"Whatever is not nailed down is mine. Whatever I can pry loose is not nailed down."
Colis P. Huntington, 19th Century Railroad Magnate
"Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened."
Andrew Carnegie, "Wealth"
Paris Hilton will probably never vote for Barack Obama. He holds her up as a picture book example, cute, clueless, careless, of why taxes on the rich should be raised. Her unembarrassed example fails to convince a hard core of Obama's political opponents, who are determined not only to let the wealthy keep their current tax reductions, but to give them even more. To many of us in the masses, the politicians, lobbyists, and lawyers who pander for the benefit of the plutocracy have understandable, though ignoble, motives. By pleasing the rich, they might get rich too. And many of them do. There are many, however, who are not rich, yet still insist that the rich are entitled to all their money. In the interest of fairness, which the rich demand whether or not they grant it, we must ask some questions. Are there valid moral justifications for greed? Should greed be removed from the deadly sins list and added to the virtues? Where does reality fit in?
All human beings justify their actions, at least while they do them. Captains of industry and finance, and their defenders, insist that getting and keeping more is a righteous goal. Huntington stopped short of admitting he stole by claiming it was all his in the first place. Pirates from Alexander the Great to Jesse James have surely felt the same. From the onset of the Industrial Revolution, capitalist plutocrats have always believed their actions were the guiding lights of human progress, that mankind could not have advanced from the caves were it not for high minded men such as themselves. They may have done some awful deeds, but it's all been worth it.
Yes, railroad builder Huntington helped make our country great. How that fact justifies his right to everything he could grab, how his justification differs from open theft, may be hard to explain, but greed is a powerful addiction. Carnegie, who made steel readily available worldwide, claimed that humanity's lot was better as a direct result of capitalist conflict and disruption. He made that claim sixteen years before Ayn Rand, the modern guru of greed, was even born. Over the last century, history has witnessed many wars, depressions, and environmental disasters. Stacked up, these calamities evoke serious doubts whether on balance, the human race is better off since capitalism has held sway over human events. Still, there are many influential voices that continue to preach the wonders of unmitigated greed.
The main reason Carnegie is ignored today by modern apologists for wealth is that Carnegie states flatly that wealthy people should give away most of their money, to pay for the damages they caused in the acquisition process. As one who had been there, he could say with assurance that competition demands that businessmen have a lot of money to do what they need to do. But once the industrial or financial empires are built and in place, the winners no longer need those huge fortunes, and they are obliged to give the money back. He also says that if the rich insist on keeping their wealth, the public has the right to tax them to get what normal people need. Some modern billionaires, led by Bill Gates, George Soros, and Warren Buffet, are practicing what Carnegie preached. They are voices in the wilderness, given the powerful narcotic of greed. Most rich people, and those who strive to imitate them, cling to the belief that selfishness alone is the root of all human progress. So the debate goes on.
The fall back position for the disciples of greed (should Carnegie and his modern counterparts prove convincing to the masses) is the moral argument: that wealth belongs to those who have it, and nobody has any right to take it away, for any reason. The wealth the rich possess is proof enough of their entitlement. The argument is persuasive. If we were rich, would we want to be punished for it? Then Huntington's famous quote reminds us that the plutocrat's concept of ownership is a little different from most peoples.'
Whether or not we have a moral right to free rich people from their greed, the world is in serious economic trouble. Getting more money into circulation has been proven to relieve hard times. Money nowadays is concentrated in the hands of an extremely small group of people, who refuse to circulate it. Since America is still structurally a democracy, do the people have the right to use democratic measures to use this money to improve the general welfare? We need the money. Have we the right to "pry it loose?"
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Friday, December 10, 2010
THE INSANITY OF DENIAL
"Ignorance is strength"--Orwell, 1984
"Knowledge itself if power."--Francis Bacon, Religious Meditations-Of Heresies
New polls tell us more Americans disbelieve in global warming than did a short while ago. Climate scientists are banding together to reinforce their findings that not only is the world getting hotter, but human activity, mostly burning coal and oil, is its main cause. Whether the truth will out or the Big Lie will prevail is beyond our ability to accurately predict. We do know there are powerful corporate interests among us who are dead set on promoting the Lie, against all prevailing scientific evidence and even their own enlightened self-interest. And many among the average folks are eager to believe the Big Lie.
Society appears to be trending toward the Orwellian situation whereby science is routinely ignored, even suppressed, excepting warfare and police surveillance. Climate science definitely does not fit into these categories, and so must be sacrificed for the perpetuation of corporate power. This is understandable. History is full of big names who waste underlings in a constant effort to preserve and expand their power and privilege. The question is why so many average, workaday Americans are eager to be wasted so that the upper classes might retain their position a little while longer.
It is one thing to refuse to act on available information, quite another to plug the senses in steadfast denial. Most of us have at least some unhealthy habits that we know to be harmful, but we're frankly having too much fun to give them up. We Americans like our way of life: our cars, our air conditioners, our plentiful, varied foods, and other niceties. We feel we have earned them, and hate to lose them. But common sense tells us we stand to lost most or all of our bountiful lifestyle if global warming continues unabated, and that if mankind is causing the problem, mankind is in a good position to stop or reverse it, and the quicker we act, the less harsh will be the readjustments we must make. Yet we disdain both knowledge and common sense. Why?
Most of the climate change deniers in America are comfortable, suburban or rural, middle-aged or older, English-speaking, of European descent. Ethnically they are similar to most of the people who control the country. Despite the similarities, the ruling elites seem to be unaware of the existence of these people, except around election time when they send their minions and lackeys out to garner votes. Probably most members of this loyal demographic know full well that their needs are of no concern to the upper class. But the American myth is that anybody can get rich here, with the right combination of good ideas, hard work, and luck, and these middle-Americans feel close enough to maybe hit it big under the right circumstances. These are the "true" Americans, as they like to see themselves, and their status so close to the upper crust is threatened by the concept of climate change. To act on scientific information regarding climate change will require a unified and determined effort on behalf of the whole human race. The "true" Americans' concept of their country's exceptional standing in the world, along with their semi-privileged standard of living, might be sacrificed for the greater good of mankind. And what if all our efforts to curtail global warming don't work? Denial is tempting.
Of course there are other scenarios, much more optimistic, based on the idea that humanity has caused this problem, and humanity can work its way out. But since no one can truly predict the future, we are faced with either ignoring science, or acting on it. Even if global warming turns out to be a false fear, we still have immense, horrible problems with our polluted environment. No one can deny this reality. The ecological and climate solutions are the same. Must we oppose cleaning up the air, water, and soil, simply because some of us refuse to believe the weather is getting hotter? Surely we have advanced beyond the century-old notion that dingy skies and stinky streams are the signs of prosperity. If we clean up the environment, and never know whether the climate was changing, how will we be worse off? If we ignore science, and it turns out scientists are right, it will be too late to say "Oops!" Yes, there is strength in ignorance: the strength of a mob. There is power in knowledge as well, the power of people to improve their lot. In a worst-case scenario, America's wealthy elites would likely be the last to perish. Those of us in that comfortable middle would be next-to-last.
Not much consolation there.
"Knowledge itself if power."--Francis Bacon, Religious Meditations-Of Heresies
New polls tell us more Americans disbelieve in global warming than did a short while ago. Climate scientists are banding together to reinforce their findings that not only is the world getting hotter, but human activity, mostly burning coal and oil, is its main cause. Whether the truth will out or the Big Lie will prevail is beyond our ability to accurately predict. We do know there are powerful corporate interests among us who are dead set on promoting the Lie, against all prevailing scientific evidence and even their own enlightened self-interest. And many among the average folks are eager to believe the Big Lie.
Society appears to be trending toward the Orwellian situation whereby science is routinely ignored, even suppressed, excepting warfare and police surveillance. Climate science definitely does not fit into these categories, and so must be sacrificed for the perpetuation of corporate power. This is understandable. History is full of big names who waste underlings in a constant effort to preserve and expand their power and privilege. The question is why so many average, workaday Americans are eager to be wasted so that the upper classes might retain their position a little while longer.
It is one thing to refuse to act on available information, quite another to plug the senses in steadfast denial. Most of us have at least some unhealthy habits that we know to be harmful, but we're frankly having too much fun to give them up. We Americans like our way of life: our cars, our air conditioners, our plentiful, varied foods, and other niceties. We feel we have earned them, and hate to lose them. But common sense tells us we stand to lost most or all of our bountiful lifestyle if global warming continues unabated, and that if mankind is causing the problem, mankind is in a good position to stop or reverse it, and the quicker we act, the less harsh will be the readjustments we must make. Yet we disdain both knowledge and common sense. Why?
Most of the climate change deniers in America are comfortable, suburban or rural, middle-aged or older, English-speaking, of European descent. Ethnically they are similar to most of the people who control the country. Despite the similarities, the ruling elites seem to be unaware of the existence of these people, except around election time when they send their minions and lackeys out to garner votes. Probably most members of this loyal demographic know full well that their needs are of no concern to the upper class. But the American myth is that anybody can get rich here, with the right combination of good ideas, hard work, and luck, and these middle-Americans feel close enough to maybe hit it big under the right circumstances. These are the "true" Americans, as they like to see themselves, and their status so close to the upper crust is threatened by the concept of climate change. To act on scientific information regarding climate change will require a unified and determined effort on behalf of the whole human race. The "true" Americans' concept of their country's exceptional standing in the world, along with their semi-privileged standard of living, might be sacrificed for the greater good of mankind. And what if all our efforts to curtail global warming don't work? Denial is tempting.
Of course there are other scenarios, much more optimistic, based on the idea that humanity has caused this problem, and humanity can work its way out. But since no one can truly predict the future, we are faced with either ignoring science, or acting on it. Even if global warming turns out to be a false fear, we still have immense, horrible problems with our polluted environment. No one can deny this reality. The ecological and climate solutions are the same. Must we oppose cleaning up the air, water, and soil, simply because some of us refuse to believe the weather is getting hotter? Surely we have advanced beyond the century-old notion that dingy skies and stinky streams are the signs of prosperity. If we clean up the environment, and never know whether the climate was changing, how will we be worse off? If we ignore science, and it turns out scientists are right, it will be too late to say "Oops!" Yes, there is strength in ignorance: the strength of a mob. There is power in knowledge as well, the power of people to improve their lot. In a worst-case scenario, America's wealthy elites would likely be the last to perish. Those of us in that comfortable middle would be next-to-last.
Not much consolation there.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
A RECOMMENDATION FOR INTELLIGENCE WITH INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Recent findings of microbes, different from any other life forms heretofore known, will probably not deter religious fundamentalists from pushing creationism as a scientific theory to be taught in public schools. Without question, we are all entitled to our opinions, and have the right to express them. But creationism, or "intelligent design", is not scientific theory on a par with evolution, and a decent respect for reality requires they be kept apart.
The scientific method arrives at conclusive theories after careful study of physical evidence, based on extensions of the five senses, not what is printed in a book, even if some insist that book is divinely inspired. Our practical lives are lived on the basis of physical evidence, including science. Our spiritual lives are lived on different principles, within our own hearts and minds. Many excellent books are available to help us live on a spiritual level, but they have nothing to do with science.
Scientists, overwhelmed by physical evidence based on sensory information, are often agnostics, as no physical evidence of spiritual matters has been discovered. Spiritualists, who spend much of their time looking inward, are oft-times impervious to science and other practical things. The huge mass comprising the rest of us must find a balance between the two, and as our material and emotional needs are always changing, so our balance will constantly shift. Still, science and spirituality will retain specialties that are theirs alone.
The scientific method deserves credit for all the material progress the human race has made. Mankind's material bounty grows steadily as we make new discoveries based on previous ones. We travel farther faster, communicate instantly on a planetary level, eat more, live more comfortably in all climates, lead longer, healthier lives, because of the scientific method. We know more, kill one another more efficiently, have come close to ruining our environment, and possess the wherewithal to save the environment, because of science.
The Bible has nothing to do with it.
Religion helps many people live happier lives. It does not explain physical reality. To insist on creation as a scientific theory, equal to evolution, without the tremendous amount of evidence that backs up evolution's probability, is to require an outright rejection of all scientific knowledge we have gained up to this time, and to reject anything we might learn in the future. For creationism to make any sense at all, humanity would need to return to a primitive state where the creation myth would make sense.
Most religious fundamentalists (at any rate the ones who insist on teaching creationism in schools) drive cars, fly, watch TV, talk on phones, go to modern doctors, eat food procured from supermarkets, drink clean piped water, and generally enjoy the advantages of our modern age. Some, such as Amish and Christian Scientists, eschew many trappings of modern life, but also mind their own business. Religious fundamentalists who insist on Biblical teachings in science classes tend to be among the ones who also advocate the abolition of public schools, which would point to an aversion to knowledge and learning in general. Human beings are naturally leery of changes, and we will always have to deal with irrational fears. But facts are facts.
Scientists right now are accepting the discovery of life forms that can survive under circumstances they had previously thought incapable of sustaining life. The scientific method never accepts any theory as absolute, no matter how much supporting evidence there might be. The creation theory rejects all contrary evidence, so it is unscientific. Since it was written, The Bible has been thought by many to be a good read. Many have found it profoundly inspiring. But it is not science.
The scientific method arrives at conclusive theories after careful study of physical evidence, based on extensions of the five senses, not what is printed in a book, even if some insist that book is divinely inspired. Our practical lives are lived on the basis of physical evidence, including science. Our spiritual lives are lived on different principles, within our own hearts and minds. Many excellent books are available to help us live on a spiritual level, but they have nothing to do with science.
Scientists, overwhelmed by physical evidence based on sensory information, are often agnostics, as no physical evidence of spiritual matters has been discovered. Spiritualists, who spend much of their time looking inward, are oft-times impervious to science and other practical things. The huge mass comprising the rest of us must find a balance between the two, and as our material and emotional needs are always changing, so our balance will constantly shift. Still, science and spirituality will retain specialties that are theirs alone.
The scientific method deserves credit for all the material progress the human race has made. Mankind's material bounty grows steadily as we make new discoveries based on previous ones. We travel farther faster, communicate instantly on a planetary level, eat more, live more comfortably in all climates, lead longer, healthier lives, because of the scientific method. We know more, kill one another more efficiently, have come close to ruining our environment, and possess the wherewithal to save the environment, because of science.
The Bible has nothing to do with it.
Religion helps many people live happier lives. It does not explain physical reality. To insist on creation as a scientific theory, equal to evolution, without the tremendous amount of evidence that backs up evolution's probability, is to require an outright rejection of all scientific knowledge we have gained up to this time, and to reject anything we might learn in the future. For creationism to make any sense at all, humanity would need to return to a primitive state where the creation myth would make sense.
Most religious fundamentalists (at any rate the ones who insist on teaching creationism in schools) drive cars, fly, watch TV, talk on phones, go to modern doctors, eat food procured from supermarkets, drink clean piped water, and generally enjoy the advantages of our modern age. Some, such as Amish and Christian Scientists, eschew many trappings of modern life, but also mind their own business. Religious fundamentalists who insist on Biblical teachings in science classes tend to be among the ones who also advocate the abolition of public schools, which would point to an aversion to knowledge and learning in general. Human beings are naturally leery of changes, and we will always have to deal with irrational fears. But facts are facts.
Scientists right now are accepting the discovery of life forms that can survive under circumstances they had previously thought incapable of sustaining life. The scientific method never accepts any theory as absolute, no matter how much supporting evidence there might be. The creation theory rejects all contrary evidence, so it is unscientific. Since it was written, The Bible has been thought by many to be a good read. Many have found it profoundly inspiring. But it is not science.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)