• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Production is the problem.

B

bloodliketheatlantic

Bluelighter
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
132
Production in itself is the problem, rather than who controls production. Little would change concerning classism, the biodiversity problem, etc., if eventually the workers controlled production. Discuss.
 
what do you mean, like, if i rolled up to the gas station, hooked the ride up with a full tank, walked up in the peace, got me a hot dog and tea, cleaned up after myself, helped dude stock a shelf real quick: doing likewise in everything, for example?
 
i'm down for whatevs: but i think that the poor and working class should get an extra hook up, and a whole year of rest, so people can get together, and be hospitable, and organize large gatherings for music and spiritual comparisons
 
>>Little would change concerning classism>>

why do you think this?

>>the biodiversity problem>>

okay...this wouldn't be solved magically, but I think the demise of the profit motive (on Weber or Marx's terms) would do much to curb escalating production and thus destruction of habitat.

ebola
 
well i personally didn't want to get into this. i wanted to see what others thought. yes, ebola, the profit motive is basically it. but i think it is inseperable from the culture itself. there is *always* a profit motive in any civilization you consider. so the basic question is, should we stop production? is production the cause of all of our problems? is production literally turning the entire planet into human flesh and/or cash? discuss...
 
monsters exist

I wouldn't blame either profit nor production. Both are valuable in our daily lives. Production in that it gives people something to do for a living. Profit in that it provides the ability do stuff outside work.

What fucks these practices up is our seeming inability to say when we have enough of each of the above. Especially profit.

When a business is floated and it's stock begins being measured, it ceases to be a business and turns into a monster.
A business provides goods or services of demand in exchange for money.
The monster, on the other hand, provides it's stock owners (who hold no responsibility) with the greatest profit margin possible, regardless of the human or natural cost.
 
When a business is floated and it's stock begins being measured, it ceases to be a business and turns into a monster.
A business provides goods or services of demand in exchange for money.
The monster, on the other hand, provides it's stock owners (who hold no responsibility) with the greatest profit margin possible, regardless of the human or natural cost.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the means of production do tie in to a certain extent to the rationality of the corporate model. The corporate model has probably evolved out of the most efficient ways to raise a large industrial economy. The other side of the coin is of course that people are willing to let it happen for the promise of prosperity.

People will never choose to act against their nature. Not really. They have to have change forced on them. And if our production of electricity and clean water and our services (which rely rather strategically on transport and power supply) move onto a more sustainable basis, I don't think the centralised logistical model for big industry will survive, and instead we may have to move into more cooperative communal arrangements; especially when resources are scarce. Imagine a city broken up into 8 or so shires or districts which all have to manage their own electricity and drinking water, which they themselves oversee the production of in large part. This is the nature of much truly sustainable production methods. It will make sense, using such modes, to derive more communally oriented resource management. We are already seeing the beginning of it in my opinion. Where city councils are displaying pollution levels on billboards and water levels of dams.
 
Well, rather then socialism you could just put the emphasis on small businesses providing us with our goods and services, rather then global companies holding monopolies over entire markets. Is that what your getting at? It might bring about a larger sense of community.
 
Formico said:
People will never choose to act against their nature. Not really. They have to have change forced on them.
Click to expand...

It is natural for humans to hoard resources. This genetic mechanism was used by our ancestors to survive the harsh seasons.

This is what needs regulation.

Production is only one element of this big problem and when focused on, doesn't have the scope to effect the root cause at large.

Also, the workers will never control production. Especially not in this cllimate. They will simply be replaced.
 
>>It is natural for humans to hoard resources. This genetic mechanism was used by our ancestors to survive the harsh seasons.>>

Then why did we not do this as paleolithic humans, for the majority of our history as a species?

ebola
 
Resources at the time meaning just hunting grounds and shelter. Didn't we?
 
The technical nature of our material existence has in different eras seen transformations in the extent to which hoarding and private wealth have occurred. Before the industrial era a private taking of the commons was not really viable. But with the augmentation of human labour with machinery, the advent of capitalism and it's philosophy of resource distribution was made possible. What is made easiest will historically eventuate. What comes to be the easiest path to take will generally be determined by environmental and circumstantial factors in so far as they are able to facilitate human activity and it's use of the resources. We are capable of socialism I believe. Capable, but not willing.
 
yeah, as ebola said this is actually a very recent problem. humans have never been known to "hoard resources" up until the last 7,000-10,000 years, which accounts for about 1% of our total existence as a species. humans have the unique property (when compared to other species) to evolve mainly in a cultural way, rather than a biological way. it is *not* human nature to be competitive, destructive, or completely selfish. study tribal cultures (that haven't been wiped out) and look at their approach to property and possessions. they simply have no concept of them. they have complete faith in the "resources" they live within and will almost never store food. they have no need to accumulate possessions because it is seen as a nuisance to them. you could give them a diamond bracelet, they would study it for a couple hours, then through it back into the ground from where it came. when asked about accumulation they would simply respond, "why would we store up food when there will be no problem hunting/gathering it tomorrow?" why they have no concept is a bigger question, but a very important one, and potentially a correct answer to the problems of the culture of "production."
 
^Thanks to you an ebola for the correction. My pessimism got the better of me and i brain farted.

So it's NOT part of our nature to do these things. That's very encouraging. :)
 
Its more about social control. We dont really go by the realistic value of mass producing one million shoes, but rather the percieved value enforced by society, and from that it leads into lifestyle options available. So you get single parents doing it tough for the kids, or couples spending 30 odd years on a mortgage. If it only took like 5-10 years of work to get long term security in life as in house, food, necessities etc then what would people do? You wouldnt stick with the job you dont like, you'd follow your passions and you'd most likely spend a lot of time learning, thinking and questioning. That doesnt really go well with modern politics or society. Its gone from "turn-on-tune-in-drop-out" to "shut-up-give-in-put-out".
 
Last edited:
study tribal cultures (that haven't been wiped out) and look at their approach to property and possessions. they simply have no concept of them.
Click to expand...
I see your point, but this is not always true. Many tribes have a patriarchal system where women are seen as posessions, and the first question asked when a girl reaches puberty is "Which man will she go to?" However, you may be referring to only the most primitive trives, in which by necessity each persons labour is essential to the survival of the entire tribe. I wouldn't expect to find a patriarchy in such a case.

they have complete faith in the "resources" they live within and will almost never store food. they have no need to accumulate possessions because it is seen as a nuisance to them.
Click to expand...
Again, true in some cases. But what about those communities which are required to hoard food for a long winter? You have to think about this in in evolutionary terms. How does "nature" produce sucessful group entities? Basically, by producing individual urges. The reason that a grizzly bear stuffs itself before winter is that its physiology changes and produces more appetite - not because it understands the necessity intellectually.

The reason a human (modern or not) hoards food is that he has a "hoarding" instinct which causes him to collect more food than he can eat. But unlike the grizzly bear, humans have an intellectual understanding of necessity layered over their primal urges. But the urges still exist.

you could give them a diamond bracelet, they would study it for a couple hours, then through it back into the ground from where it came.
Click to expand...
How do you explain the existence of jewelry dating back to the most primitve humans?

when asked about accumulation they would simply respond, "why would we store up food when there will be no problem hunting/gathering it tomorrow?"
Click to expand...
But there very well may be a problem!
 
If it only took like 5-10 years of work to get long term security in life as in house, food, necessities etc then what would people do? You wouldnt stick with the job you dont like, you'd follow your passions and you'd most likely spend a lot of time learning, thinking and questioning.
Click to expand...
The problem is, a huge mass of people following their individual passions wouldn't produce anything in bulk.

I really like the fact that I can wear shoes even though I have no idea how to make them.
 
>>The reason a human (modern or not) hoards food is that he has a "hoarding" instinct which causes him to collect more food than he can eat.>>

how would you explain humans who do not hoard?
how ubiquitous must a phenomenon be before we qualify it as "human nature"?

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top