ARE Humans Compatible with Capitalism???
melodious
Posts: 1,719
By Susan Rosenthal
11/8/07
Want to know a secret? A healthy human mind is incompatible with capitalism. Let me explain.
Science tells us that the mind cannot be reduced to an activity of the brain. The mind is created and sustained in a complex dance between human beings. Cut off from social relationships, the mind loses its ability to function. Evidence for this comes from socially-deprived infants and from adults kept in isolation or subjected to sensory deprivation.
For more than 95 percent of human history, people lived in small, cooperative societies. Over the past few thousand years, our species underwent an amazing cultural evolution. Our brains did not change biologically, but how we used them did. As people pooled their experiences and accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next, their minds developed. And as their minds developed, they created new social arrangements to meet their changing needs.
Capitalism blocks this creative process. While knowledge continues to accumulate, it is not shared. And while some people are moved forward, many more are hurtled backward. The central problem for capitalism is how to create profit, not how to develop human potential. To maximize profit, capitalism must disrupt human relationships and stifle human potential.
The more we are divided and deprived, the more wealth can be generated for the people at the top. Any form of collectivism is a threat to the system, from union organizing to demands for government-funded services.
Instead of using our minds to solve our common problems, we get to decide only which section of the elite will dominate us. Instead of working together to raise our living standards, we labor to enrich the elite. Instead of protecting ourselves and each other, we fight their barbaric but profitable wars.
The human mind crumbles under such conditions. Epidemics of anger, anxiety, inter-personal conflict and deep discouragement create an ocean of human misery. Adding insult to injury, these signs of social sickness are mislabeled as “personal problems” and “mental illness.” To preserve itself, capitalism must block the infinite potential of the human mind. And I do mean infinite. There is no limit to the number of ways that we could organize our lives and society.
The average human brain contains approximately 100 billion nerve cells or neurons. Each neuron has about 10,000 connections with its neighbors. When you consider that each of these connections can be turned on or off, the number of possible firing patterns is greater than the number of known particles in the universe. When you add the different ways that each human mind could connect with the other six billion minds on the planet…well, I think you get the picture.
Capitalism has stuck humanity in a giant historical rut and bamboozled us into thinking that this is the best we can do, that we have reached the end of our history. Not So! We have barely begun to explore our potential. However, if capitalism has its way, we never will.
We can’t let this happen. We have created capitalism, and we can change our minds and replace it with something much better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Rosenthal is a practicing physician and the author of Market Madness and Mental Illness (1998) and POWER and Powerlessness (2006). She is a contributing editor to Cyrano’s Journal Online and a member of the National
Writers Union, UAW Local 1981.
She can be reached through her web site:
http://www.powerandpowerlessness.com
her blog:
http://www.powerandpowerlessness.typepad.com
or by email:
susanRosenthal@bestcyrano.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Infinite Potential of the Human Mind
If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your
email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
11/8/07
Want to know a secret? A healthy human mind is incompatible with capitalism. Let me explain.
Science tells us that the mind cannot be reduced to an activity of the brain. The mind is created and sustained in a complex dance between human beings. Cut off from social relationships, the mind loses its ability to function. Evidence for this comes from socially-deprived infants and from adults kept in isolation or subjected to sensory deprivation.
For more than 95 percent of human history, people lived in small, cooperative societies. Over the past few thousand years, our species underwent an amazing cultural evolution. Our brains did not change biologically, but how we used them did. As people pooled their experiences and accumulated knowledge from one generation to the next, their minds developed. And as their minds developed, they created new social arrangements to meet their changing needs.
Capitalism blocks this creative process. While knowledge continues to accumulate, it is not shared. And while some people are moved forward, many more are hurtled backward. The central problem for capitalism is how to create profit, not how to develop human potential. To maximize profit, capitalism must disrupt human relationships and stifle human potential.
The more we are divided and deprived, the more wealth can be generated for the people at the top. Any form of collectivism is a threat to the system, from union organizing to demands for government-funded services.
Instead of using our minds to solve our common problems, we get to decide only which section of the elite will dominate us. Instead of working together to raise our living standards, we labor to enrich the elite. Instead of protecting ourselves and each other, we fight their barbaric but profitable wars.
The human mind crumbles under such conditions. Epidemics of anger, anxiety, inter-personal conflict and deep discouragement create an ocean of human misery. Adding insult to injury, these signs of social sickness are mislabeled as “personal problems” and “mental illness.” To preserve itself, capitalism must block the infinite potential of the human mind. And I do mean infinite. There is no limit to the number of ways that we could organize our lives and society.
The average human brain contains approximately 100 billion nerve cells or neurons. Each neuron has about 10,000 connections with its neighbors. When you consider that each of these connections can be turned on or off, the number of possible firing patterns is greater than the number of known particles in the universe. When you add the different ways that each human mind could connect with the other six billion minds on the planet…well, I think you get the picture.
Capitalism has stuck humanity in a giant historical rut and bamboozled us into thinking that this is the best we can do, that we have reached the end of our history. Not So! We have barely begun to explore our potential. However, if capitalism has its way, we never will.
We can’t let this happen. We have created capitalism, and we can change our minds and replace it with something much better.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Susan Rosenthal is a practicing physician and the author of Market Madness and Mental Illness (1998) and POWER and Powerlessness (2006). She is a contributing editor to Cyrano’s Journal Online and a member of the National
Writers Union, UAW Local 1981.
She can be reached through her web site:
http://www.powerandpowerlessness.com
her blog:
http://www.powerandpowerlessness.typepad.com
or by email:
susanRosenthal@bestcyrano.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Infinite Potential of the Human Mind
If you would like to subscribe, type “CJO subscription” in the subject line and send your
email to JMiller@bestcyrano.org
all insanity:
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
"Science tells us that the mind cannot be reduced to an activity of the
brain."
I dislike capitalism more than most and I don't view it as compatible, but this entire thesis is founded on false claims.
neurons. Each neuron has about 10,000 connections with its neighbors. When you consider that each of these connections can be turned on or off, the number of possible firing patterns is greater than the number of known
particles in the universe."
This just sounds like "I'll throw in some facts about brains, that should convince people of all the other presuppositions."
The first two statements are true, the human brain has approximately 100 billion neurons, with approximately 100 trillion synapses or "connections". But the third sentence describes these connections as digital on/off switches and they aren't. It is far more complicated than that. Some of these dendritic connections are excitatory and some are inhibitory, they alter the inner cell voltage, if the sum of the dendritic connections causes a depolarization of the cell, then ions are transferred in and out of the cell until a repolarization occurs. During this process, at the axon hillock, a charge is generated in the direction of the axon terminal, and in most nerve cells this charge is the result of a constant efflux and influx of various K+ and NA+ particles. When the charge/spike reaches the axon terminal it excites or inhibits another neuron in the fashion that it was initially excited or inhibited. Now this is an over simplification, but shows a causal process at work. A single function of the mind cannot be accounted for by single neurons, but a network, often called an engram is required. For example, the fusiform gyrus of the temporal lobe, when damaged, the subject can no longer discern shapes and colours. Damage to the physical brain has a real effect on the state of the mind, which implies through causation that mind is a product of the physical brain.
There is nowhere that any of this suggests that mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The correlations suggest the opposite.
http://www.hasbro.com/games/kid-games/monopoly/default.cfm?page=Products/Detail&product_id=19783
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
No, I haven't seen it. But I dislike capitalism for precisely the reason that all minds are not capable of succeeding in a capitalist system. Now, these may be simply because I favor socialism over "survival of the fittest". The only biological explanation I can provide is that I have the requried mirror neurons and compassion to value the lives of those less fortunate equally. Others will view humans as biological machines who's value to each other is tantamount to the value of self-interest. Or that promoting good machines or genes will result in a healthier and more prosperous species, while the unfortunate and lacking will deteriorate, after all, that is the process by which natural selection works. But this falls into the realm of the naturalistic fallacy. Simply because it is the natural procession of events, does not mean that it is a foundation for moral code. On the other hand, I can't justifiably argue that the opposite is also true. But then, and this may be logically fallacious, one should not condemn eugenics if they support capitalism, and I wouldn't be surprised to find them shouting "Sieg Heil!" in the privacy of their basement. Because Hitler's basic ideal for eugenics was that, only the best humans, only most capable minds and only the best genes should prevail.
Dude, that looks so much like a money grab. Plugging Altoids and Segway in the game....
although I dislike reading the words you just posted; i am afraid there is much truth revealed. thank you for using that wonderful analytical mind of yours because some of us just don't have words, we only have vision..
I love how you teach....peace
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Man, I'm not sure how to take that. It sounds like you are being genuine, but I'm accustomed to much ridicule on this forum. I hope you are being sincere and thank you for the kind words.
I think you can see problems with capitalism, and perhaps have difficulty qualifying them, so the article seemed to speak for you in ways that you couldn't express yourself. I do this quite often and it's usually looked down upon by fellow members, but I see nothing wrong with it. In the end, this is but a single step in our individual adventures towards truth and happiness. Articles I posted a year ago, and statements I made as well, are in disagreeance with my current world-view. This is because I have learned a lot since then. So I don't view it as negatively as some, it's progress to me.
I did like the perspective the article took. The compatibility of humans with our social and economic infrastructures. I prefer this method of analysis, since all other forms are centered around subjective value judgements, what one "deserves" and results in a never-ending cycle of opinionated rhetoric.
Somewhere in a time a great friend of mine told me I needed to learn acceptance. It was a bitter consumption, but in the long run, the only one who has true articulation is the one who Gives LOVE...
Now, I must get back onto learning more about this word, God..thank you, from the bottom of my heart...
yes. my tune has changed.....
Believe me, I meant a compliment....
What I am trying to say here though, is that one day in the future, humans will not understand their value...Yes. they can go to a bank and see a numeric value, but I think that a cashless society is on the horizon....
capitalism and corporation are great bedfellows.
who knows maybe we will pay with our dna?
You are a dilgent caregiver....thank you for your gift....always.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
I appreciate that we can have this discussion without personal attacks. Though we may differ ideologically. I do not subscribe to God for example.
Ironic that you made your first statement. I was just pondering from another perspective the merits of capitalism, and the only one I could think of that would be difficult to dispute is productivity. It would appear as though capitalism achieves a level of productivity absent in other forms of economics. Many will perceive a false dichotomy here, that the only alternative to capitalism is communism. Communism certainly lacks some level of productivity, as participants are not encouraged, through monitary gain, to innovate.
This is a difficult value of capitalism to contest and provide an alternative for. But, I call it a false dichotomy because they aren't truly the only two options. For example, Libertarians often propose a system absent a government, moderates, like Ron Paul might advocate a reduced government, while others request a complete abolishment of government. They argue that social programs can be replaced by caring individuals and dispute resolution can be handled by privately operated DROs (Dispute Resolution Officers). Personally, I don't think the libertarian agenda is valid and I place it below capitalism on my list of realistic forms of governance and economics. However, it is an example of an alternative to the capitalism vs communism dichotomy. Another possibility is that we haven't, as of yet, devised a better alternative, or that communism might evolve into a more effective system if granted the opportunity capitalism has had to evolve.
If we view capitalism and communism as the only realistic options, then we are left with a value judgement. Which has more worth, productivity and innovation or equal quality of life independent of individual abilities?
Perhaps there is a middle ground. With a base capitalist system, innovation is encouraged through monitary gain. However, quality of life for less capable humans must be offset by socialization, through programs like welfare. This is the trend we've been seeing in modern westernized civilizations. But I feel we are still a long way from a utopia. It might serve us better to have a system based on socialism with an overlay of capitalism, instead of the opposite. Because, as it is, certain families or individuals, such as the Walton's (Wal-Mart) have the monitary force to own their own nuclear shelter, drive several vehicles, have servants and generally do whatever they want. While others barely survive. This massive gap in socioeconomic strata must converge if we hope to achieve any kind of utopia. Perhaps utopia is not possible, but the smaller this SES gap, the closer we will be. Maybe, I'm not an economist and maybe this is merely my opinion, but it appears self-evident and I appeal to disagreers to dispute it.
What do you know about the Bilderburgs? This is why I have put my faith in my own music. If you don't subscribe to God's love (in your own terms of course) then how do you navigate with such reason? thanks...
Hi cate, great to see you....I am possibly a human like yourself....capitalism doesn't appeal to me either....I almost see it like a quick fix to solve even deeper issues; almost like dope...it will bury you alive if you are not careful...i know i am probably singing to the choir anyhow...!!!....take care...
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
i just see capitalism as social darwinism as its best/worst. it has such great potential but all i see is a race to the bottom in regards to a cohesive compassionate society.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
What do you mean?
The way I see it. A belief is a positive claim, it claims something to be true. I think that disbelief is the de facto position. If someone suggests something is true, such as, there is a God. Then I choose to ascent to that claim or not. I tend to make these determinations by logic and evidence. We are plagued with a paradox, everything needs and explanation to satisfy our curiosity.
To heat our houses, we used fireplaces, they work by burning wood, which works by oxidization, which works by some atomic events, which works by some sub-atomic events, which presumably works by fundamental particles, which presumably works by strings, which possibly works by God.... how does God work? There is no escaping an infinite regress without ascending to a belief in a first cause, and that first cause must have some unique properties to exist without a cause. Some properties which escape human logic, because such a thing seems unfathomable. We don't accept other things to exist without a prior cause. This apparent law of causation appears everywhere in life, evidence seems to support it.
It appears that humans do not escape causation and if that is true, then we cannot possibly act independent of the universe, our actions are a result of prior causes. If this is true then an ascent to a belief in God holds no value. Since such a God could not reign over human souls, because such souls would not be independent entities and would merely be the results of said God's creation. It seems that the concept God is an anthropomorphism of the universe, that is, projecting human qualities onto the universe. Anthropomorphisms are common in human culture.
There doesn't appear to be a way to obtain absolute knowledge about the first cause or if there isn't an infinite regress of causation. So the concept God, only has lore to support it, but many, such as Albert Einstein, and many of the founders of the United States were deists and did not believe in a biblical God. Then the only supporting evidence is the claim that an infinite regress is a logical fallacy. However, another logical fallacy is that because something is logically fallacious that it is also false. It might very well be true, just illogical, which brings us back to the first cause as a possibility. Back to the beginning and doomed to an endless loop of logic.
I maintain that the truth about causation's origins or the origins of the universe are a mystery and I've no reason to think I know it.
To answer that question, just look at a family of 2 parents and 2 children. Pretty typical for humans. When food is scarce, do you see many parents competing with the children for food? No. Our minds aren't naturally wired for capitalism.
What do you see if you see 2 families starving?
It is unfair to say that capitalists have no compassion and do not care for other people. The same could be said for socialists, that they believe that a government organization should make choices for people because the people are not capable and in the end will fuck it all up anyway... It is easy to make such assertions because in all forms of government and economic models people behave in different ways. People are different and it takes more than just policy to change their behaviour.
You got to spend it all
What I do say, is that humans are not naturally wired to be capitalists...or socialists for that matter. They're not naturally compatible to either system.
To be honest, I need laymen's terms. I barely understand. eg infinite regression???
Do you really think we are independent of the universe? God doesn't reign...God lives with in...I once thought I could make it without God or a faith (becasue I love Allah too; I take the good of all philosophies and try to absorb) and I know that I and my god are one in the same, but I tell you, when a person walks in my shoes, there has to be a force greater than. Would this force or proof of faith be evidence enought that there is Divine Love out there. I mean if I am to accept science, then why wouldn't I accept a god to absorb my toxic fall-out. thanks for explaning that anthropomophism word...
Thus supporting my friends claim to suggest to learn to acceptance.
You have said a great deal here. Much food for thought...thank you...
I have to look up about 1/2 of what you said, so I can formulate a stronger foundation. good day.
I don't think capitalism is complimentary for humans. I do realize that there is exchange and we can remold resources, but eventuallyl the cash cow will wither away...I think about Egypt, and places where there were once great forests and now the terrain has turned into dust....
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Far too generalized. Everybody's different. Capitalism works for some and not for others.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
hm.. check your definition of communism will ya.
i dont need a dictator to discourage me from capitalism. capitalism does it all on its own. though then again i dont live in a communist society. i live in a so called democratic 'free' society.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
maybe future societies will revolve around dna economically,... although, rather than personal investment, this could be effective personal compensation. i mean, yes, i'm certain Plato spoke about breeding in therepublic somewhere.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
a derivitive of nature.
nature is god
god is love
love is light
Regarding the human nature vs. Capitalism, since humans and all living things have a tendency to adapt themselves to the environment to survive, I think we are having the evolution working in favor of capitalism at these times.
this doesn't mean that I think capitalism is compatible with human beings and vice versa. I just think that evolution has also its dead ends and we may be riding it to one at the moment.
I think the biggest advantage of Capitalism is to show its results quickly against other economical systems, mainly against communism. On paper, it looks very good when you say the average income per person is 15.000-20.000 USD but in reality the top 10% of the population gets maybe the %70-80 of the capita (this is not a fact but just an example but I am nearly sure that the real numbers are very close) and since greed is one of the basic human behavior, people on the lowest %20 or %30 really think that their chance of lifetime is just around the corner waiting for them, to rise them up to elite, rich. of course these ideas, lifestyles and motivation to step on the others to rise is pumped non-stop everywhere (media etc.) again by the top %20 (10 I should say maybe...).
Unfortunately communism didn't live long enough to experience its future steps in its own evolution (since capitalism already got the results quicker) but I believe socialism's evolution could have been more useful for humankind if it had enough time.
Capitalism reminds me the massive stars out in the universe, eating up their hydrogen quickly (which gives a lot of heat and light at the beginning) but then finishing its supplies and collapsing into a black hole because of its massive gravitation.