[extropy-chat] Help! I'm not ready for reality! (was the 7 cents thread)

[Jack Parkinson]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "BillK" <pharos at gmail.com>
To: "Jack Parkinson" <isthatyoujack at icqmail.com>; "ExI chat list" 
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 7:02 PM
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Help! I'm not ready for reality! (was the 7 
cents thread)


On 11/18/05, Jack Parkinson wrote:
>> A mind that is resolutely closed to new ideas is already a good way along
>> the road to fossilization.
> >If you are not prepared to listen and consider, there's not much left for
> >you to do except to hang onto that belief system and hope that it serves 
> >you
> >well.
>

>The factor(s) that they seem to be missing is called (by real
>economists) Externalities. Look it up in economics texts.

>Don't get me wrong, competition is good, it brings down prices. In
>effect, one dollar, one vote. But this system has many weaknesses.

>If you define success in strictly material terms (e.g. business
>profit) and ask few questions about how it is achieved, you will find
>it leads to many of the horrors of modern civilization.  Energy scams
>(Enron), cooked books (WorldCom), tax fraud, tax havens, dirty
>politics and the exploitation of child labor, slave labor and
>'near-slave' labor.

>Another glaring example is the tobacco industry, who addicted and
>slowly killed many of their customers. (Still do, in third world
>countries).

>'Internalize the Externalities!' should be our slogan, but it is
>hardly attention-grabbing. 'Make the Polluters Pay!' is much better.

>But this line of economic theory is much more complicated than the
>simple view of just looking at the net profit. It is more difficult to
>defend, like many complex theories. The scientists have long complex
>(and correct) arguments, the opponents have snappy one-liners and
>obvious-looking statements, so the Intelligent Designers win the
>popular support.
BillK

Amen. Excellent summary Bill, you have put succinctly into one post a good 
number of the points I was mulling over. The key point (for me at least) is 
that success cannot be defined in strictly material terms. And that is what 
I really wanted to get the Wal-Mart acolytes to consider. I hadn't got that 
far because they still think the 'economy' is the same as the 'people' and 
the 'people' are primarily a 'market'... and what is good for business is 
inevitably good for you me... Yeah right!

I was even ready to settle for the 2nd best 'big picture' view that - EVEN 
when considered entirely in material terms - Wal Mart is not such a shining 
success when the expenses of supporting their shoddy treatment of staff and 
pandering to their political clout are factored in.

But, the whole exercise of challenging someone's basic internalized 
perceptions of the world and its workings is a lot like wading through mud. 
This is not a rational argument, it's a clash of ideologies - and you can 
never really effectively argue intellect against emotion. If this WERE 
possible the fundamentalists would not be the plague that they are.

Anyway, thanks for the summary, I could have done it myself but I was losing 
the will to live under the irrational onslaught. No doubt we will see a few 
more snappy one-liners and well-worn platitudes in rejoinder to these last 
posts on the matter. I have given up on any prospect of a well-presented 
argument from either John C or Rafal.
Onward!
Jack Parkinson