Thursday, January 12, 2006

Introduction to Dematerialism, Part 3

People still do not understand what I mean by materialism. In Chapter 5 of my book at http://tinyurl.com/cdocm, I have shown that materialism, artificial economic contingency, and competitionism are equivalent. Today, I wish to show that they are occurrence equivalent with population growth and unsustainable consumption too. Thus, materialism is equivalent to overshoot. It is not necessary to insist upon the exact equivalence; however, it should be recognized that, in a materialistic setting, Human Nature being what it is, we are guaranteed to experience population growth and other excesses. But, in a non-materialistic setting, we have an excellent chance to reduce fertility rates to anything deemed acceptable and to curtail immigration as well. I expect to give good reasons why this won't happen when people are competing for material wealth and political power. Let us start with the principal causes of domestic population growth beginning with immigration:

• Immigration is tolerated because employers who are competing for profits and to expand their own particular shares of the market insist upon continued immigration to provide inexpensive labor of particular types both skilled and unskilled and to hold down wages. Within the labor pool many workers need to be unemployed at any time in case employers need to expand quickly. Unplanned economies experience alternating period of boom and bust. In bad times, unemployment grows; but, in good times, employers need to have a large enough pool of unemployed workers to choose from such that they do not lose market share to a competitor simply because they cannot increase production sufficiently quickly. These employers will fight tooth and nail to defeat immigration reform. But, materialism causes immigration on the supply side too:

• The United States continues to pursue its imperialistic policies in many countries under the guise of containing communism or under the guise of a “war on drugs”, and, nowadays, a “war on terror”. What the United States really wants, as all but the most naive among us know, is continued access to raw materials (including the nutrients in the soil), cheap labor, and expanded markets. Many people have come to the United States because economic life in such countries is intolerable. Also, many people in opposition to corrupt regimes in Central America have been forced to flee for their lives because of vicious repression of dissent and violations of human rights that would not exist except for present and past American foreign policy, which, in turn, would not exist without materialism.

• Many people have come to the United States because the United States does less than other countries to protect poor people from economic predators. Moreover, any activity whatever is tolerated - despite what the stated policy of government claims - if its purpose is to make money. Against some such criminal activity there is token law enforcement, but the activity thrives under materialism.

• Graduate students, particularly in science and engineering, flock here because every professor is required to get funding to do research in areas that government sponsors to compete globally and politically; i.e., in war, or that business sponsors to compete economically. If professors could not offer stipends to get this ‘applied’ research done, the students wouldn’t come and the elite homegrown talent could do true scientific and engineering research to discover how Nature works.

Although, in the US, immigration is the principal cause of population growth, materialism causes excessive procreation too. Five motives for excessive procreation in violation of the Token Theorem, which permits every person to replace herself or himself, are (i) narcissism, (ii) fear that not all will live, (iii) cheap labor to promote family wealth, (iv) hope for support in old age, and (v) to spread rapidly a racial plurality, a religion, ideology, culture, or general system of “family values”, often superstitions and myths, to which the violator of the Token Theorem is committed, dedicated, or enthralled – or at least wishes others to be committed, dedicated, or enthralled. Accidental pregnancies will be treated as though they were simply another form of inadvertent environmental destruction. Presumably, inadvertent pregnancies can be eliminated by a combination of education, indoctrination, and science all unfettered by superstition. Since this discussion is getting a little long, I shall try to make short work of excessive procreation:

• Narcissism could be countered by indoctrination and coercion in a non-materialistic setting because the other reasons for permitting it would not obtain. There is nothing draconian about coercion to prevent excessive procreation as such practices interfere with the freedom of other social chains, which include living persons and their posterity, as much as do robbery and murder. This is proved in Chapter 3 of my book under the Environmental Axiom. Terms used there are explained in the earlier portions of the chapter. I am sorry that you have to read so much if you think this needs a proof. I think it’s obvious.

• Business will oppose any measures that reduce the labor pool as discussed above in the case of immigration.

• Equilibration of wealth and free healthcare (but rationed, especially for the elderly and severely diminished patients) should quiet fears of infant mortality.

• Items iii and iv above would not arise in a non-materialistic world.

• As far as Item v is concerned, if anyone thinks that the goals of capitalists do not play a role in government and church policy regarding birth control, abortion, and childbirth, they may still believe that, in a non-materialistic setting, advocacy of socially destructive policies would not be tolerated. In my brand of dematerialism, improper religions are in violation of the social contract as discussed in Chapter 1 of my book.

This concludes my discussion of why materialism causes over-population. I could have made a more complete case including a proof of the converse, namely, that we will have over-population only if we have materialism; but, this disquisition is too long as it is.

15 Comments:

Blogger Igor said...

hmmm...

you say: Materialism is what causes unfair differences ... among people ...

the key word here is "unfair". Who is to decide what's fair? You? Why you? Isn't it an unfair difference that you are to decide what's fair and I am not?

Let's look at something (relatively) simple: a group of apes. (hey, no evil materialism there, right?).

And we immediately see gaping differences there: the most notable one is the difference between the dominant male and other males.

QUESTION: Now tell me, is that a fair difference?

10:36 PM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Materialism is NOT the gaping difference between the dominant male and the other males in a pack of apes. Dominant males do not consume much more than the other males. Apes all like the same food and they eat what they eat. Submissive males will figure out ways to cheat the dominant male if necessary. Only humans have the power to destroy the world, and the way they do it is materialism.

Igor wouldn't be complaining about "what's fair" unless he doesn't know about Overshoot or he is not interested to avoid Dieoff. To live and let live is fair. If someone's behavior (or almost everyone's behavior) is inconvenient to the human race, we ought to take measures to ensure that such behavior changes. Nowadays, that is a tall order and involves radical political change at some level, either locally, globally, or somewhere inbetween, as I have suggested.

1:52 AM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:53 AM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:53 AM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:54 AM  
Blogger Igor said...

(1)Dominant males do not consume much more than the other males

ha-ha, no, Tom, they do , they do! Why do you think they are called "dominant"?

Dominant males monopolize the uber most important resource - females. Or, their favour, if the former sounds too harsh to you.

Has it never occured to you that your materialism is not a source of inequality, but just another manifestation of it, -

that the inequality is rooted in deeper biological hardwiring of species ?

(2) If someone's behavior ... is inconvenient to the human race, we ought to take measures to ensure that such behavior changes

You are dodging my question "who are the judges".

You know, human race is not a human being, it cannot talk and say what is inconvenient to it. It seems that there is always some person who is impudent enough to claim that the whole humanity speaks through his mouth.

So I repeat my question - which you did not answer - who are those persons that decide what is fair, what is "convenient for humanity" ?

And why are those persons allowed to decide this ?

And, also, who are those "we" who ought to "take measures" against presumed dissidents ?

11:10 AM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Igor,

Your criticism is fair enough. I too have been concerned that inequality is hard-wired and materialism is an artifact. The question redounds to how to defeat materialism as a manifestation of status seeking. I left two possibilities in my introduction to Axiomatic Morality: (i) non-negotiable influence, and (ii) non-negotiable fame. Influence and fame can be rendered non-negotiable by not creating pathways for the conversion of influence and fame into wealth and power, namely, not creating a financial system, which, if you remember, I claimed consumed too much energy, cf., http://tinyurl.com/8by9w.

Now, as to who is going to decide all these things, in the book, for which you could serve as editor-in-chief of the loyal opposition, I suggested that (i) it would be people who expected to live under the social contract negotiated at such a time as society (or a small intentional community)decided that they needed a new (intentional) social contract - NOT me, and (ii) it would be by concensus - NOT US-style 'representative' 'democracy'.

We have computers now that can be rendered more tamper proof and that can leave an electronic trail so that people can back-check their own voting. But, let's not argue about the exact implementation right now. You are willing to agree that it can be done in principle. I also suggested three characteristics of any process to select distinguished persons for special roles in the community (like ambassadors or ecology managers or resource distribution managers: (1) term limitation, (ii) random selection as we do for juries, with citizen review of selectees, and (iii) recall elections without shame. I called this isocracy to distinguish it from democracy which has gone so badly wrong here in America. (We can't afford to waste energy on government.)

But, the bottom line is that things will be decided by everyone alive at the time - not me. I only make suggestions to show that it is possible to make them. That's why I called Chapter 3 of my book "Toward Axiomatic Morality" not "Axiomatic Morality". Why not give it a read? Sure it's patchy, legalistic, and boring, but the subject is of immense importance; and, I'll bet that the chapter includes at least 20 good ideas even if you reject the conclusion.

3:16 AM  
Blogger Igor said...

Tom, I would continue those 2 lines of dialog - after I review your book, give me some time, ok?

In the meantime - tell me, you probably spent years to draw your blueprints of utopia, have you experienced a lot of criticism ?

1:35 PM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Well, yes, Igor. I have experienced a lot of criticism and a good deal of praise too. But, that's not important.

The criticism has come principally from Americans who have been subjected to more anti-communist propaganda than other world citizens, because, since WWII, the US has been engaged in a nearly continuous War on Communism beginning with Korea. It takes a lot of brain-washing to get people to support a war. Those who wish to "manufacture consent" got a lot of practice during the Viet-Nam War protests that generated an entire culture long since vanished.

10:00 PM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Please see my new posting, which is an answer to the criticisms of dematerialism based upon the unsuitability of dematerialism for a nasty, brutish, and rapacious Human Nature.

10:02 PM  
Blogger Igor said...

(1) human nature

... TBC later ...

(2) who are the judges

... TBC later ...

(3) criticism of dematerialism

so, you have experienced a lot of criticism.

Was all the criticism non-constructive, or, have you experienced what you would call a constructive criticism ?

9:29 PM  
Blogger Igor said...

Note: a praise is NOT constructive criticism !

9:32 PM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Indeed, praise is not constructive; but, I can't say it doesn't feel good. If you don't mind, I consider your criticism constructive. Also, I post exclusively to dieoff_Q/A and the Evolutionary_Psychology_Society; so, clearly, I welcome criticism.

Have you read my latest posts. I think the question of who is to decide has been answered, don't you. Certainly, it is not me. The emphasis upon the nature of my suggestions as merely examples of the sort of thing that can be tried is probably due to you. Thanks, Igor.

10:29 AM  
Blogger Igor said...

I understand you did encounter constructive criticism. That's very good !

Could you please give me an example of constructive criticism of your utopia:
(a) your original position
(b) constructive criticism
(c) your new position changed due to the criticism

can you give me an example of such a-b-c, happened recently, if possible ?

As for "who are the judges", no, Tom, I am not satisfied with your answer. But I leave it for a moment, until after I finish reading your book.

Here I just want to express my acute dislike of your "not me" answer to the question "who are the judges".

Your blueprints of utopia are choke full with words like "people must" do this, "people must" behave that way, etc.

"The judges" seem to have "The Dictator" powers over population in your utopia. And, you know, Tom, a dictatorship brings not only power, but also the responsibility to the dictator.

So far it's not a real dictatorship, just your dreams, (because the utopia is not real itself so far) - but! even in your dreams you shun the responsibility by saying "not me", "not me".

I don't like this your attitude AT ALL.

But it's just a note, mainly I would like you to answer my question about a-b-c example of criticism from your experience - as I asked in the beginning of this comment, if you please.

11:07 AM  
Blogger Tom Wayburn said...

Igor,

Originally, I claimed that it would be necessary to eschew the pursuit of fame; however, Murray Hobbs and others suggested I read Pinker, Dawkins, and other evolutionary psycholgists, which I have done. I now realize that the pursuit of excellence, the pursuit of fame, and the pursuit of reproductive advantage are inextricably linked, although I still believe they can be decoupled from the pursuit of wealth and power. After all, why do men, for example, pursue riches and power? So, they will be more attractive to women ultimately. Even Adam Smith seemed to recognize that in The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In any case, I have been running through the book replacing the definition of status with a symbol, namely, S*, which stand for wealth and political power and the use of fame to acquire wealth and power, but not to the pursuit of excellence and the associated fame and reproductive advantages explicitly discussed in connection with the Token Principle.

Don't be so hard on me, Igor. I'm just telling you how I think things should be, which anyone may do. I think I have given good reasons why things would be better that way. Just think about the ways in which democracy is subverted in US society. Those would be eliminated.

If you will just give me your email address, I will send you a zipped version of the book in MS Word 2003 that you can markup and make comments about to your heart's content. Personally, I would first read the book once though quickly to avoid asking a question that is answered later on in the book. Give me your email address anyway. A post like this adds too much bulk to the blog.

3:14 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home