Introduction to Dematerialism, Part 1
Materialism is the cause of the principal evils in society including crime, war, poverty, and anomie. It is Pandora's Box as shown in Chapter 9 of On the Preservation of Species (POS), which is available free of charge under a copyleft agreement that requires only ethical use of the public domain. Unfortunately, it is impossible to get the evils back into the Box in a materialistic economy. Thus, it is necessary to destroy the Box, which, nowadays, means replacing the market economy by a decentralizable planned or give-away economy in the same sense that blogspot.com is part of a give away economy - except more so. Please see "The Demise of Business as Usual" at fromthewilderness.com. If you can't afford to subscribe to Mike Ruppert's Journal, please request a free copy from me at twayburn@wt.net.
Materialism allows wealth to be distributed unequally and unfairly depending upon accidents of birth even if those accidents of birth happen to be great strength, high intelligence, and good character. Why should people who have received these great gifts from Nature just because of who their parents were expect to receive additional gifts especially in an overpopulated world in which resources are scarce and one person’s surplus is guaranteed to be someone else’s deficit! Nowadays, it takes many poor people, perhaps thousands of poor people, to make one rich person; and, for many poor people, a deficit in consumable resources leads to death by starvation or worse. Also, materialism requires a large authoritarian government to control a society that is essentially unstable because of war and poverty. Many people will claim that they obtained their wealth and power because of their own hard work. Even if this were true, and I claim that it is not true, the struggle to acquire wealth and power, if continued, will very likely cause the extinction of all life on this planet.
Dematerialism, on the other hand, results, eventually, in a nearly equal distribution of wealth and income in terms of real wealth. Moreover, since political power can no longer be concentrated in the hands of the few at the expense of the many, dematerialism permits the attainment of true democracy in a non-hierarchical society. The approach to a non-materialistic society advocated on my website involves a series of changes any one of which can be reversed if unintended effects occur. For example, delegislation is a process by which thousands of laws are replaced by only a few laws, one of which, the prohibition of the sale of entire companies, is the first in a series of laws that would place the ownership of the means of production exclusively in the hands of the workers according to the maxim that a workman should own his own tools. Thus, distributed ownership of the means of production is achieved gradually but not too gradually.
The vison of a non-materialistic society offered on my website can be described most simply as a libertarian, give-away economy, as opposed to the socialism of Russia or China. Dematerialism requires the equal distribution of wealth, modified slightly to account for differences in needs, and the production of wealth in a cooperative setting according to the abilities of the individual, allowing for the need for abundant leisure. An education that is consistent with the aims of dematerialism provides people with the ability to enhance the material wealth and prosperity of society, viewed as a collection of private individuals; but, more importantly, it teaches people how to enjoy leisure in a manner consistent with their development as human beings, through the arts and sciences, sports, and other recreation.
Many people will find the ideas behind dematerialism a little difficult to understand – much less accept. It seems to me that my critics should read POS; however, it is the purpose of this blog to discuss dematerialism a little bit at a time. I hope that my critics will take the trouble to post their objections including the objection raised by many people who have studied evolutionary psychology superficially or have read interpretations of evolutionary biology by excellent writers like Pinker and Dawkins. I will answer the questions if I can. Otherwise, I will have to admit that I am wrong. I am, after all, a fallibilist as well as a dematerialist.
Best regards to all until next time,
Tom Wayburn
Houston, Texas
twayburn@wt.net
http://dematerialism.net/ (my re-organized, homemade website)


7 Comments:
Congratulations, Tom, for this
good-looking new blog -- very much
needed as a "gateway" to your
extensive pages and intro for
newbies. Also, congrats
on the new http://www.dematerialism.net domain.
Everything's coming along very
nicely. Thanks.
Yours for a dematerialized New
World,
Alan
:-)
Tom, You have devoted an immense amount of time and effort to your ideas. I have admired your calm, reasoned and indefatigable contibutions to the Dieoff list. I have also tried to read your website, but - as someone wrote the other day on Dieoff - it's heavy-going.
I'm willing to give it a bit more effort and perhaps this blog is the way to go.
Do your best to keep it brief and don't introduce too many words with special, technical meanings. That loses us newcomers very quickly as we find we have to locate and internalize your definitions rather than bringing the definitions with us.
Ultimately, your best shot would be to employ a professional editor. They cost a bomb, but I have seen many complex ideas rescued from the turgid and prolix prose of their creator and enlivened and made accessible for interested readers - all by professional editing. Two heads are beter than one. I have also witnessed the dismay of authors when they see what the editors have done in the first round, but they both persisted with the author<> relationship and produced a first rate product. (BTW, I'm not an unemployed editor :-)
Tom, I think many people would agree with you that dematerialism is the way to go. If we don't do it deliberately, we'll have to do it anyway.
The problems some readers appear to have is about your prescribed route to a more dematerialized world.
You mentioned in this post that your dematerialism program is libertarian. But you are endeavouring to change many of the embedded attitudes and practices of our culture. (I won't go so far as saying you are proposing that human nature should be changed.) In changing the practices that you think need to be changed, there will have to be enforceable constraints and compulsions. No problem with that, but it's not libertarian.
Like you, I can see problems ahead. Unlike you, I think the best we can do as individuals is to work first at the individual, family and community levels. For those with the skills, they can go to the national level.
However, I don't see a future for schemes and programs such as yours. Better, I believe, to be informed, alert and responsive as western nations like ours (I'm in Australia) tumble down the Olduvai slope. I'm not saying this to dismiss your ideas, more to challenge you.
Myrmecia wrote,"In changing the practices that you think need to be changed, there will have to be enforceable constraints and compulsions. No problem with that, but it's not libertarian."
Almost all of us agree that your liberty stops at my nose. It is up to me to show that the practices that will either be impossible or forbidden in a non-materialistic society infringe upon the freedom of other people or their posterity to an unacceptable degree.
Since dematerialism proposes a gradual change to a natural (non-materialistic) economy, it is reasonable to suppose that there will be sufficient time to inculcate the Token Principle. (See http://tinyurl.com/8atee.) As I said elsewhere, the attempt to promote religious or political ideas or other cultural values or to supplant the progeny of other people by procreation is a crime against society the enormity of which is exceeded only by genocide.
Also, children can be indoctrinated with the principal reasons why competition for wealth and power imposes upon the freedom of persons who do not wish to trivialize their lives in the activities that have brought us to the point of catastrophe - if we are not yet past it.
On the other hand, if people abandon competition for wealth and power, they can do whatever they do because it is interesting to do and they enjoy doing it. This is true freedom. Therefore, I would argue that dematerialism is definitely a libertarian philiosophy.
I hope nobody thinks that free people have a right to kill whomever they please!
I hope someone asks why it is called a "natural economy".
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
First look here today. See hour of posts but no dates.
Looks interesting, but my current interest in philosophy is more toward inspiring changes of energy use in our society. Tom, where's the best work being done on hydrogen storage? NREL seems behind on that one, so I'm trying to talk my old college chem department into getting something going. Ideas?
WLH
This could be a good answer to the insain green movement. If strucutred in reason, it really makes a hopeful statement. There is an insanity with the BO administration in regardes to energy policy. It's jaw dropping and I'm a chemical process engineer. What are they thinking. And how do they think we are getting there. It's mind numbing. (The politics that is).
Thanks for your great read.
M. N. F.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home