I think that currently we live in a world made by Alphas (psychopathic narcissist) for Alphas. They believe they know what’s best for everyone, and what’s best for everyone is Alphas getting massively rewarded for pissing in everyone else’s chips. I’d like to see a Beta world.
I want to see all the alphas get dump truck loads of shit all over them, just like my earliest memory of that happening: when Biff Tannen got a load of manure on him in Back to the Future.
Yeah, curse those Germans and their soziale Marktwirtschaft for showing how socialism can coexist with capitalism!
Interesting rephrasing of Hawking’s clear and concise statement. The introduction of memetic triggers like “market dynamics” and “state intervention” does not clarify, but rather, obfuscates and limits Hawkings’ central point in ways he chose not to.
People are shit, and probably won’t change
This of course is the argument that’s only made by people who are shit and don’t want to change. People who aren’t shit make them feel bad and they don’t like that. They’d rather keep living in a world where their egoism isn’t exceptional. Conservatism in a nutshell.
Nah. Individual people can change all the time. Humanity as a whole? Been the same since Og smacked Ug in the head with a rock to take his mammoth carcass and his woman. Will be the same when Ogbert and Ugnellion go toe to toe with lasers over each other’s mineral claims on Venus.
That’s the fundamental difference between conservatives and progressives. Conservatives acknowledge that human nature, writ large, is immutable. Progressives think they can change human nature. Humans continually disappoint progressives, and much misery comes when they try to make human nature conform to their ideas.
Conservative thought accepts that people are shit, and tries to make the best of it. The solution isn’t to get the right people to the right things, it’s to get the wrong people to do the right things. Would it be better if they did things out of goodness? Of course. But it won’t happen. So we let filthy, dirty greed serve as the motivation.
Looking back over the long years of my life on Earth, I would say that, locally (i.e: in the UK), society has changed quite a bit and in a way that I would consider to be progressive. There is a long way still to go, of course, but I think that change is possible. So, Ugnellion, how about we split the work on our mineral claims and get some more free time?
Bonus points for carrying forward my hideously stupid sci fi name.
Society does change, and thank God for it. I live in the American South, and I certainly want no part of the society of my ancestors (except the food. It was epic).
But what motivates our two poorly-named Venusian miners? Earth might truly need that Unobtainium ore, but they mine because it puts money in their pockets. Will they work together? Yes, if it is in their self interest, ie it sates their greed and desire for other things, like status and mates.
As a teacher of mine once said, “They ain’t doin’ it out of the goodness of their hearts, chuckles. They 'spect to get paid, and get laid.”
Education works, avoiding inequality and poverty works. All these things succeed in keeping our reptile brains in check. Capitalism’s marketing department would very much like us to believe that it’s greed which keeps society functioning when in fact it’s just making excuses for being greedy while turning inequality up to 11. It’s conservatives who disappoint, themselves and everyone else. Utopian thought is just fine. It’s what let’s societies progress, not greed. A better world is possible, easily. But it scares the hell out of the greedy.
It’s the progressives job to keep the greedy in check.
Attempting to change human nature is like trying to change an abusive, alcoholic spouse. You want them to change, you plead with them to change, you give them every tool possible to change. You’re supportive, kind, and helpful. You know there’s good in there, you just have to keep on trying.
In the end you just wind up with another black eye and covered in someone else’s vomit.
I believe it was Sarah Palin who claimed that Hawking “wouldn’t have made it if he’d been born in the UK” when speaking about how super great the American healthcare system is…
Interesting choice of metaphor.
Alcoholics can change. One helpful prerequisite is acknowledging that the alcoholic abuser is suffering from an illness and can be treated. Another way to forcibly do this theoretically would be to say to the (alcoholic? capitalist!) abuser, hey you can’t have that much more alcohol than everybody else gets, we won’t allow it.
We don’t have to change human nature, that takes way too long. But we can and should reinforce good behavior instead of rewarding anti-social behavior because your noble greed somehow justifies it.
I’ve been an honest-to-god socialist for over over a decade and if there’s anything I’ve learned, it’s that having lots of really smart people among your ranks all by itself doesn’t exactly win hearts and minds.
There’s also the bit about hero worship. Don’t just take Hawking’s word for it because he’s a “smart guy,” read up, analyze, talk about it. I’m not a socialist because Albert Einstein told me to, I’m a socialist because I took a critical look at the options and decided that it’s the only feasible system that isn’t inherently barbaric.
What happens when the alcoholic doesn’t WANT to change? It comes back to coercion by force. And that’s when things get miserable. Who sets the limits? What would be determined by market forces becomes a decree from on high. The financial becomes political.
Then we’re back to the 'ol black eye and vomit situation.
Coercion by force is not a concept that is somehow suddenly unique to socialist concepts. I mean you can’t be serious. If society decides, ideally democratically, to enforce certain specific limits, than that is damn well what it should do. Enforce those limits. Democracy is well capable of setting limits for anti-social behavior. “The market” has never been able to do that, on the contrary. That much should be obvious.
The financial becomes political.
Err, what? How is the financial not inherently political?
I’m sorry, but the crux of your argument is that “human nature” is a solid, quantified thing but it is not. The nature of human behavior has changed as we’ve developed, and it varies in some pretty meaningful ways from culture to culture, person to person, and even within the same person depending on the circumstances. You can modify your own behavior without even realizing it just by putting on a uniform.
From the standpoint of physiology, we’re not all that much different than our earliest Homo Sapiens ancestors, but one of our most defining traits is our ability to effectively pass large amounts of information to our offspring. That information influences the things they do, the ways they think, and as the situation changes, so too does apparent “human nature.”
It sounds like you might have experienced some trauma trying to help a person who ultimately wouldn’t change. I’m very sorry if that’s the case, but “human nature” isn’t a thing that we can uniformly quantify, we have some general parameters, but that’s really about it.
Ludwig Erhard FTW!
And, of course, the Godesberger Programm!
ECONOMICS: If you don’t know shit about archaeology, anthropology, or history, just make it up!
Well, to put it mildly, I’ve seen some shit. I worked in and around courts, police, and politics for a long time. And humanity has yet to surprise me when it comes to the weakness, failures, and general fallen nature it possesses.
I’ve seen children born, men and women die before my eyes. I’ve seen lives go from joy to horror in an instant. I’ve talked to murderers and thieves, abusers of people, abusers of substances. When it comes to individuals, I have a great deal of optimism as to the possibility of change.
But humanity as a whole? The mold was cast early, and has yet to be broken. People change, societies change. But human nature is as immutable as pi, Euler’s constant, and c.
