There was a wonderful line I read in a book critique. It goes ".......humans desperately want to matter." This statement can lead down many avenues. Question: are humans relevant only to themselves? Is any universal entity relevant only to itself?
Many religions have a bizzare idea that only humans matter to God. Why is it not enough that humans matter to themselves? Is religion a transformation of natural physical law into 'unnatural' behavior? Do quarks matter to themselves(or God)? Do simple particles transform their self-relevance upon becoming complex entities? Are all existing particles, each, the center of the universe? Are these questions I now ask simply reconstruction of physical laws through brain processes? And why would physical laws take this route?
Another avenue is that humans do not matter, either in short term, or long. This idea would bother most humans if contemplated. But very few do. Being at the top of the food chain(where no other life forms {or e/m} depend on our survival) is not all it's cracked up to be. Human extinction would not threaten the Earth(or other natural species). They would all be glad we left......unless.....unless we, at sometime in the far future, are able to transplant life from this planet far away in a safe place. If the seeding of life throughout the galaxy(ies) is up to us.....well, we better get our butts in gear. This preservation of life, whether our own or other species, is a way for humans to matter.
___________________________
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
________________________
A Dream
……..we are discussing, we are in a very deep conversation. As we exchange ideas our bodies begin disintegrating and vanish altogether. Our words, ideas, bodies swirl and blend in a mist in some unknown space. Unfamiliar abstract forms take shape, then change as ideas and “we” link to one another. Forces take on bizarre non-forms. Yet it is all extremely clear and well defined, orderly and simple. No chaos. No absurdities or fear. Very intellectual equations and words….our bodies take on geometric shapes that change hues…..
…..now I find myself in bodily form once more gazing upon a row of heavy cast iron mechanisms. The metal machines look very heavy and measure several feet across, and they vary in shape and purpose. I gaze at the row of contraptions. My mind is calm. I feel a sense of sadness and melancholy for the world, my body, my life. But now there is something I know.
“The Evaporator”, I say to the vendor selling the machines. “I want the Evaporator”.
Now I expand and disintegrate. I become minute particles, millions upon millions, floating in the air, slowly drifting up and away like smoke in a sunlit room. I am leaving, going to some new place.
The others whom I had conversed earlier now came running with “nets” try to catch the tiny particles (me) so I couldn’t leave them……..
_____________________________
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
.jpg)
Sunday, March 22, 2009
_______________________ Some say we are in a recession. Others say it could be a depression. But, maybe it is something far deeper than either of these. What we are seeing could be a basic structural transformation of the capitalist system--the beginning of a new "post-market" phase.
Early capitalism was market-based, growing by capital accumulation from inventors, entrepreneurs, and industrialization. The 19th century economist Adam Smith wrote about how the "invisible hand" of market forces could guide the economy. Later, economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote about how "creative destruction" and market discipline could flush out inefficient industries and renew the market capitalism. Economist John Maynard Keynes wrote about how government could help stabilize capitalism and markets by taxation and spending--smoothing out the bumps. Banking and finance were ancillary, serving to augment and facilitate industrial capitalism. Finance was, in a sense, a utility--not an industry in itself. It did not produce any wealth, but only facilitated the flow of capital to where it was needed. This system produced a lot of economic growth and wealth over the years.
Today we may be experiencing something quite different -- a transformation from market-based capitalism to feudal-based capitalism. As manufacturing, engineering, and research have been shifted abroad, the role of banking and finance in the economy has expanded (as tends to happen in declining empires). Executive compensation, particularly in financial "industries," has grown beyond all reasonable proportion. Graduating college students have been seeking careers in finance rather than in engineering or science and medicine because that's where the money is. The result was a compensation system that established a perverse incentive to "privatize the gains and socialize the losses."
Now, as we find ourselves in a financial crisis, we are told that we must not let the traditional market forces work (e.g., Schumpeter's "creative destruction" ) because the financial institutions (i.e., Citigroup, GM, AIG, etc.) are now "too big to fail" and must be preserved, whatever the cost. Members of Congress may complain and posture, but at the end of the day they must preserve those who paid for their campaigns and keep them in office. We are told that the financial/banking system is so complicated that only those (from the elite finance culture) who ran it off the rails it can now "fix" it (e.g., Ben Bernanke, etc.).
In the new feudal phase of capitalism, the resources of society are allocated not by markets but by and elite class of feudal lords. Rather than land-lords, they are now money-lords. Beginning with the Reagan-Thatcher "free market" era, and since, a principle theme was privatization and deregulation -- with a transfer of traditionally governmental functions to private institutions. In the new feudal phase of late capitalism, the government itself becomes privatized. The government and the taxpayers (i.e., serfs) that support it become an adjunct to the feudal institutions at the top of the "food chain." It is said that the government is buying the banks, but rather perhaps it is the banks that are buying the government (note whom the prevailing lords are at the end of the day). The currently popular term is "zombie" bank -- but "feudal" may be more appropriate because feudal estates can be productive, at least for their elites.
A characteristic of the feudal system is stability, rather than growth. A modern example of this may be Japan in recent decades. Japan has a long cultural history of feudalism, and its industrial and political structure mirrors this. As Japan's banks and (quasi-feudal) financial institutions could not rid themselves of non-performing assets (perhaps partly for cultural reasons), the Japanese economy languished for over a decade, along with technical innovation and industrial growth.
It is hard to imagine a feudal system in the context of traditional American entrepreneurial culture, but it is also hard to imagine how the present domination of American political life by mega-corporations, corporate media, K Street, and particularly by the elite financial institutions, can change. I don't doubt that Barack Obama has only the best intentions, but the situation may be beyond anyone's control. If so, welcome to the new feudal estate.
___________________
Early capitalism was market-based, growing by capital accumulation from inventors, entrepreneurs, and industrialization. The 19th century economist Adam Smith wrote about how the "invisible hand" of market forces could guide the economy. Later, economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote about how "creative destruction" and market discipline could flush out inefficient industries and renew the market capitalism. Economist John Maynard Keynes wrote about how government could help stabilize capitalism and markets by taxation and spending--smoothing out the bumps. Banking and finance were ancillary, serving to augment and facilitate industrial capitalism. Finance was, in a sense, a utility--not an industry in itself. It did not produce any wealth, but only facilitated the flow of capital to where it was needed. This system produced a lot of economic growth and wealth over the years.
Today we may be experiencing something quite different -- a transformation from market-based capitalism to feudal-based capitalism. As manufacturing, engineering, and research have been shifted abroad, the role of banking and finance in the economy has expanded (as tends to happen in declining empires). Executive compensation, particularly in financial "industries," has grown beyond all reasonable proportion. Graduating college students have been seeking careers in finance rather than in engineering or science and medicine because that's where the money is. The result was a compensation system that established a perverse incentive to "privatize the gains and socialize the losses."
Now, as we find ourselves in a financial crisis, we are told that we must not let the traditional market forces work (e.g., Schumpeter's "creative destruction" ) because the financial institutions (i.e., Citigroup, GM, AIG, etc.) are now "too big to fail" and must be preserved, whatever the cost. Members of Congress may complain and posture, but at the end of the day they must preserve those who paid for their campaigns and keep them in office. We are told that the financial/banking system is so complicated that only those (from the elite finance culture) who ran it off the rails it can now "fix" it (e.g., Ben Bernanke, etc.).
In the new feudal phase of capitalism, the resources of society are allocated not by markets but by and elite class of feudal lords. Rather than land-lords, they are now money-lords. Beginning with the Reagan-Thatcher "free market" era, and since, a principle theme was privatization and deregulation -- with a transfer of traditionally governmental functions to private institutions. In the new feudal phase of late capitalism, the government itself becomes privatized. The government and the taxpayers (i.e., serfs) that support it become an adjunct to the feudal institutions at the top of the "food chain." It is said that the government is buying the banks, but rather perhaps it is the banks that are buying the government (note whom the prevailing lords are at the end of the day). The currently popular term is "zombie" bank -- but "feudal" may be more appropriate because feudal estates can be productive, at least for their elites.
A characteristic of the feudal system is stability, rather than growth. A modern example of this may be Japan in recent decades. Japan has a long cultural history of feudalism, and its industrial and political structure mirrors this. As Japan's banks and (quasi-feudal) financial institutions could not rid themselves of non-performing assets (perhaps partly for cultural reasons), the Japanese economy languished for over a decade, along with technical innovation and industrial growth.
It is hard to imagine a feudal system in the context of traditional American entrepreneurial culture, but it is also hard to imagine how the present domination of American political life by mega-corporations, corporate media, K Street, and particularly by the elite financial institutions, can change. I don't doubt that Barack Obama has only the best intentions, but the situation may be beyond anyone's control. If so, welcome to the new feudal estate.
___________________
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
