Why does the power of wealth always trump doing what makes sense?

brianlux

The rich and powerful have always controlled the world, at least since the advent of agriculture (it has been argued that per-agricultural humans were mostly very peaceful). Until recent history it could be argued that, as wrong as this may be, this was true partly because the wealthy had nothing to lose by exerting their power over others with few negative consequences. Today everyone has almost everything to lose. If we destroy the land base, we destroy both our species and many or possibly even most of all large animal species.

Yet the power of wealth continues to destroy. Oil company greed continues to keep us addicted and dependent on polluting and climate changing carbon emissions. In first world countries, big agribusiness continues to keep poorly fed and works hard to shut down producers of good, healthy food (and if you doubt this, I strongly recommend watching the documentary called "Farmageddon" which was recommended to me by a good friend here). The chess game of power and wealth continues to threaten our well being through endless war and the continuing threat of nuclear annihilation. Why do we keep doing these things?

It puzzles me that this is the case- where in the modern world everyone is at risk and yet the quest for temporary, short-term gain continues as the human world grows closer and closer to the brink of self-destruction. We are a strange species.

hedonist

Not sure if the term always applies - and maybe "control" is seen / felt / interpreted differently?

Some things are beyond my realm, even if wanting or trying to make a change. Ultimate lack of effect doesn't lessen the desire or sometime effort.

But, some things are within, so where I can, I do - or attempt to do.

It's important to make a point of acknowledging, seeing, the balance, even the counterbalance.

Totally understand the waves of cynicism, but depending on the choice of glasses, life can be open and fruitful, generous and compassionate.

(I know, preaching to the choir, Rev. Lux!)

brianlux

hedonist said:

Not sure if the term always applies - and maybe "control" is seen / felt / interpreted differently?

Some things are beyond my realm, even if wanting or trying to make a change. Ultimate lack of effect doesn't lessen the desire or sometime effort.

But, some things are within, so where I can, I do - or attempt to do.

It's important to make a point of acknowledging, seeing, the balance, even the counterbalance.

Totally understand the waves of cynicism, but depending on the choice of glasses, life can be open and fruitful, generous and compassionate.

(I know, preaching to the choir, Rev. Lux!)

"Rev." LOL!

I can see where my words could easily be construed as cynicism and admittedly I've often had to fight feeling cynical about the human condition but generally speaking I feel most hopeful when there is discussion going on in places like AMT (and I often wonder what other forums are out there like AMT but I don't know of any that encompass great music and topics related to current events.) I guess it's all part of my continuing (and hopefully not futile) quest to find sanity and sense in a world gone mad. I really do still think and believe it is possible that we humans might pull off a miracle and save our butts (and a bunch of other critters butts too!)

rr165892

hedonist said:

Not sure if the term always applies - and maybe "control" is seen / felt / interpreted differently?

Some things are beyond my realm, even if wanting or trying to make a change. Ultimate lack of effect doesn't lessen the desire or sometime effort.

But, some things are within, so where I can, I do - or attempt to do.

It's important to make a point of acknowledging, seeing, the balance, even the counterbalance.

Totally understand the waves of cynicism, but depending on the choice of glasses, life can be open and fruitful, generous and compassionate.

(I know, preaching to the choir, Rev. Lux!)

Your right Hedo.It can be generous and fruitful,open ,compassionate and even full of joyous wonder.
I'm reminded of that courageous girl who just passed this week Lauren Hill.What a great spirt.An exceptional attitude and resilience.

It's where we look to find these things.If we look in the right places I think we can be overwhelmed with goodness.

PJ_Soul

Because there are a lot of greedy, selfish assholes in the world.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

Because there are a lot of greedy, selfish assholes in the world.

Yes, true, but if they are so greedy and selfish why would they not try to stop the destruction of their home? If a greedy selfish person had a one-of-a-kind possession that really meant a lot to them and someone was about to take a hammer to it, would they not have their strong armed guards protect the object? So why do they not protect the planet? Do they really think they will get to Mars and even if they do, that they will be happy there? And don't these greedy people care at all about their kids and the future world they will be living in? I just don't get it. It's insanity.

And yes rr and Hedo, there are tons of things to be thankful for and much goodness. That's what I'm trying, in my own infinitesimal way, to preserve.

BS44325

Were pre-agricultural times the golden age? I highly doubt it. Poverty is the normal condition of man and we take for granted how good we all have it compared to our ancestors.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Robert A. Heinlein

brianlux

BS44325 said:

Were pre-agricultural times the golden age? I highly doubt it. Poverty is the normal condition of man and we take for granted how good we all have it compared to our ancestors.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Robert A. Heinlein

There is no written evidence, of course, to prove pre-agricultural humans were peaceful but I've read some excellent studies that suggest this is both quite possible and even likely. The one I can recall right off hand is in Richard Manning's excellent book, Against the Grain.

Heinlein's quote basically says let the bad guys win and there will only be 750 million people going hungry every day instead of 805 million going hungry. What he is saying may be true but I say kick out the bad guys AND feed the people... and then start reducing our numbers.

Heinlein's approach is too pessimistic for me. I believe we can do better. We can.

riotgrl

So odd that you post this today as I am rereading Quinn's "Ishmael"! I don't believe that pre-agricultural times were without problems but I do wonder about their sense of community and how they had to work together to preserve their life. Not their way of life but their life. We don't seem to do very much today in terms of working together towards a common goal.

rr165892

riotgrl said:

So odd that you post this today as I am rereading Quinn's "Ishmael"! I don't believe that pre-agricultural times were without problems but I do wonder about their sense of community and how they had to work together to preserve their life. Not their way of life but their life. We don't seem to do very much today in terms of working together towards a common goal.

I think that's because we reached a critical mass as a society around the time of the industrial revolution.

josevolution

brianlux said:

The rich and powerful have always controlled the world, at least since the advent of agriculture (it has been argued that per-agricultural humans were mostly very peaceful). Until recent history it could be argued that, as wrong as this may be, this was true partly because the wealthy had nothing to lose by exerting their power over others with few negative consequences. Today everyone has almost everything to lose. If we destroy the land base, we destroy both our species and many or possibly even most of all large animal species.

Yet the power of wealth continues to destroy. Oil company greed continues to keep us addicted and dependent on polluting and climate changing carbon emissions. In first world countries, big agribusiness continues to keep poorly fed and works hard to shut down producers of good, healthy food (and if you doubt this, I strongly recommend watching the documentary called "Farmageddon" which was recommended to me by a good friend here). The chess game of power and wealth continues to threaten our well being through endless war and the continuing threat of nuclear annihilation. Why do we keep doing these things?

It puzzles me that this is the case- where in the modern world everyone is at risk and yet the quest for temporary, short-term gain continues as the human world grows closer and closer to the brink of self-destruction. We are a strange species.

Exactly we still haven't developed in to a higher intelligent species we have a long way to go & before that happens we will most likely blow ourselves up , greed trumps everything else ....

callen

brianlux said:

The rich and powerful have always controlled the world, at least since the advent of agriculture (it has been argued that per-agricultural humans were mostly very peaceful). Until recent history it could be argued that, as wrong as this may be, this was true partly because the wealthy had nothing to lose by exerting their power over others with few negative consequences. Today everyone has almost everything to lose. If we destroy the land base, we destroy both our species and many or possibly even most of all large animal species.

Yet the power of wealth continues to destroy. Oil company greed continues to keep us addicted and dependent on polluting and climate changing carbon emissions. In first world countries, big agribusiness continues to keep poorly fed and works hard to shut down producers of good, healthy food (and if you doubt this, I strongly recommend watching the documentary called "Farmageddon" which was recommended to me by a good friend here). The chess game of power and wealth continues to threaten our well being through endless war and the continuing threat of nuclear annihilation. Why do we keep doing these things?

It puzzles me that this is the case- where in the modern world everyone is at risk and yet the quest for temporary, short-term gain continues as the human world grows closer and closer to the brink of self-destruction. We are a strange species.

Brian, I have hope. The internet/social media is making it more and more difficult for those in power to control us pawns. As evidenced by this board. Some would never receive counter messages as had been the case.

BS44325

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

Were pre-agricultural times the golden age? I highly doubt it. Poverty is the normal condition of man and we take for granted how good we all have it compared to our ancestors.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Robert A. Heinlein

There is no written evidence, of course, to prove pre-agricultural humans were peaceful but I've read some excellent studies that suggest this is both quite possible and even likely. The one I can recall right off hand is in Richard Manning's excellent book, Against the Grain.

Heinlein's quote basically says let the bad guys win and there will only be 750 million people going hungry every day instead of 805 million going hungry. What he is saying may be true but I say kick out the bad guys AND feed the people... and then start reducing our numbers.

Heinlein's approach is too pessimistic for me. I believe we can do better. We can.

We should always strive to do better...absolutely. What I always worry about though is the constant attack on "wealth". Not all is evil. We can never forget that it is a small minority, some that have made and use their wealth, to make achieve change for so many of us.

riotgrl

rr165892 said:

riotgrl said:

So odd that you post this today as I am rereading Quinn's "Ishmael"! I don't believe that pre-agricultural times were without problems but I do wonder about their sense of community and how they had to work together to preserve their life. Not their way of life but their life. We don't seem to do very much today in terms of working together towards a common goal.

I think that's because we reached a critical mass as a society around the time of the industrial revolution.

Yes, critical mass and now we are on the downhill slide whilst our leaders, political and financial, continue to assure us that this is the right way to live. Meanwhile, our problems continue to mount with little assurance that we can fix any of this. Of course, 'fixing' it would mean admitting that the things we have done are wrong.

rr165892

riotgrl said:

rr165892 said:

riotgrl said:

So odd that you post this today as I am rereading Quinn's "Ishmael"! I don't believe that pre-agricultural times were without problems but I do wonder about their sense of community and how they had to work together to preserve their life. Not their way of life but their life. We don't seem to do very much today in terms of working together towards a common goal.

I think that's because we reached a critical mass as a society around the time of the industrial revolution.

Yes, critical mass and now we are on the downhill slide whilst our leaders, political and financial, continue to assure us that this is the right way to live. Meanwhile, our problems continue to mount with little assurance that we can fix any of this. Of course, 'fixing' it would mean admitting that the things we have done are wrong.

If the powers that be want to throw enough money at anything,we have the power and creativity to fix all issues.Creativity is what's needed now.Problem solving on a bigger scale.We can do it.

brianlux

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

Were pre-agricultural times the golden age? I highly doubt it. Poverty is the normal condition of man and we take for granted how good we all have it compared to our ancestors.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Robert A. Heinlein

There is no written evidence, of course, to prove pre-agricultural humans were peaceful but I've read some excellent studies that suggest this is both quite possible and even likely. The one I can recall right off hand is in Richard Manning's excellent book, Against the Grain.

Heinlein's quote basically says let the bad guys win and there will only be 750 million people going hungry every day instead of 805 million going hungry. What he is saying may be true but I say kick out the bad guys AND feed the people... and then start reducing our numbers.

Heinlein's approach is too pessimistic for me. I believe we can do better. We can.

We should always strive to do better...absolutely. What I always worry about though is the constant attack on "wealth". Not all is evil. We can never forget that it is a small minority, some that have made and use their wealth, to make achieve change for so many of us.

There are definitely some very wealthy people doing good things, BS, and I agreed they should be acknowledged. Unfortunately, among the very wealthy they are far outnumbered by the merely greedy.

riotgrl said:

So odd that you post this today as I am rereading Quinn's "Ishmael"! I don't believe that pre-agricultural times were without problems but I do wonder about their sense of community and how they had to work together to preserve their life. Not their way of life but their life. We don't seem to do very much today in terms of working together towards a common goal.

Now that you mention it, riotgrl, I it was either in Ishmael or in his follow up book, The Story of B that Quinn talks about peaceful pre-ag human. I think it was in the latter book. Both are excellent!

rgambs

BS44325 said:

brianlux said:

BS44325 said:

Were pre-agricultural times the golden age? I highly doubt it. Poverty is the normal condition of man and we take for granted how good we all have it compared to our ancestors.

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."
Robert A. Heinlein

There is no written evidence, of course, to prove pre-agricultural humans were peaceful but I've read some excellent studies that suggest this is both quite possible and even likely. The one I can recall right off hand is in Richard Manning's excellent book, Against the Grain.

Heinlein's quote basically says let the bad guys win and there will only be 750 million people going hungry every day instead of 805 million going hungry. What he is saying may be true but I say kick out the bad guys AND feed the people... and then start reducing our numbers.

Heinlein's approach is too pessimistic for me. I believe we can do better. We can.

We should always strive to do better...absolutely. What I always worry about though is the constant attack on "wealth". Not all is evil. We can never forget that it is a small minority, some that have made and use their wealth, to make achieve change for so many of us.

In a world with finite resources, everything excess that one person has is something in which another person is deficient, unless all are equal. Equality isn't possible, or even plausible but a strong argument can be made against the "not all wealth is evil" notion.
If you place a starving child from the third world directly in front of an NFL player or rock star who has tens of millions, the NFL player or rock star starts to look pretty evil to anyone with a heart. Why would someone hoard so much, when innocent children don't even have enough to survive?
If you do the same with a CEO of a defense company like Honeywell or "Blackwater" the evil is indisputable. To anyone with a heart anyways.

If every billionaire reduced themselves to millionaires, and every multi-hundred millionaire reduced themselves to tens of millionaires, they could end childhood starvation and pestilence.
Doesn't it seem somewhat evil to refuse to do so?
Why can't men actually have literal dick measuring contests instead of symbolic dick measuring contests?

hedonist

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

rgambs

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Last-12-Exit

I'm pretty sure you the answer. Power and greed.

brianlux

The basic premise here wasn't all "wealth is evil". The basic premise is that generally, the wealthy and powerful do more to harm the planet and keep people poor than not. As I said earlier, their are people who are very wealthy who do very good things. Not that I don't already try to do a little good with what I have, but give me ten million dollars and I'll prove what great things a lot of wealth can do.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

I'm pretty sure you the answer. Power and greed.

Yes, Last Exit but as I said earlier:

"... but if they are so greedy and selfish why would they not try to stop the destruction of their home? If a greedy selfish person had a one-of-a-kind possession that really meant a lot to them and someone was about to take a hammer to it, would they not have their strong armed guards protect the object? So why do they not protect the planet? Do they really think they will get to Mars and even if they do, that they will be happy there? And don't these greedy people care at all about their kids and the future world they will be living in? I just don't get it. It's insanity."

Last-12-Exit

Brian, doesn't the definition of selfish answer all of those questions you ask?

Selfish:
Having or showing concern for yourself and not the needs and feelings of other people.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I agree with you.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

Brian, doesn't the definition of selfish answer all of those questions you ask?

Selfish:
Having or showing concern for yourself and not the needs and feelings of other people.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I agree with you.

Good point, Last Exit.

I think what we need is to have Betty White go whoop butt on some of those selfish mofo's!

hedonist

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Then, is it about perception (the side-by-side thing) or reality, and what each do? It's not just about the dollar, but also effort and energy and goodwill.

Same as I'd rather not have another determining the (my) necessary threshold of giving, of donating - I too can't do that to another.

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

brianlux

I can't find it now but I read somewhere (I think this written by or about either Warren Buffett or Bill Gates) that super rich people have so much money that they can't spend it fast enough such that at some point it just becomes a numbers games where the very rich try to outrank each other. The idea that was presented to the very rich was another numbers game- to see who can give away the most, and the idea attracted some attention to some of these very rich people. Would be nice to see such a contest further promoted.

mickeyrat

money/wealth is as much a drug as anything else addictive. Theres never enough. Always "need" more.

hedonist

mickeyrat said:

money/wealth is as much a drug as anything else addictive. Theres never enough. Always "need" more.

Right, but not everyone is an addict.

Some do have enough, or feel they have enough, or splurge once in awhile.

I just don't see it as a never/always thing...not across the board.

rgambs

hedonist said:

rgambs said:

hedonist said:

But gambs, those sports or music celebrities or CEO's - some of them DO quite a bit. Whether or not spotlighted. Look at our very own band.

Look at us here, as individuals. Giving, as and when we can. Others with more, much more, do as well.

Also, I think my view of evil takes a different mindpath, in ways.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. I don't care for the word evil really, but it does in a pinch.
There are levels of "evil" and it's never absolute or non-existent we all have a balance of good and evil.

Someone like Bono may give millions away and work really hard to help the world, but if you put a group of starving kids next to him, he still looks like a dude who hoards unnecessary millions while others suffer.

Then, is it about perception (the side-by-side thing) or reality, and what each do? It's not just about the dollar, but also effort and energy and goodwill.

Same as I'd rather not have another determining the (my) necessary threshold of giving, of donating - I too can't do that to another.

My gambobud - in the end (or along the way), what would a wealthy person have to do, to not be considered selfish, or heartless?

To answer your question, I don't think there is a clear threshold. I can only answer what would be a necessary amount in order to consider myself not selfish or heartless. On well less than 100,000/year we give a few hundred to a 1,000$ away in money and 20-30 hrs in service in the year and sometimes I feel like I'm doing ok, but most of the time I feel like a wealthy, lazy schmuck who lives too fat and too sassy.
We are young and idealistic and we dream of giving up our standardized lives to live on adventure and service in equal measures... Jean-Claude has pretty much ended that dream for awhile lol
I honestly don't think I could consider myself a truly compassionate conscious person with any more than 1-2 million in total worth.

PJfanwillneverleave1

The man featured has some good insight.
Some people stay extremely wealthy so as not to give it away on smoke and mirrors.
If I had 3billion dollars to sit back on I for damn sure would want to make all options to give a lot away were scrutinized and produced immediate results.
This makes sense.
http://www.brw.com.au/p/tech-gadgets/technologies_bought_shine_google_rN14ZeJXAW1Wxo0Ago1WBJ

BS44325

Who is John Galt?