Welcome to BigotBlog
This site is under renovation. Please bear with us (okay okay, there's only one person running this. So, please bear with me).
After years of debating over the Internet (they rarely debate outside), believers and non-believers have finally reached a consensus on something about God: God is incredible.
in.cred.i.ble
adj.
1. not credible; so implausible as to elicit disbelief
2. extraordinary; astonishing.
It is a known fact that one of the things fundamentalist Hindu groups are peeved about is that Christian missionaries convert locals, especially the Adivasis, of India to Christianity. In fact, some radical Hindu groups have even gone on rampages recently in Orissa, and in Karnataka, destroying Churches and killing Christian priests.
Christian missionaries have traveled far and wide to “spread the word of Christ” and hence caused many to convert to their religion. Of course, conversions are a two way street. Hindu leaders (such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar) and organizations (such as ISKCON) have been preaching their word in the Christian dominated West for centuries now.
There, of course, will be resentment by the chauvinistic fringe of the dominant religion with any ‘outside’ force that challenges their hegemony. Here is proof of the aggressive stance taken by radical Christian organizations in the ‘West’. The following letter was delivered to the Indian Embassy in Australia by a group known as “Global Christian Brethern United“. In fact it is chilling in its claims, which includes the responsibility of murder of a Hindu priest and threats of more murders to come. They even claim that what they plan to do will make Taliban look meek. I was lucky to chance upon it.
[Click to Enlarge]
Here is an incomplete excerpt from the letter above:
“Hail be the supremacy of the Christian religion. The one and only true religion, the one and only almighty world power which your farcical government already dances to like a fucking stupid puppet pulled by strings! … (the government power of your country) is in our hands, the one and only supreme power that paves the way for us to do as we please. … zealout (sic) swamis who stand in our way. The chilling murder of the Hindu temple priest is a true example of our capabilities and capacity to rule supreme without retribution. You idiots! The world fears the violence of taliban and muslim terrorists but their acts are nothing compared to he forthcoming systematic treacherous annihilation that will rid the world of those who blaspheme! Including those pagan hindu clerics that visit western shores … to convert our children of Jesus Christ to become hindus under the guise of yoga! … they will be stopped and the fetid stench of their burning flesh will deter others from following in their footsteps…”
(Emphasis mine).
Enjoy capitalism, for the moment at least.
What would a post capitalist world look like? More importantly, will capitalism end? Some of the greatest economists the world has seen foresee an eventual end to the capitalist period of history. Great economists across the board, that is. Some socialist, and others staunchly pro-capitalist. As to how right they are, is frankly speaking, beyond my pay scale.
While it would be incredibly arrogant of me to even speculate, it would be within my limits to point out what a few of them generally had to say about the eventual end of capitalism. Here are five points of view in brief of six great economists with wide ranging socio-economic viewpoints:
[Note: Capitalism as a system is characterized with the innate tendency of accumulation of wealth beyond which any other system has or will accomplish. This has been recognized by economists and social thinkers across the board].
1) Adam Smith: Adam Smith described the process of accumulation of wealth that characterizes capitalism will ultimately reach a plateau when the attainment of riches will be “complete”, followed by a large and lengthy decline. Smith did not concentrate on the specifics of the decline and what would come after.
2) David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill: Ricardo and Mill anticipate the arrival of a “stationary state” which Mill foresees as the staging ground for a certain kind of “associationist socialism” after capitalism reaches a peak of wealth accumulation. Mill came increasingly to re-examine the objections to socialism, and came to argue in later editions of the Principles that, as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies. He therefore made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished, and that it be replaced by a cooperative system in which the producers would act in combinations, collectively owning the capital necessary for carrying on their operations, and working under managers who would be responsible overall to them. Like Ricardo, he held that profits in the long run would tend to diminish and that the formation of new capital would thereby come to an end. This would bring industry to a halt and population to a stationary level. The result would be a relatively static form of society.
3) Karl Marx: Marx anticipated a series of worsening crises, each crisis serving a temporary rejuvenating function, but bringing closer the day when the system will no longer be able to manage its internal contradictions. His theory of dialectics would come into play at this point. Social change would eventually occur. He argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, would produce internal tensions that will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, capitalism itself will be displaced by communism, a classless society which emerges after a transitional period—socialism—in which the state would be nothing else but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
4) John Maynard Keynes: Keynes anticipated a “somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment” would replace the current methods of investment. Investment today, as it was in the days of Keynes is lumpy and is affected by expectations and the bullishness of a few investors, which may or may not be based on rational ground. Keynes predicted that investment in the future would factor social cost and benefit.
5) Joseph Schumpeter: Schumpeter on the other hand anticipated that the capitalist system would evolve into a kind of bureaucratic socialism. Schumpeter concludes that this will not come about in the way Marx predicted. To describe it he borrowed the phrase “creative destruction,” and made it famous by using it to describe a process in which the old ways of doing things are endogenously destroyed and replaced by new ways. Schumpeter’s theory is that the success of capitalism will lead to a form of corporatism and a fostering of values hostile to capitalism. The intellectual and social climate needed to allow entrepreneurship to thrive will not exist in advanced capitalism; it will be replaced by socialism in some form. There will not be a revolution, but merely a trend in parliaments to elect social democratic parties of one stripe or another. He argued that capitalism’s collapse from within will come about as democratic majorities vote for the creation of a welfare state and place restrictions upon entrepreneurship that will burden and destroy the capitalist structure. Schumpeter emphasized that he was only analyzing trends, not engaging in political advocacy.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Joseph Schumpeter believed that capitalism in the most competent system for allocating resources. He believed that monopolies and oligopolies are the norm (and should continue to be) and not perfectly-competitive markets. Adam Smith is well known to believe in the invisible hand of the capitalist economy. David Ricardo was a proponent of free trade. Mill was a classical liberal economist who later turned to socialism. Clearly, these political-economists all believed in the magic of capitalism, and yet predicted its demise. I contend that I haven’t (yet) reached a position where I can refute these beliefs – if at all that has any merit.
On the other hand, contemporary mainstream economists regard capitalism as a system whose formal properties can be “modeled” along general equilibrium or other dynamic lines, without the need to bother about the political destinations towards which they head. But then again, these economists look at situations only in static theory.
As to who finally turns out to be true can only be answered correctly in hindsight, and I doubt anyone of us would live to see the day of the demise of capitalism, if at all that day comes.
[Communism Vs. Capitalism? A Graffiti.]
[Whats wrong with economics today?]
[Sources:
1) Behind the Veil Of Economics, R. L. Heilbroner (1987), Norton.
2) http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761555305/karl_marx.html
3) http://www.swaminomics.org/articles/19950709_endofcapitalism.htm
4) http://www.monthlyreview.org/0305jbf.htm
5) http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#SciPsyAss]
Religion evolved out of society as Man tried to explain the world around him and as he tried to improve his condition in a world where natural occurrences remained unexplained. Pagan faiths emerged with theories that explained life, death, the sun, the stars, fire, storms, lightening, and other natural occurrences. At that time, there were vast gaps in human knowledge of the world around us, and ‘intellectual’ thinking processes could only come up with the most plausible explanation of there being a creator, much like Man is in his tiny realm, to explain daily phenomenon. It was possibly Man’s first attempt to think about and explain the experiences of day to day life. In this sense, the birth of such theory, which later manifested itself into religion, was progressive. It was a dialectical process unknown in its time, and quite forward looking given the constraints of scientific technique of primitive society.
The concept of a creator, or god, grew out of such information and knowledge gaps. For this reason, it was expected that as human knowledge expanded, the scope of religious theology in the intellectual realm would diminish, and it indeed has. However, religion also emerged from the miseries of man as a consolidation of his degraded condition. It was, and is, the imaginary realization of human perfection. Religion gave solace in a world that demanded it. This is especially true in the case of modern religions which were more social movements to heal the wounds of daily life. Society began accepting religion as a way of life on lines of observed social conformity. Conformity is in itself an important aspect of social life, without which it is impossible to create the modern democratic society with its base on social and human justice. Primitive religion gave the human society this much needed conformity, and hence was ahead of its times. Religion was thus progressive when it initially evolved.
However, as time passed, religious ideology developed independently of the scientific and material structure and became a subject to its own laws. As gaps in human knowledge began to close with increased scientific progress, religion grew out of this sphere of dialectical processes and took a form of its own. When Darwin and other scientific minds gave theories that challenged the basis of religious theory, there was a direct confrontation of science and religion. This led to the evolution of neo-religious-theory such as Intelligent Design. The advent of greater understanding by science and greater “social-solace” ideologies such as humanism now make religion look obsolete and regressive.
Thus blind faith of religious theology, constituting intellectual laziness led to an otherwise progressive system of human dialectics to become a social ‘problem’ of sorts, one that is now popularly called ‘conservative’.
—————————————————————————————————————-
Also Read: How Prayer Works.
Spelling out why and how exactly I became an atheist would take forever. I’ll just run over it, and not get into details and philosophical intricacies and rationale.
I was, not unexpectedly, very religious before. I was born into a Hindu family in India, and hence naturally was fed Hinduism by my parents, parents and society in general over time as I grew up. And I wasn’t really reluctant, and did my best to understand the books and traditions. But I was always very inquisitive and kept asking questions, and often saw that there were no good answers for them in Hinduism. But that didn’t turn me away from faith, and I presumed that it was only because of my lack of understanding, rather than the lack of clarity in the philosophy itself.
At this moment, I’d say that what people in the West know of Hinduism is only in the stereotypical view of it being a polytheistic, caste-discriminating, cow-loving, weird-antics-doing religion. While these things do happen, it doesn’t define the Hindu philosophy. Having studied many religions over the years, I think the Hindu philosophy is actually one of the hardest to refute among the major religions. As to why, that would take forever to explain, so I’d rather not here.
Anyway, back to my “story”. We were taught Indian history in schools, and I learnt about many progressive social movements of India’s past. I learnt of Hindu schools of thought that spoke out against many Hindu practices, especially Idol-Worship. Outside my academics, I read up and tried understanding their philosophy. Over the years, our history books also talked about the origins of Indian non-theistic religions of Buddhism and Jainism. Again, outside my academics, I read up on their philosophy and understood the philosophical roots of non-theism, and eventually, atheism.
My questioning mind found rationale and reason in these atheistic and non-theistic philosophies rather than what is popular Hinduism, which like most other religions, shunned questions, inquiry and criticism.
I would say, I prematurely began calling myself an atheist at this point.
As time went by, I began reading about Christianity and its theology. And then Islam and its theology. It was at then I realized the “materialist conception” (a term I came to know of later) of religions. On how 1) the cultural-progression of societies, 2) a good imagination, 3) historical political situation, 4) limited by geographical barriers, and 5) the scientific knowledge of society limited the reasoning given by religion, especially about God. This only strengthened my disbelief.
Religion came out as a means of scientific and philosophical inquiry, and gave rationality and conformism to the human-system or society. (See my article on why religion was initially progressive ) But there are characteristics within it (for example: taking issues on “faith”), that has made religion as a regressive system which serves the socio-political and personal objectives of the middlemen (priests) rather than the ends (life on earth and a possible god). In other words, religion is a system that has been hijacked by priests, and this has happened because of the characteristics of religion itself, rather than outside forces.
However, it was only later that I discovered the disputed definitions of “god”, quite apart from the confines of religions. Religious beliefs simply were the beliefs of people thousands of years ago, which people still believe in today, often at ends with the science and reasoning gained by man over these years. However, notions of a god in the non-religious sense did seem plausible, at least in theory. But there were several counter-arguments refuting even the non-religious god. But given the limitation of human knowledge and the reasoning of today, it would be impossible to come to a conclusion either way. I then realised that I would be classified as an agnostic, not an atheist. (Although, I find more reason in the counter theories, and am closer to being an atheist than a non-committal agnostic – but I would maintain I’m an agnostic to non-religious theists).
A Hindu school of thought called the Nastika, which took birth thousands of years ago, is the world’s oldest rationalist atheistic school of thought. I would say I am a Nastik, which is a word closer to ‘nonthiest’ rather than ‘atheist’. But then, why do I call myself an atheist? Because most (since most people are believers of the religious god) people understand atheism as a disbelief in their god. Which is true! I do not believe in a God as described by most religions. I just have not reached a conclusion in the possibility of there being a “god” (in quotes for the lack of a fixed definition).
After-fact: There is an ancient 14th century Sanskrit book called “Savadarshagraha” (translated as ” a collection of all philosophies”) and it presents 16 chapters respectively sympathetic to 16 different positions on religious issues. A few of them discuss different atheistic philosophies.
COMMENT POLICY for this post: I will not discuss philosophical issues about God or religion on this post.While I do not censor comments, such comments will not be replied to. I believe that such issues cannot be resolved on a blog conversation like this, and from past experience, refuse to even try. But I welcome anyone to recommend me any book(s) that you think I should read that strengthens or challenges my view point. Apart from books, articles, videos, whatever. They are all welcome!
And if you have your experiences to share, please do so as I would love to hear from you!
Please visit my new Photo Blog called Photo Of The Moment.
Long back, I wrote a post about Advani Invoking the Ram Mandir, prior to the Lok Sabha Elections of 2009. Politicking over such issues isn’t new in India. Now we have a reminder that elections are coming up (not really, but the bugles have been sounded by many) in Uttar Pradesh, the most populous state of India.
My party is losing ground. The Muslims aren’t voting for me. People don’t even like my daughter-in-law. Gasp! What-oh-what should I do? Oh I know, let’s try the age old democracy trick again! Let’s play with emotions. What’s a few riots and a few thousand dead bodies between friends? It’s time to get back the mojo, baby!
Mulayam Singh Yadav’s Samajwadi Party is losing ground. He clearly miscalculated on the Kalyan Singh deal. Then there is the “yuvraaj” who is Dalit-home-hopping his way to the electoral bank.
Let me repeat what I wrote on the Advani post, albeit with a slight twist:
Today, 70% odd Indians answer nature’s calls out in the open. I’ll become Samajwadi Party’s greatest supporter the day they promise (and implement) to build lakhs of toilets around UP, especially for women, instead of a Babri Masjid. One must not play with fire and history.
Frengly is a relatively new translation website, and is vastly more convenient to use than BabelFish. For one, it recognizes the source language on its own. No spoon feeding there. Also, all language tabs are present on the main page itself, so fewer clicks required (hey don’t blame me: we all are programmed to be lazy, even while on the computer). It looks clean and neat too. And to top it all, Frengly supports many more languages, unlike Babel Fish.
Hindi is one of them.
So I got about translating random sentences in an attempt to see how much of it gets lost in translation. My friends joined me in the fun it turned out to be. The results were hilarious! Here are a few results we got:
Holy crap! पवित्र बकवास!
The root cause of the problem is that you suck. समस्या के मूल कारण यह है कि तुम चूसते
Dude, get a life. दोस्त, एक जीवन मिलता है.
Laughing My Ass Off! (LMAO) मेरे गधे हँस रहे बंद!
Howdy Partner कैसे हो साथी
You boob, I am screwed तुम उल्लू , मैं मुसीबत में हूँ
This is really messed up यह सच में गड़बड़ कर दी है
Sick slut! बीमार कुलटा!
Yo mama’s so fat, when she jumped in joy, she got stuck. यो माँ बहुत मोटा है, जब वह खुशी में कूद गया, वो फंस गया
George Bush cant pronounce nuclear. जॉर्ज झाड़ी खिचड़ी भाषा उच्चारण परमाणु
Have fun wasting your next half hour!
Translation of Hindi Text: A Large Rally Against Illegal Bangladeshi Infiltration. Throw the Illegal Migrants Out…
I saw this old worn out poster of ABVP, the Hindu right wing students organization, in a village in Pali District in Rajasthan (a state in Western India). The problems the people of the village face are enormous. There’s poverty, corruption, a year of drought, illiteracy, inflation, mismanagement of NREGA, you name it! The current inefficient Congress government can be attacked on so many issues. But the issue they choose to pick up? Illegal infiltration from a country 1500 kms away from the village where this had been put up earlier this year. The jury is still out on the issue, and this post is not about illegal infiltration, terrorism and trafficking. The villagers here are absolutely unconcerned and unaffected by illegal migration.
Now some might point out that I choose to ignore the problem of infiltration, some of which results in fringe Islamic radicals entering into the country, and that the problems I mention of poverty, mismanagement etc are Congress’ doing. Hence my attack on ABVP is pure hypocrisy, typical of a “psedosecular”. Now let’s get something straight: the Congress has been so inefficient that it’s not even funny. The charges against it of “appeasement” do sometimes hold merit. (Note that I personally think Majoritarian Communalism is a degree worse than Minoritarian Communalism, although both are terrible; I’ll address this in a future post). Only today (the 3rd November, 2009) the Home Minister, P. Chidambram, attended a function by Muslim clerics which began with the denigration of the National Song of India, charging that it is un-Islamic (It might well be, dear self-proclaimed guardians of Islam. But that doesn’t mean you have to you have to be drama queens about it. Evidently, you give greater leverage to your religion than you do to your land).
Clearly then, India needs a strong and credible opposition that works for the people. The Leftists have no credibility and presence in most of India, and the states where they are in power are incredibly mismanaged. But the wort of the lot are the Hindu conservatives, who still are a party made up of, and supported by, India’s highest castes (statistical source: National Election Survey, EPW 10/2009). They choose to raise relatively unimportant issues that work more on xenophobia than on sound economics. They are as incompetent as the Congress, and then worse because their majoratarian xenophobic socio-religious policy is several degrees worse then the Congress’ ‘minority-appeasement’.
Anyway, the rally mentioned above by ABVP barely had a turn-out. People there (and elsewhere in India) are still waiting for a party that really cares about their concerns, and not feeds on Hindu chauvinism, to save them from the helplessness of voting for Congress every now and then.
The Afghanistan situation clearly doesn’t seem very pleasant. The war seems to heading to a dead end and increasingly, we are hearing voices from certain sections within the USA and elsewhere of an American pull-out from Afghanistan too. Their arguments include the fact that even 9/11 was planned and carried out from Western cities. This is fallacious as none of this would have been possible but for the ideological backing that the Arab and Middle Eastern radical fringe groups give. Pulling out, it goes without saying, would be disastrous both for the region and the world.
The new American administration realizes that this war cannot be won by military means alone. This, in spite of the all the news reports we read about increasing military action in Islamic-extremist infested regions. Drone attacks, for example, have increased. And, consecutively, so have civilian causalities.
Taliban and other outfits will continue to enjoy support from a ‘fair’ proportion of people in the region for several reasons. These include the ingrained idea of sovereignty, where certain people continue to see the USA as an outsider and they hence wrongly assume that the Taliban are the local heroes fighting the foreign evil. Such sections prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t. At the margin, however, there exists another section that finds itself an easy prey for Afghan warlords to hire, a section that would probably not have tended to such a direction had they had they been safely employed elsewhere. (Note that this is not a generalization for all militia, but only a reference to a section at the margin)
Bottom-up and Top-down strategies of Education
Increasing of peaceful employment might pull such a section out of the local militias and into meaningful contribution. Education is an enabling factor that helps in this regard. However, everyone recognizes the shortcomings of an impractical goal of establishing a strong primary and secondary schooling system in a short span of time. Even if this was done, by the time a sizeable proportion of people got educated, a good 10-15 years would have passed, surely passing the political sell-by date of the war to the American public. Also, schools become easy target of militants, as to them, they represent symbols of American occupation.
An education policy which seems more practicable is the top-down strategy, as opposed to the bottom-up strategy of primary school setting discussed above. Specifically, I propose the setting up of the Afghanistan Institute of Management (I’ll refer it as AIM henceforth), in the lines of the infamous Indian Institutes of Technology. The nuances and advantages are discussed below:
1. It is easier to build one big institution and secure it from militant strikes, rather than building several small schools in every district with relatively lesser or no security.
2. The AIM would be completely residential and anonymity of students will be maintained so that they and their families aren’t targeted by militants.
3. Finding able and excellent teachers might seem to be a big problem. However, in today’s day, it shouldn’t be. English speaking professors can be hired from universities around the world and be asked to teach as little as 2-4 hours every week from the comforts and safety of their universities in, say, New Delhi, Singapore or London, via videoconferencing facilities.
4. To compensate for the lack of quality education in their schools, an extra semester or two of basic education and English training can be imparted.
5. AIM can be funded by many countries that have a stake in a stable Afghanistan.
6. The students studying here (at least initially) shouldn’t have to pay anything, and must be selected by a merit test.
7. There would be a small and important condition for admission: After completing their education, they will be required to stay and work in Afghanistan, and hence contribute to their economy, for at least 5-7 years. If they want to leave, they’ll have to pay up, say, 150% of the cost of their education.
8. On successfully completing their education, those who wish to be entrepreneurs will be given a capital grant of, say, Rs. 1-2 crore ($210k-420k), on submitting a project report of their intended firm/industry. This ‘loan’ will not need to be paid back if certain goals are met. These could include conditions such as: the enterprise should be employing ~20 workers at the end of year 1, ~50 at the end of year 2, ~100 at the end of year 3, and so on. Of course, profitability is important. If for various reasons profits cannot be maintained, they can submit reports to governing councils of these loans for restructuring of conditions and terms.
9. Since this project is of international interest, at least temporarily, these firms should be allowed to trade without barriers with these nations. Hence even if their own markets saturate, which I presume they will, they can produce for or serve foreign markets.
10. Worker training will be important, of course, given our unstated assumption that people are unskilled because of a lack of good, or any, education. Worker training should be subsidized by the international community, where the workers pay should be paid in part until they are fit to productably begin work.
What could potentially be achieved
Every year, hundreds of students from Afghanistan come to India to study in various universities. Clearly, there are several more who don’t qualify for the scholarships. This shows that there is more than a handful of students looking forward to quality education. Let us assume 100 students are taken in each year. Of these, only 10% end up as successful entrepreneurs at the end of their courses. Going by the conditions of worker employability given above, this would mean that there would be 700 workers working at the end of year 2, 1700 at the end of year 3, 3200 at the end of year 4, 5200 at the end of year 5, and so on and so forth. The rise in workers in such stable jobs is exponential.
The governing council will have to be careful to promote only such industries that do not cause harm on already existing local industry, or at least protect the workers if they are harmed. If they don’t do so, this can actually be counterproductive to the security scenario.
Over a period of time, worker supply would saturate (markets might not as free trade between these firms and other markets in assumed). This might raise demands for quality lower levels of education, for which the local government will have to respond, and will be more able to respond, given the growing economy.
I do not imply, not by a long shot, that these workers will be people who gave up on their fundamentalist groups to join work. However, eventually over years, this might begin to happen. I also understand that there already exist foreign universities in Afghanistan. But the model of the AIM clearly different from what already exists.
And why stop here? There can be such Institutes of Medicine, Technology, Economics, you name it.
Of course, I understand, and it is important to realize that this will not solve the problem. Hardly. Development measures such as these only contribute marginally to a direction that might eventually lead to stability. But it is important, as with such increments in peaceful development might eventually help Afghanistan reach its tipping point towards stability.
I was flipping through a regional community magazine in Rajasthan, when I stumbled across this photo of someone in the matrimonial section. I was amazed by what I saw: I mean, look at that neck! He needs to approach the quaint, India-centric poor cousin of Guinness Records, the Limca Book of World Records, just to be sure. I’m not the kind who’d grin (even inwardly) at someone’s physical attribute, and this clearly is not such a case.
Is this the longest neck you have seen (other than those of non-Thai, non-Burmese tribeswomen who forcefully elongate their necks) ?
[Click to Enlarge]
[Click to enlarge]
[Click to enlarge]
Obama appears to be a pretty sane guy, and I can bet he was as perplexed at getting the Nobel as the next guy. What was even more surprising was that it was given for his international diplomacy, particularly his nuclear disarmament call. Wait, what? Has his foreign policy achieved anything yet? Not quite. It would have made sense had the Peace Prize been given for his peaceful rise to power taking in all communities into confidence.
Anyway, he has, rightfully, accepted it as an anticipatory award. The pressure is on him. Hopefully he won’t always act trying to live up to it without keeping in mind other considerations.
But at the end of the day, it’s still ironic that a President of a nation that is fighting two wars is given a peace prize for international peace building “effort”. Well done, Nobel Committee, your reputation has just been enhanced in the world’s eyes. Remember the time Mahatma Gandhi wasn’t given the Peace Prize?
In the Part I of a conversation I had with a friend about the human Rights to Food, I opined why human rights help the “natural” order of human survival by shunting the “unnatural” economic and political aspects.
The reply I expected would be the natural point to make given my views.
Consequentially, another friend commented:
Sid, if you think about it everything boils down to “Darwinism”. What you call “unnatural” are in fact driven by human wants, desires and emotions which are quite natural.
To this, I replied:
I did have that on my mind too while I was debating with myself. There are two parts to my argument about this.
1) When I say “unnatural”, I talk not of the economy running due to natural laws of human needs and supply by capability. Instead, I talk of the ideologies that underline these acts. Ideologies need not be (and are often not) natural. For example, the Nazi philosophy wasn’t guided by “natural” survival instincts that every mammal (and other groups) is (are) born with. In the case I mentioned, there are two unnatural factors governing the non availability of food: those that are economic, and those that are political.
Firstly, the economic: demand and supply runs by the profit maximization principle (the technical aspects explained in the link). This profit maximization principle is not “natural”. It includes the possibility that even if there is demand, there are goods to supply, and the people demanding it are ready to pay more than the cost of producing it, even then the good need not be supplied as it would cause profits to shrink (even while revenue grows!). In technical terms, this is because profits are maximized with respect to Marginal Cost curves, not Average Cost curves. This is contrary to natural laws where people get food if there is food available and they are ready to “pay” for it. It’s a fact that the amount of food that is thrown away as leftovers in the USA can feed the entire undernourished population of Africa several times over (as reported in the book ‘Waste’ by Tristram Stuart). Other unnatural ideas, central to the capitalist system, are adhered to too (like the Trickle Down effect). Note that my emphasis is on the unnatural aspect, and my criticism is not directed at the capitalist system. Also, capitalism is only about 250 years old, so it certainly cannot be a natural system of resource flow; it is only “natural” by consequence of development of societies. The systems observed in local indigenous communities are more “natural”. Remember ‘The Gods Must be Crazy’?
Secondly, political systems in Africa are far from natural and are not guided by natural laws. They work in ideologies (some that lead to genocide) that don’t facilitate in any way the passing of the human gene, which is the guiding force behind most human actions. These political establishments, in trying to establish authority and hegemony, prevent trade from happening and agricultural markets from unifying hence leaving people hungry at times of deficit. This is “unnatural”.
2) I called certain acts natural and certain unnatural. The unnatural ones too can be called natural as you wrote they are “in fact driven by human wants, desires and emotions which are quite natural.” I separate the need for political power and the need for the continuance of economic activity into the unnatural category because they are secondary in nature and arise from other natural tendencies of wants, desires etc as you mentioned. Getting out of the way of a speeding bus is a natural tendency of survival, but trying to capture political power arises from other factors that are natural (such as desire of political power). These arise out of the “social animal” characteristics of humans and are not noticed in other species.
__________________________________________________________________________
I hence conclude my argument noting that political and economic activity are not natural although they result from natural human behavior.
.jpg){kind=link}
