supported by a typical liberal:
-Reduce or remove certain farm subsidies. The government spends quite a bit of money doling out money to farmers to entice them to not produce beyond a certain amount for various food products. The government actually pays a farmer to DESTROY various food products that don't get sold, in order to artificially raise the price of food. And for all the surplus food that does not get destroyed, it mostly ends up in warehouses, rotting away. The taxpayer has effectively paid for a warehouse of rotting food, which benefits nobody, except for the farmers who produced too much (perhaps intentionally?). The agricultural industry is one of the few types of business that gets these kind of freebies. This food could be given to the poor people in our country, as well as various others, but it is instead being destroyed, and serving the good of nobody. I feel that a far superior use for the surplus food would be to give it to the poor across the world, especially in third-world nations.
I am a supporter of genetically modified food. Contrary to what many radical environmentalists say, there is no substantial proof that organic food can cause any health problems. Certain folks like at Greenpeace are trying to stand in the way of genetically modified food, using scare tactics with little to no science. I am a full supporter of folks like Norman Borlaug, who want to use organic food to feed the world. It has been proven that organic food alone would only have the ability to feed 4 billion people, out of a worldwide population of 6.5 billion. In other words, 2.5 billion people would not be able to get food using organic farming techniques alone.
For more information on this matter, please visit the following links:
Penn and Teller discuss Norman Borlaug
Norman Borlaug makes a statement on Bio-Engineering for farming
-Deregulate certain aspects of the cable industry. In many areas across the country, people only have the option of choosing from one cable provider, effectively making many cable companies into monopolies. To make matters worse, these cable companies are granted legal monopoly status, meaning that even if another competitor had the ability plus the funds to set up shop in a certain area, it would not have the ability to do so. This means that the people can't do anything if the cable company decides to hike rates, because the customer's only options are to pay the higher fees or unsubscribe from the cable TV service. If competitor cable companies were to have to ability to come in as an alternative, the consumer would then have the ability to choose which provider he/she gets. If the consumer feels that one company is charging too much, the customer would have the ability to go to another cable company. It has been long proven that competition in any industry has the ability to lower prices and improve goods/services. In areas in which the consumer has the ability to choose their cable company, it has been proven that services and prices lean more into the consumer's favor.
I am fully aware that anyone has the option of getting sattelite TV service, like DirectTV, but the rates for it are quite high, as much as $70 for their basic service. The existence of sattelite TV, has been proven to make the cable industry more consumer friendly, but not by a gigantic amount. This leads me to believe that more choices can only benefit the consumer. I would like to remind you that I do not want a broad sweeping set of deregulations, like many people in the Republican party would want. We still need regulations that protect consumers. The only regulations that I would want dissolved are those that prevent multiple cable companies to service an area. One of the most ridiculous arguments I have seen that goes against cable industry de-monopolization is that
"1) I think you need to reconsider what having a "better" product means. There are plenty of tradeoffs for having the most up-to-date thingamajig. Cars used to last people well over a decade and a half. They don't anymore. Know why? Because they're manufactured to lower standards because the companies know that people will want to buy something new in 3-5 years. They're made to market trends, not to quality.
If you wreck an older car now, you're more likely to survive the crash rather than if you get hit in your new and improved SUV. That's hardly a "better" product, just a flashier one. And comparing us to Soviet Russia is a bit of a red herring. It's apples and oranges. We can be productive without having to be either wasteful or falling into a totalitarian state."
Guess what market trends are based on. If you answered "what the consumer demands", you would be correct. The market is based on providing whatever the consumer will pay for. If the industry is largely providing sub-standard products, then the consumer is to blame for not demanding better products. The consumer should have known better than to be swayed by the hype and tv commericals, and should have researched what the best vehicle is. Between the consumer reports magazines, trade magazines, consumer political action groups and the internet, which has practically every form of information available, the cosumer simply has no excuse to be buying those crappy SUV's. All the information was available, but the typical dumbass average american was to lazy to look things up. They were busy doing something important, like watching American Idol. Countries with a more informed populace have been proven to have better products. Your complaint is really going against consumer laziness, apathy and willfull ignorance. I am sure that you have been to Western Europe, and noticed the superiority of the vehicles there. I feel that the solution for the USA is for the government to sponsor ads across television and the internet talking about various product flaws. Another solution is to improve the education system across the board, to catch up with Western Europe. A solution that I do not endorse, however, is taking away the consumer's right to make choices. That is an infringement on liberty. In addition, if the consumer can only choose from one product, they will be forced to go with that choice, for better or for worse. Consumer choice, as well as consumer education is a safegaurd against this, for reasons explained above.
"2) Stop confusing personal enrichment with capitalism. It's ridiculous (not you, the thought) to compare people to an economic system, but that's just what happens in a pure capitalistic mindset. In this, the West could certainly learn something from the East. We become "human capital" and we talk about improving ourselves as if we're adding new features to a cell phone. That very mindset is why most people compete for grades and jobs right now--they view themselves as an appreciable asset."
If you were an employer and you had five positions to fill, but a hundred people applied, you obviously could only employ 5 of them. And which 5 would you employ? Why, the best 5, of course. As a result, people have to improve their qualifications so that the prospective employer would decide to hire them over other people.
I'll give you another example. Suppose you were grievously sick, and also happened to be wealthy. Would you choose the free clinic, or would you choose the very best hospital with the top rated doctors? Let's be honest here.
Besides, I consider motivation and self-improvement for all the wrong reasons to be far better than no motivation or self-improvement at all.
"3) Capitalism is practically FOUNDED on waste. Your computer example is a good one. Do you have any idea where out of date computers go? Giant landfills where poor little children in China play on them. The pictures aren't hard to find. How often are computers upgraded? And techy people like you aside, how often does the average person actually USE all the things his/her high powered computer is capable of? Same with cell phones. How many people actively use all the features on their cell phones? And yet new ones come out constantly."
With people under the age of 40, you would be suprised as to how much the full power of computers are used. With powerful games like Doom 3, Half-Life 2, even the best computers are pushed to their limits. Another thing that uses quite a bit of computer power is digital video. A very powerful system is required to play high quality (DVD quality) video from a camera. You would be shocked as to how much hard drive space good quality video takes up. It's also not just the techies who use digital video either. Have you noticed the enormous popularity of youTube lately? The massive proliferation of all the videos on that site simply would not be possible without the power of the current generation of computers. Pretty soon, High-Definition video is going to be mainstream. If I were to tell you how much in terms of computer resources that High-Definition Video uses, your jaw would drop to the floor.
As well as for playing videos and games, powerful computers are useful for multitasking, which is useful to everybody. Even if you did no photo editing, no video watching/editing, or no playing of any recently made games, a powerful computer still comes in handy. I will give you an example. Suppose you were trying to work on a complex term paper that required you to get data from spreadsheets, various internet sources, reference photos, and that you wanted to have all of these documents open at once to save time, and to re-check references or verify that you copied data correctly. This kind of thing can be quite taxing on a computer if it hasn't been made in the past 5 to 10 years.
Asides from practicality, though, I believe that a person has the right to own whatever they want, provided that it does no harm to other people. For example, I would have no problem with a person owning an artillery piece, or a siberian tiger in their back yard, provided that they don't use it on me! I would also be against any noise pollution that shooting the artillery piece would produce, and against any excessive noise produced by the siberian tiger. I would also be opposed to any damage that the neigbors artillery piece/machine gun tower/flamethower/tank/landmines/elephant/siberian tiger/giant man-eating carniverous plant would cause to MY property/my body, or other neighbor's property/body.
BTW, if people did not generally use the features as you claim, why would the manufacturer include them? I have seen numerous people use the photo and video features of their phones. If people stopped using those features, then the manufacturer would stop including them, to save money on their part.
I also support the legalization of all drugs. I argue that this country will be safer, because businesses will provide any drug that a person will want; safely and affordably. The gangsters and South American dictators will be driven out of business, because they will be unable to compete. Steet crime will drop like a rock, because it is proven that most criminals commit crimes (like robbery, burglary, larceny, theft) to get enough money to support their drug habits. Normal jobs simply don't provide enough funds to be able to purchase the drugs. If drugs were legalized, then business would be able to sell them, driving the price down, reducing incentive to use theft as a means of getting enough money to buy the drugs. I also argue that people will use dangerous drugs more responsibly, compared to now, because the government then would have a legitimate reason to place warning/active ingredient labels on the cocaine/marjuana/heroin packages. Under current drug laws, the labels state what is considered 'safe use'. Now, we both know that using any of those drugs is pretty darn unsafe, but if they labels were detailed enough to provide information as to exactly what happens if a certain amount is consumed.
"People don't buy for quality and sustainability. They buy for what's new. And that's a First World privilege we have just got to let go of. Do you know how many gallons of water it takes to make one microchip? Look it up. We can't afford to keep this kind of waste going. It requires a new mindset."
So what kind of solution do you propose, then? I propose educating the consumer via consumer advocate tv commercials on popular tv shows, as well as various billboards along highways. Another solution I see as feasible is for the government to provide incentives to manufacturers to create more environmentally friendly products. However, taking a person's right to choose is where I draw the line.
Also, there are a lot of myths and misconceptions surrounding landfills, as well as recycling.
Penn and Teller talk about recycling and landfills.
"4) You think the average person wants to be coerced instead of wise? Or are you saying the average person isn't capable of figuring it out? People don't have to be noble to be aware, and being aware is half of being wise."
I believe that improving the public knowledge through advertisement and proper use of the public schools can do quite a bit to improve the situation. Until then, coercion is the only realistic way to get the best performance out of the average joe.
"Throwing our hands up and saying they can't be "taught" or something isn't the solution either."
I never made that claim. Nor would I propose that there is no solution, nor would I propose that complaining alone is a solution.
OK, without getting into a major dissertation here, let me be as succinct as possible.
First of all, although I teach English and am in an English Masters program, I have a second degree. It's a B. of Science. In Economics. So I know what you're describing, and you don't need to go into long explanations for me. As to your actual points, which are wa-ay down below where you state what you want/believe in, here goes, again, as succinctly as possible.
1) Market trends are driven by consumer wants, but guess who drives what the consumer wants? Advertisers. Advertisers are people too, not some nameless, faceless corporation. And they have a responsibility to the people to whom they pitch their product. There is definitely responsibility to be taken on both sides. But my point is, you can't hold capitalism and it's byproduct of marketing faultless in this regard. My "complaint", which I prefer to call an observation, is with both sides.
I have not been to Western Europe, but you are not seriously asserting that they have better cars? Maybe we should define what "better" means. Do you know how much it costs to fix a tiny part on a Jaguar? Or how much trouble it is to fix a Mercedes-Benz when it breaks down? And those are supposed to be the BEST kinds or cars! I find it perfectly acceptable to enfringe on consumer "choice" when that "choice" is damaging to the environment and consequently to those around them. Reserve your "choice" for the things in life that really matter.
2) Your still looking at a person's life through an economic lens. Whatever happened to getting an education to become a more informed, more well-rounded person? Or a better humanitarian? It isn't all about dollars and cents. That rarely makes people happy, and there are studies to support that. I would want to hire a qualified person, certainly. But you miss the point when you reduce everything down to a job. There is a growing trend called Voluntary Simplicity that rejects making a high powered job the center of your world. I think many people are beginning to recognize the dangers of competition. That's why "flex-time" was born.
3) Did you know that only 20% of households in the US have a computer and can use it? That's hardly overwhelming support for continual upgrades. Most people I know don't use most of the features on their cell phones, and they're very technology savvy. You're coming from a very technological position. So don't underestimate just how many people DON'T have a computer in the home, much less know what to do with it.
The manufacturer includes new features so that it can boast that it has "new and improved" features so that people will be inclined to buy something that's new and improved. That should be obvious. And how is filling landfills with used computers, polluting the earth and wasting enormous amounts of water to manufacture just one microchip NOT violating your neighbors rights to something more sustainable?
What I find interesting is how worked up people seem to get over their right to just pick any kind of SUV in whatever color they choose, yet they don't seem that concerned about their right to clean water supplies and a pollutant free earth, nor do they give two shits about those who live in other countries who actually have to look at the messes we make. Out of our sight, out of our mind.
As to what I would do, I would start more awareness campaigns so that people know just what happens when they waste stuff. And I would make it easier on them to do the right thing. For example, we recycle old cell phones and printer ink cartridges. People feel good because it gets their junk off of their hands, and they've done something to help out.
In order to change a mindset, you have to make it easy on people to think that way. You can't beat them over the heads and scream at them to choose differently. You have to lead them down a path showing them why, what's in it for them, examples, and then have the little blue recycling bins right there at their doors or just down the street (or whatever your cause is, you get my drift) so that it's easy for them to follow through.
When it becomes a habit, people naturally take on more responsibility for getting it done, and you can move on to other things. I think the biggest mistake most causes make is by not proceding gradually. Most demand change all at once and then wonder why they never get it.
DV, I am impressed with the speed in which you were able to respond to my uber-long posting, with such a fairly long posting yourself. Unlike certain Austrailians, I will not argue every point simply for the sake of argument. I will only touch upon the points where I am not in full understanding with, or with points I see differently.
"As to your actual points, which are wa-ay down below where you state what you want/believe in,"
I am not sure what you meant by that. Are you making a statement about the length of my post, or are you saying that some of the points I made contradict some of my beliefs?
"There is definitely responsibility to be taken on both sides. But my point is, you can't hold capitalism and it's byproduct of marketing faultless in this regard."
I kept saying that I do not support unrestricted capitalism, nor do I even consider the more moderate forms of capitalism to be blameless.
"I have not been to Western Europe, but you are not seriously asserting that they have better cars? Maybe we should define what "better" means. Do you know how much it costs to fix a tiny part on a Jaguar? Or how much trouble it is to fix a Mercedes-Benz when it breaks down? And those are supposed to be the BEST kinds or cars!"
The Japanese make some very good cars as well, and are mostly quite affordable.
"Did you know that only 20% of households in the US have a computer and can use it?"
----------------------------------------
U.S. PC Households
----------------------------------------
Year Number Percent
(In millions)
2001 71.1 67%
2002 74.1 69
2003* 77.5 71
2004* 80.8 73
2005* 84.1 75
2006* 86.7 77
2007* 88.7 78
----------------------------------------
source: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=553139
"In 2000, more than 4-in-5 households (80%) with computers had at least one
member using the Internet at home (44 million households)."
source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2001/cb01-147.html
"And how is filling landfills with used computers, polluting the earth and wasting enormous amounts of water to manufacture just one microchip NOT violating your neighbors rights to something more sustainable?"
Yes, I agree that pollution is bad, as well as wasting natural resources. But what is this issue you seem to have with water? 3/4 of the earth is covered with water: in many cases, it goes miles deep. The Marianas Trench, for example, is 7 miles deep, filled with WATER! Bottom line: the earth has mucho aqua.
What I'm saying is that you gave me a very long explanation of several things that I already knew. I don't think the discussion necessarily required all of your political beliefs to be on the table, so to speak.
You have given little to no examples of how capitalism could be "bad". It's almost as if you refuse to consider that point of view at all. Saying that you don't support "unrestricted" capitalism doesn't necessarily mean that you comprehend the point of view I'm trying to explain. There's plenty of room for compromise, but I don't see you acknowledging much of anything.
The Japanese, as you may be aware, are not considered to be part of Western Europe.
I screwed up the initial household estimates, but your numbers aren't right either. The U.S. census shows that it's only in households with incomes above $75,000 that there is an upwards of 80% rate of computers in the household. That same rate also only applies to white children between the ages of 3-17 years old. Hispanic children have a 37% rate of computer usage and black children are at 43%. Married couples are also far more likely to have a computer and internet access than other types of families. You can google US Census and computer households and see all the info.
I misquoted the statistic (which we were given in a state meeting--so maybe the person misspoke and it only applied to our state?), but the numbers aren't 80%. That only applies to certain groups. The quoted statistic of 4 in 5 households is out of context. It means 4 out of 5 households with a computer in the household have internet access as well. But it's only 2 in 5 households according to that census that actually have computers in the home.
Here's some info about water usage and microchips from reputable sources.
http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/microchip.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-964721.html This one is a news article about a study showing the kind of environmental footprint one microchip leaves. There's hard data to back it up.
Also, surely you aren't saying that just because there is "water, water, everywhere" that "but not a drop to drink" doesn't follow? Most of the water is unusable. The issue is clean and usable water for humans.
Some historians and others have asserted in the recent past that water will be the next cause of war. Well, that's already happening. Here's some sources for that:
http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/m14/m14chap3_3.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4723008.stm
Here's an example of where it's happening near the US. California also has similar problems. As does Arizona. http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010611/cnnwater.html
Here's a UN agency that deals with water scarcity. It's named as perhaps the biggest problem of the 21st century. There are pdf files on that page of both the scarcity of water and the Human Development Report of 2006, titled, interestingly enough: Beyond Scarcity: Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis.
http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/
They seem to think it's important. :)
I never said that Japan was part of western europe. My point was to say that there are places that produce better cars on average than the USA, and still relatively affordable.
Yes DV, I actually did discuss some of the pitfalls of unrestricted capitalism, I mentioned a number of ways in which I am against it. If you take a close look, you will notice that is how I started out my mega-post. Look just below where I typed "STANDARD LIBERAL ECONOMIC PHILOSPHIES:". I specified numerous ways in which I am against it.
Okay, I misread the numbers just a tad. Here is the real no-spin statistic:
A ratio of 9-in-10 school-age children (6-to-17 years old) had access to
a computer in 2000, with 4-in-5 using a computer at school and 2-in-3 with
one at home, according to a report released today by the Commerce
Department's Census Bureau.
The report showed that 54 million households, or 51 percent, had one or
more computers in the home in August 2000, up from 42 percent in December
1998.
Keep in mind that that number was from 2001, 5 years ago. Most reliable sources estimate that this number can only be higher today.
I was just joking about having 'mucho aqua'. But, there are processes in which sea water can be turned into fresh water quite affordably, including osmosis and distillation.
Sources:
Desalination is not modern science
Watermakers by Sea Recovery. Marine watermaker, reverse osmosis desalinators, and water makers.
New desalination technology converts sea water into fresh water at lower cost
Cheap Drinking Water from the Ocean
Carbon nanotube-based membranes will dramatically cut the cost of desalination.
You mention things like product labelling--that's not necessarily the province of capitalism. You also mention things like monopolies, which aren't supposed to be a part of capitalism "proper". Point out to me where you said capitalism was inefficient, please.
You said this: "I am sure that you have been to Western Europe, and noticed the superiority of the vehicles there." I responded with how the "best" of Western European cars are still pretty crappy, and you responded with this: "The Japanese make some very good cars as well, and are mostly quite affordable."
You didn't address the European cars, you threw in the Japanese. Since we were talking about Western Europe, it seemed like you were trying to count Japanese cars as belonging to Europe.
The statistics for computers you just gave come from that same US census report. If you read what the actual report says, not the soundbite released for radio, you'll see that 4 in 5 children having access to computers at home are white children who come from families making $75,000 or more per year. The household use across the US is accurate, though. Read the actual report, not what they want to release as a soundbite to the public. It simply isn't true that 2 of every three children have a computer at home. Hell, it isn't even true in my county, and we're a university town. The statistics below the quoted soundbite directly contradict that statement.
As far as water goes, keep in mind that there are places, particularly in the middle east, that regularly desalinate ocean water for drinking. It's extremely disruptive to the ecosystems there and it releases heat and chemicals back into the ocean. There is no regulation currently for desalinisation plants. It's a good idea. But why isn't it also a good idea to reduce the amount of water we waste anyway, instead of just planning on going to the next available water supply when we run through the ones we currently have? Not a very different argument than for fossil fuels. What's so terribly hard about admitting waste happens and saying we should do something to fix it, I wonder?
The points I previously made against pure capitalism:
"-Public Schools, with public funding. Hardcore capitalists are against this."
"
-Public Schools, with public funding. Hardcore capitalists are against this. Many are in favor of private schools and homeschooling for all children, but I am realistic enough to know that this 'solution' can not work for most families, let alone everybody."
"-Social Security. Hardcore capitalists are against this."
"-Federal/state/municipal constructed/maintained roads."
"-Environmental standards."
"-I support welfare for struggling families."
"-I am pro-union. Statistics show that most union workers make more money than non-union workers who also happen to be non-business owners."
"-Net Neutrality (pro). I have seen that the big businesses who control the pipelines intend to use them to stifle competitors."
All of these things that I support are well known to go against capitalism. The Republicans/Right-Wingers/hardcore capitalists have always been against these kind of things.
I also never said that capitalism was perfect, nor have I ever said that it was not wasteful. The only thing that I am advocating and have been advocating is that there are good sides to capitalism as well as bad sides. In my opinion, the ideal system would be a yin-yang of both socialism and capitalism, much like Sweeden.
Besides, what is the point you are trying to make with how many Americans own how many computers?
Some of the things you've listed have nothing to do with capitalism. Stifling the net, for instance. Isn't "pure" capitalism, whatever that means, against monopolies anyway?
Saying you support welfare and that you're pro union isn't a blow against capitalism. It's simply stating your opinion/political persuasion. Now, if you'd like to explain why capitalism is wrong to stand against such things, I'm all ears. But it isn't an argument, as it stands.
I agree about the yin and the yang, by the way.
The point about computers should be obvious. You were using computers as an example of an improved product, and I was pointing out the waste that goes into building just one microchip for a computer (which you still have yet to acknowledge) that people will toss away as soon as the next new thing comes out. How is that "improved"? Also, buying computers as soon as they come out and maintaining them is the privilege of wealthier white families, based on the statistics we've both seen. So you should consider whose perspective the "we demand to have choice in products" sloganism comes from.
You know mad dog, I picked you as a supporter of open source and co-operative, encouraging communities like Linux, more than a sucker of Microsoft corporate cock?
Competition creates myopia and tunnel vision and encourages unethical and negative behaviours like lying, cheating, poisoning the well, shortcuts, failure to acknowledge intangibles or long term ramifications, nobbling competitors, rampant incompatabilities before standard are defined, shoddy standards of workmanship, inconsistencies...
Look at the current political 'competition' - are they improving things, or are they merely chasing quick fixes, pandering to the lowest common denomenator, lying, and devoting the majority of their time to plundering what they can while they are in power and attacking their competitors. When did the meritocracy end and the hypocrisy begin?
Go see Catch a Fire if it's still out. - Or on demand Greed, or The Big Chill or any other introspective movie that looks at the price of success and how much of your soul you have to sacrifice to advance, climbing over others.
Could you imagine living in a world where the entire security industry was unecessary?
Two heads are better than one.
Collaboration would advance things far quicker than the duplication of ten people trying to get to the same point by themselves.
That was what she was saying.
Comprende? :)
Oh and Penn and Teller?
What are you, 15?
-----------------------
DV - lovely points - especially about water. Oh and when I read your 20% stat, I thought that was people that had more than a semblance of computer literacy, was that what your colleague meant perhaps?
"You know mad dog, I picked you as a supporter of open source and co-operative, encouraging communities like Linux, more than a sucker of Microsoft corporate cock?"
The problem with Microsoft is not too much competition, it is actually too little. The corporate/lobbyist owned politicians are basically paid to look the other way. Microsoft should have been broken up years ago because of its anti-trust violations. Microsoft, and now AT&T are for all practical purposes, monopolies. The reason why they can afford to have third rate products and services is because most people rely on them and are too afraid, or are simply unable to go to a competitor. Therefore, these monopolies become like deadbeat relatives, doing only enough to get by, and thumbing their nose at you when their back is turned, because they know that they can get away with it.
If Microsoft had some serious competition, you would see the quality of its products drastically increase, because it would do so for survival reasons. The consumer would benefit. Our government is being so lily livered about this.
"Competition creates myopia and tunnel vision and encourages unethical and negative behaviours like lying, cheating, poisoning the well, shortcuts, failure to acknowledge intangibles or long term ramifications, nobbling competitors, rampant incompatabilities before standard are defined, shoddy standards of workmanship, inconsistencies..."
LACK OF competition can produce employee sluggishness, apathy, bureaucracy, inefficiency, arrogance, unresponsiveness. Just look at the Microsoft products, or try going to a government office, like the DMV or the IRS, and you will see what I mean.
"Look at the current political 'competition' - are they improving things, or are they merely chasing quick fixes, pandering to the lowest common denomenator, lying, and devoting the majority of their time to plundering what they can while they are in power and attacking their competitors. When did the meritocracy end and the hypocrisy begin?"
You might as well be asking when did we start breathing air. Politicians, for the most part, have always been opportunist and corrupt. The only reason why you notice it more easily nowadays is because of the higher level of aggression of the media when exposing politicians.
Truth be told, politicians have also been getting more corrupt. I attribute the reason for this due to the increased power of the American corporation. The corporations have more money to bribe the politicians with, and they have even developed more subtle ways of exchanging it, partially thanks to newer technologies.
"
Go see Catch a Fire if it's still out. - Or on demand Greed, or The Big Chill or any other introspective movie that looks at the price of success and how much of your soul you have to sacrifice to advance, climbing over others."
Yeah, I will do what I can to see one of them. But I suggest that you go look for an old classic 'Death to Bureaucracy', a tale of an immense and unresponsive government system which is the end result of lack of motivation, apathy, complexity and corruption.
"
Could you imagine living in a world where the entire security industry was unecessary?
Two heads are better than one.
Collaboration would advance things far quicker than the duplication of ten people trying to get to the same point by themselves.
"
Nice idea, but could you point to an example of where this actually works? Karl Marx said these things back in the 19th century, and every government which based its philosophy on such theories has either failed, or became totalitarian. Just take a look at Soviet Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba and the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe.
I am saying this to DV, and am saying this to you as well: Find me a WORKING system in which competition is not needed.
"That was what she was saying.
Comprende? :)"
Yeah, I understood it from her first post. I even knew that argument long before I even knew who she was. It is not a matter of understanding, it is rather, a matter of disagreeing.
"Oh and Penn and Teller?
What are you, 15?"
They say some very good things. I don't necessarily agree with everything they say, but I feel that they have some good opinions. It's funny how the left backs them up all the way when they go against the bible, death penalty, drug laws, traditional love or creationism. However, should they deviate in other ways, then the left says all kinds of crap about them. Yes, I admit that they have kind of a blustery style, but keep in mind that they are comedians, as well as magicians.
This does not mean that they are clowns when it comes to researching their points; quite the reverse. They are well known for researching all the Ins and Outs of any particular topic they may be discussing.
Typical far left temper tantrum. When they fail to make any convincing arguments, then they shout and scream insults, and performing apeshit stunts, like screaming at police officers at protests, or like tying themselves to trees, or pouring blood on people who wear fur coats. I personally am sticking to the moderate left, where the clear, careful and rational thinkers lurk.
And now you want to start a flame war because of a political disagreement.
Good grief. I leave you people alone and you start bristling and growling at each other!
"Collaboration would advance things far quicker than the duplication of ten people trying to get to the same point by themselves."
Nice idea, but could you point to an example of where this actually works?
I'd be delighted.
Collaboration was actually a lot closer to what I was getting at with the original post. Do you know how many businesses contact the university bitching to us about how college students do not know how to collaborate but will only compete with each other, even in the same office? They don't want competitors, they want collaborators. Most of all the new research supports that.
If you're wanting an example of where collaboration works best, look no further than the university. Especially in composition & rhetoric, we have proven through many articles & books that collaboration in the classroom through team projects, team papers and team presentations produces higher quality, more consistent writing and the students learn more than if they think they're competing for grades.
In fact, it's been proven that doing away with the traditional grading system and replacing it with simple pass/fail system not only produces higher quality work, but it also has the lovely by-product of causing the students to retain more of what they're learning. Many university senior projects now involve some type of collaborative final project, often with a community agency.
In fact, I just got picked to bring that into the English 101 classroom, which is a big bonus for my career--but that's another story.
If you were referring to political systems, I have this to say first. To paraphrase Ghandi, "become the changes you want the world to make." It starts at home with yourself--that's the only person you can control. I think too many people expect the government to change and bring about change without realizing that change starts from the roots of the people and is reflected in the government.
That being said, just off the top of my head, there were several Native American Indian tribes who had community/collaborative arrangements. For example, if the men of the tribe wanted to go to war, but the women didn't agree, then the women would refuse to get their provisions for them and make their gear, and that would be considered that. I'll grant that works best with smaller populations.
But even with corrupt gov't officials, they will pander to what the people want, if only to get the votes. If the people choose more collaboration, they'll begin voting in people who will do just that, and voting out people who claim they will but fail to deliver.
Ok, I probably should have made that request sooner about working examples.
I didn't know that certain deer have such sharp teeth.
The only reason why I brought up Penn and Teller in the first place is because they had a video on Norman Borlaug. Lets forget Penn and Teller and discuss Norman Borlaug. In fact, I also linked to a video that has nothing to do with P&T, and all about Norman Borlaug. Watch the video, then discuss with me your feelings on genetic crop modification. Here is the link: Norman Borlaug makes a statement on Bio-Engineering for farming
I better not see any inflammatory rhretoric or insults, or else I will simply ignore you. Pretend that I am a social studies professor, and that I am basing your semester grade on what you write back.
Pretend I give a shit, have nothing better to do with my life than quibble with you instead of coming here to read and embrace contemplator's wisdom, and that I'm off researching really hard and won't be able to reply for oh, let's say a year.
How about that, does that work for you?
You know, I am not suprised. I only wanted a rational discussion, but you don't seem to have time for that. But when it comes to picking fights, you have all the time in the world.
Post a Comment
<< Home