this has been entering my thoughts pretty often lately.
take the example of medical experimentation on animals. the justification for this is often that medical treatments or cures for human diseases outweigh the bad stuff like animal suffering. in some cases, I might agree with this. I'm thinking of diseases that could have potentially large dents in the human population or threaten our survival as a species.
but let's just work on the assumption that most research on animals is for the sake of human comfort or extension of our lifespans: diseases that are not highly contagious and do not threaten our species's survival. in this case, does the end really justify the means?
is it worth causing animal suffering to extend our lifespans? I think there are two ways that I answer this question: with regard to our identity or moral character as a species and with regard to the true value of the knowledge we gain from animal experimentation.
as a species, do we want to be identified with the act of causing animal suffering for the sake of extending our lifespans? if we somehow progress to the point of doing something great, like figuring out how to be immortal (I know I'm being ridiculous here, but I think it serves my point), is it worth it? in my eyes, there is always this part of our path to such great things that is despicable and is swept under the rug. I think this can apply when it comes to economic "progress" too. at what cost does it come, and are we morally comfortable enjoying the fruits of our efforts knowing the means by which we got there?
regarding human progress, what's the rush? I think that there are more worthwhile goals in life and in the grander scheme of things than figuring out how to live longer or make a faster computer or live on Mars. all of these things are awesome, but at what cost are they coming, and are we seriously in such a rush to do them? I think that if we just slow the fuck down, spend more time figuring stuff out, we could have all of these great things and make all of this progress in a more moral way, and in a way that ultimately makes us all more happy. I'd rather learn how to spend my time wisely and live a fulfilling life than sacrifice some of my moral integrity to live a few years longer.
thoughts?
this was long.
take the example of medical experimentation on animals. the justification for this is often that medical treatments or cures for human diseases outweigh the bad stuff like animal suffering. in some cases, I might agree with this. I'm thinking of diseases that could have potentially large dents in the human population or threaten our survival as a species.
but let's just work on the assumption that most research on animals is for the sake of human comfort or extension of our lifespans: diseases that are not highly contagious and do not threaten our species's survival. in this case, does the end really justify the means?
is it worth causing animal suffering to extend our lifespans? I think there are two ways that I answer this question: with regard to our identity or moral character as a species and with regard to the true value of the knowledge we gain from animal experimentation.
as a species, do we want to be identified with the act of causing animal suffering for the sake of extending our lifespans? if we somehow progress to the point of doing something great, like figuring out how to be immortal (I know I'm being ridiculous here, but I think it serves my point), is it worth it? in my eyes, there is always this part of our path to such great things that is despicable and is swept under the rug. I think this can apply when it comes to economic "progress" too. at what cost does it come, and are we morally comfortable enjoying the fruits of our efforts knowing the means by which we got there?
regarding human progress, what's the rush? I think that there are more worthwhile goals in life and in the grander scheme of things than figuring out how to live longer or make a faster computer or live on Mars. all of these things are awesome, but at what cost are they coming, and are we seriously in such a rush to do them? I think that if we just slow the fuck down, spend more time figuring stuff out, we could have all of these great things and make all of this progress in a more moral way, and in a way that ultimately makes us all more happy. I'd rather learn how to spend my time wisely and live a fulfilling life than sacrifice some of my moral integrity to live a few years longer.
thoughts?
this was long.
then there is always the perspective of someone who has lost a family member to a disease that might be cured with the help of animal experimentation. a good example of this is cancer, I think. a close family member of mine had cancer a while back, and if you had given me the option of personally slaughtering thousands of mice or having them die, I would have chosen the former in a heartbeat.
but I guess it's usually not so cut and dry as that, and in that case I would have been sacrificing my own personal moral integrity rather than institutionalizing the practice of trading animal suffering for human survival.
I don't know, shit is complicated.
but I guess it's usually not so cut and dry as that, and in that case I would have been sacrificing my own personal moral integrity rather than institutionalizing the practice of trading animal suffering for human survival.
I don't know, shit is complicated.
i don't care about our species survival. i don't believe that a species has consciousness nor can experience physical suffering and pain.
individual human beings can experience physical suffering and pain.
i believe that testing drugs on animals to ensure the survival of our species is terrible, but testing drugs on animals to rid the world of physical suffering by real, living, conscious humans is acceptable.
individual human beings can experience physical suffering and pain.
i believe that testing drugs on animals to ensure the survival of our species is terrible, but testing drugs on animals to rid the world of physical suffering by real, living, conscious humans is acceptable.
the suffering of animals is a pretty difficult thing for me to come to grasp with as well. i think most people consume a large amount of meats. which equates to a number of animals per person getting slaughtered each year in order for that person to eat what he enjoys. a vegetarian may say that he is preventing animal suffering by not eating those animals but the meat eater might argue that the animals would never have existed if farmers hadn't raised those animals to be slaughtered. so is a hypothetical animal better off if it was never born or if it lived for a while to be later killed? pretty absurd question really. i have no way of answering it.
we breed mice, give them cancer, then test treatments on them. are we doing something immoral? i don't know. so as far as the ends justifying the means, i don't know. but as far as this example goes, i am not even sure if we need to justify the means. we give life to mice, then we take it away. presumably more life is better than no life.
i am not even sure if it would be immoral (by this argument) to take a baby that otherwise would have been aborted and raise it instead as a test baby. pretty sick really. what am i a fucking nazi? i am going to need to think this over a bit more.
we breed mice, give them cancer, then test treatments on them. are we doing something immoral? i don't know. so as far as the ends justifying the means, i don't know. but as far as this example goes, i am not even sure if we need to justify the means. we give life to mice, then we take it away. presumably more life is better than no life.
i am not even sure if it would be immoral (by this argument) to take a baby that otherwise would have been aborted and raise it instead as a test baby. pretty sick really. what am i a fucking nazi? i am going to need to think this over a bit more.
> presumably more life is better than no life.
life is suffering
life is suffering
:)
Here's the one I threw out in ethics 102 in college... the engineering majors got into a pretty sick debate with the sociology majors over it.
During ww2 assume hypothetically...
you are a medical researcher. you are given an opportunity to take advantage of cadavers and live test subjects to advance your area of expertise. you know for a fact (this is hypothetical after all) that all the subjects and cadavers will be tortured and killed regardless of your decision. you also know your research will yield positive results with experimentation and consequently save thousands or tens of thousands of lives for every research subject.
do you engage in immoral, and illegal research, inside of a nazi death camp knowing these things?
it's actually kinda a how far are you willing to go to do the most good, or the least evil question.
and i think for every person the answer is ultimately different.
During ww2 assume hypothetically...
you are a medical researcher. you are given an opportunity to take advantage of cadavers and live test subjects to advance your area of expertise. you know for a fact (this is hypothetical after all) that all the subjects and cadavers will be tortured and killed regardless of your decision. you also know your research will yield positive results with experimentation and consequently save thousands or tens of thousands of lives for every research subject.
do you engage in immoral, and illegal research, inside of a nazi death camp knowing these things?
it's actually kinda a how far are you willing to go to do the most good, or the least evil question.
and i think for every person the answer is ultimately different.
dead's dead. get me the hacksaw.
ase>>regarding human progress, what's the rush... I'd rather learn how to spend my time wisely and live a fulfilling life than sacrifice some of my moral integrity to live a few years longer.
what's the rush? mortality is the rush! how many years do we have you and i? in a week i will be 26 in another 26 years i will be nearing retirement and in 26 more, if I am average, I will be dead. is that not sufficient for me to wring my hands over the time that is slipping away? today the world population is estimated to be 6,6 billion people. it is projected to be greater than 8 billion people by the time i turn fifty. every year more resources are consumed by a growing population. if we don't keep innovating we may run out of the fuel to innovate with.
historically our society is an anomaly. man has existed for about 200,000 years. only in the last 10 thousand years have we even begun to innovate. it took us another 5-6 thousand years before we even figured out how to use copper. then thousands of years pass with writing and the wheel being major inventions. and in the last 150 years we have only begun to scratch the surface of an unknown frontier of innovation our ancestors would have had difficulty conceptualizing. just about every citizen of a developed nation has more opportunities for learning. traveling, and a good life than any king a thousand years ago. yet we cannot forget that all of this is an anomaly in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of human history and billions of years of the earth's history.
so what is the rush my friend? the rush for me is my sense of the fragility of all of this. i want to be alive for next year and ten years later and hundred years later because there is so much potential. and if it means infecting mice with cancer or giving pigs heart attacks to extend my chances of living one extra year by 1%. hell yeah!
perhaps as you say the future will look back on us with disgust. animal trials will not be neccissary forever, but in their disgust they will know that the quality of life that they enjoy is in some way a product of the lives thousands or millions of murdered animals. and that is sufficient for it is all they will have.
what's the rush? mortality is the rush! how many years do we have you and i? in a week i will be 26 in another 26 years i will be nearing retirement and in 26 more, if I am average, I will be dead. is that not sufficient for me to wring my hands over the time that is slipping away? today the world population is estimated to be 6,6 billion people. it is projected to be greater than 8 billion people by the time i turn fifty. every year more resources are consumed by a growing population. if we don't keep innovating we may run out of the fuel to innovate with.
historically our society is an anomaly. man has existed for about 200,000 years. only in the last 10 thousand years have we even begun to innovate. it took us another 5-6 thousand years before we even figured out how to use copper. then thousands of years pass with writing and the wheel being major inventions. and in the last 150 years we have only begun to scratch the surface of an unknown frontier of innovation our ancestors would have had difficulty conceptualizing. just about every citizen of a developed nation has more opportunities for learning. traveling, and a good life than any king a thousand years ago. yet we cannot forget that all of this is an anomaly in the face of hundreds of thousands of years of human history and billions of years of the earth's history.
so what is the rush my friend? the rush for me is my sense of the fragility of all of this. i want to be alive for next year and ten years later and hundred years later because there is so much potential. and if it means infecting mice with cancer or giving pigs heart attacks to extend my chances of living one extra year by 1%. hell yeah!
perhaps as you say the future will look back on us with disgust. animal trials will not be neccissary forever, but in their disgust they will know that the quality of life that they enjoy is in some way a product of the lives thousands or millions of murdered animals. and that is sufficient for it is all they will have.
Why waste a good steak...
ends justify means
beauty is the end, steveo
beauty is the end, steveo
I came back to this thread via my thinking here: https://www.thinktankforums.com/thread.php?th … post-30471
for the sake of avoiding a philosophical argument that I don't think is integral to my main points, I'm willing to say that morally questionable research to ensure our species survival falls into the same category as that to increase human comfort.
who are we to make this judgment though? this gets into a whole "playing God" debate and while that's interesting in the case of animal testing, my main point is just about means and ends, not so much this individual example.
I think you have to differentiate between the "type" of life you are creating. but yeah, if you're going to say more life is unequivocally better than less life you'd have to reconcile it with something like your test baby example :).
this is a really interesting question! from a detached standpoint I would probably say yes, I would do it, assuming there was absolutely no alternative course of action other than doing nothing, and I had no means whatsoever of subverting the authorities. actually being in that situation, who knows what I would do.
I guess the assumption of my initial post is that I am talking about suffering that is preventable, in my opinion excessive or unnecessary, and done by choice.
this is exactly the worldview that I'm questioning. I think that I would be happier not worrying all the time about mortality and enjoying life for what it is. this doesn't mean I can't worry about or fear death, but I don't want it to be an obsession, or to make preventing it my life's primary goal. it just seems futile and silly and stressful, and quite the opposite of a good way to be happy with life.
potential for what though? more time spent worrying about how little time you have left? sure, there's potential for humanity or yourself to do amazing, awe-inspiring things, but given the cost of doing all this with such urgency, the happiness that such progress brings is exactly what I'm calling into question. personally, the happiness or wonder I might enjoy from going to Mars would be tainted if the ship to get there was built by slaves or something. and would going to Mars really make me happier than hanging out with my family or friends, talking about life, etc.? would living one year longer or having a faster computer or a nicer car make me any happier? I just don't think that this is where happiness comes from.
lucas
i don't care about our species survival. i don't believe that a species has consciousness nor can experience physical suffering and pain.individual human beings can experience physical suffering and pain.i believe that testing drugs on animals to ensure the survival of our species is terrible, but testing drugs on animals to rid the world of physical suffering by real, living, conscious humans is acceptable.
for the sake of avoiding a philosophical argument that I don't think is integral to my main points, I'm willing to say that morally questionable research to ensure our species survival falls into the same category as that to increase human comfort.
Fsmart
we breed mice, give them cancer, then test treatments on them. are we doing something immoral? i don't know. so as far as the ends justifying the means, i don't know. but as far as this example goes, i am not even sure if we need to justify the means. we give life to mice, then we take it away. presumably more life is better than no life.
who are we to make this judgment though? this gets into a whole "playing God" debate and while that's interesting in the case of animal testing, my main point is just about means and ends, not so much this individual example.
Fsmart
i am not even sure if it would be immoral (by this argument) to take a baby that otherwise would have been aborted and raise it instead as a test baby. pretty sick really. what am i a fucking nazi? i am going to need to think this over a bit more.
I think you have to differentiate between the "type" of life you are creating. but yeah, if you're going to say more life is unequivocally better than less life you'd have to reconcile it with something like your test baby example :).
nny
you are a medical researcher. you are given an opportunity to take advantage of cadavers and live test subjects to advance your area of expertise. you know for a fact (this is hypothetical after all) that all the subjects and cadavers will be tortured and killed regardless of your decision. you also know your research will yield positive results with experimentation and consequently save thousands or tens of thousands of lives for every research subject.do you engage in immoral, and illegal research, inside of a nazi death camp knowing these things?
this is a really interesting question! from a detached standpoint I would probably say yes, I would do it, assuming there was absolutely no alternative course of action other than doing nothing, and I had no means whatsoever of subverting the authorities. actually being in that situation, who knows what I would do.
I guess the assumption of my initial post is that I am talking about suffering that is preventable, in my opinion excessive or unnecessary, and done by choice.
Fsmart
what's the rush? mortality is the rush! how many years do we have you and i? in a week i will be 26 in another 26 years i will be nearing retirement and in 26 more, if I am average, I will be dead. is that not sufficient for me to wring my hands over the time that is slipping away? today the world population is estimated to be 6,6 billion people. it is projected to be greater than 8 billion people by the time i turn fifty. every year more resources are consumed by a growing population. if we don't keep innovating we may run out of the fuel to innovate with.
this is exactly the worldview that I'm questioning. I think that I would be happier not worrying all the time about mortality and enjoying life for what it is. this doesn't mean I can't worry about or fear death, but I don't want it to be an obsession, or to make preventing it my life's primary goal. it just seems futile and silly and stressful, and quite the opposite of a good way to be happy with life.
so what is the rush my friend? the rush for me is my sense of the fragility of all of this. i want to be alive for next year and ten years later and hundred years later because there is so much potential. and if it means infecting mice with cancer or giving pigs heart attacks to extend my chances of living one extra year by 1%. hell yeah!
potential for what though? more time spent worrying about how little time you have left? sure, there's potential for humanity or yourself to do amazing, awe-inspiring things, but given the cost of doing all this with such urgency, the happiness that such progress brings is exactly what I'm calling into question. personally, the happiness or wonder I might enjoy from going to Mars would be tainted if the ship to get there was built by slaves or something. and would going to Mars really make me happier than hanging out with my family or friends, talking about life, etc.? would living one year longer or having a faster computer or a nicer car make me any happier? I just don't think that this is where happiness comes from.
this is a really interesting question! from a detached standpoint I would probably say yes, I would do it, assuming there was absolutely no alternative course of action other than doing nothing, and I had no means whatsoever of subverting the authorities. actually being in that situation, who knows what I would do.I guess the assumption of my initial post is that I am talking about suffering that is preventable, in my opinion excessive or unnecessary, and done by choice.
I think the moral dilemma here revolves around your personal involvement in the suffering of others. After all, morality is a very personal thing. Challenging a person's own understandings of their individual morality may bring greater acceptance of divergent views on society level legislation. And in general create a greater level of all around tolerance.
Right and wrong are very much arbitrary without a definition of purpose and value.
i don't care about our species survival. i don't believe that a species has consciousness nor can experience physical suffering and pain.individual human beings can experience physical suffering and pain.i believe that testing drugs on animals to ensure the survival of our species is terrible, but testing drugs on animals to rid the world of physical suffering by real, living, conscious humans is acceptable.
brilliant. was just thinking about this today.
I disagree. I'd say that collective groups of human beings satisfy the requirements of consciousness. Though as we are just parts of the sum total it is difficult to gauge that. Mind you that's almost a philosophical point for me. Civilizations experience highs and lows, brought about usually by the pains of famine, war, or plague... sometimes just be financial recession. But, I'd say that even in a small group the "air" of awareness that exists between all people leads to sympathy / empathy and as a result a shared understanding of pain, awareness.
It's an interesting discussion, and in and of itself it is a vast one.
As far as animal testing... I don't see the problem. I do see the benefits.
It's an interesting discussion, and in and of itself it is a vast one.
As far as animal testing... I don't see the problem. I do see the benefits.
stop getting hung up on the animal testing, guys!
potential for what though? more time spent worrying about how little time you have left? sure, there's potential for humanity or yourself to do amazing, awe-inspiring things, but given the cost of doing all this with such urgency, the happiness that such progress brings is exactly what I'm calling into question. personally, the happiness or wonder I might enjoy from going to Mars would be tainted if the ship to get there was built by slaves or something. and would going to Mars really make me happier than hanging out with my family or friends, talking about life, etc.? would living one year longer or having a faster computer or a nicer car make me any happier? I just don't think that this is where happiness comes from.
what makes happiness an objective? sooner or later if not already we will discover a drug or device that can basically make people happy all of the time. have we then reached the fulfillment of our existence? all that is left is to automate the process of keeping us alive and that's it. i don't think so. i don't know what my purpose in all of this is. all i know is that if i had an extra year to find that purpose then it would help. if i had an extra hundred, it would help even more.
i see the point about not caring about the species. good or bad i would prefer that mankind survives. i wish i had a better reason for it. if there is nothing of greater intellect than man in the universe and never will be then our existence would have been a flicker of consciousness in the dark before silence resumes. nobody to morn us or even remember our presence. if there is something else out there, perhaps it too is lonely. perhaps it would morn our loss if it ever knew.
so long as there is mankind, there is immense and unknown potential. when there is no longer man, is there still the same potential? i would like to think so but i fear not.
sooner or later if not already we will discover a drug or device that can basically make people happy all of the time.
you're dismissing happiness as a goal based on a very shallow definition of happiness. I would contend that the happiness you get from a drug is 100% different than the happiness that you get from having family, friends, and a fulfilling, challenging, relaxing, or whatever-you-prefer day-to-day life. this is being fulfilled, and I don't think a drug can replicate that feeling. a drug can create its own feeling of contentedness, but I don't think it's the same or has the same value as a natural feeling of being fulfilled.
Crystal Meth is basically happiness in drug form. Start doing it if you think that's the end all be all of existence.
The reason I would give for trying to extend our lives, as some I think have stated, is potential. What if the man who cures cancer died one year before he found the cure? That's not the complete basis for my reasoning, but it is a large pillar of it. The longer each person lives, the more we have the chance to improve our species one little bit more.
Certainly there are negative things that can happen, and the longer we live, the more potential negative things we expose ourselves to. But if we follow this somewhat pessimistic idea, then why live at all. If you wish to reduce suffering completely then extinguish all life. If you wish to some day find the ability to live without suffering, and exist, then you will have to stay around long enough to find it, and then hopefully live forever, after.
Courage is to endure suffering in the hopes that better things lie ahead. It is selfish and shallow to always choose the path of least resistance, at least in this respect. As cheesy as it may seem we are increasingly approaching the point of view of Dr. Manhattan. We almost have the power to grant immortality. Isn't it amoral letting it pass us by? Conversely, if you think it is amoral to hurt all those animals, the only course of action to validate your view is to work towards ending that suffering.
To say "hey, stop that" to all those scientists hurting mice, but letting them go ahead anyway is just accepting the immortality we might be granted because of it anyway. If you have a moral twinge, act on it, otherwise spend some time in careful thought about the divergence of your thoughts and actions and come to terms with it.
So ultimately, the ends justify the means. I don't do anything to stop the tests, and even though I wish we didn't have to hurt or kill animals to improve our own species, I know that ultimately if we discover everything we ever need then the question of morality is suddenly moot. Yes it was moral to hurt all those creatures because maybe through those acts we will give them everything we took away and more.
Certainly there are negative things that can happen, and the longer we live, the more potential negative things we expose ourselves to. But if we follow this somewhat pessimistic idea, then why live at all. If you wish to reduce suffering completely then extinguish all life. If you wish to some day find the ability to live without suffering, and exist, then you will have to stay around long enough to find it, and then hopefully live forever, after.
Courage is to endure suffering in the hopes that better things lie ahead. It is selfish and shallow to always choose the path of least resistance, at least in this respect. As cheesy as it may seem we are increasingly approaching the point of view of Dr. Manhattan. We almost have the power to grant immortality. Isn't it amoral letting it pass us by? Conversely, if you think it is amoral to hurt all those animals, the only course of action to validate your view is to work towards ending that suffering.
To say "hey, stop that" to all those scientists hurting mice, but letting them go ahead anyway is just accepting the immortality we might be granted because of it anyway. If you have a moral twinge, act on it, otherwise spend some time in careful thought about the divergence of your thoughts and actions and come to terms with it.
So ultimately, the ends justify the means. I don't do anything to stop the tests, and even though I wish we didn't have to hurt or kill animals to improve our own species, I know that ultimately if we discover everything we ever need then the question of morality is suddenly moot. Yes it was moral to hurt all those creatures because maybe through those acts we will give them everything we took away and more.
For the record, we're nowhere near immortality. We've got a LONG way to go. Probably several ( or many depending on outside factors ) generations before we can even effectively maintain our own bodies much less convince them to stop aging. That being said... increasing the lifespan of people will have it's own temporary negative effects... it will likely crush our economy and lead to further overpopulation in areas where that is a concern. In all likelihood it would precipitate war and death.
But assuming we come out of that with some suitable social paradigm for safe and "free" pursuit of life liberty and the whatever we are now way... then I of course think it was all worth it. The thing that pisses me off most about death is the loss of experience. What we MIGHT be able to do before I die... is save state someones mind. If we could grab a full save of ones mind ( organic, electro-magnetic, light, radioactivity... EVERYTHING ) before they died... we could come back to that later and access memory and logic sets and a vast store of valuable though processes insight and primary source information on historical events. I mean sure we lose the person... but we don't lose all that wonderful data it took them a lifetime to collect and develop.
It seems to me that right now that should be our goal. The greatest loss beyond the emotional in losing people to mortality is that so much information dies with them. We can do something about that.
-Matt
But assuming we come out of that with some suitable social paradigm for safe and "free" pursuit of life liberty and the whatever we are now way... then I of course think it was all worth it. The thing that pisses me off most about death is the loss of experience. What we MIGHT be able to do before I die... is save state someones mind. If we could grab a full save of ones mind ( organic, electro-magnetic, light, radioactivity... EVERYTHING ) before they died... we could come back to that later and access memory and logic sets and a vast store of valuable though processes insight and primary source information on historical events. I mean sure we lose the person... but we don't lose all that wonderful data it took them a lifetime to collect and develop.
It seems to me that right now that should be our goal. The greatest loss beyond the emotional in losing people to mortality is that so much information dies with them. We can do something about that.
-Matt
I've heard it said that the first person who may live forever is already born. I do see what you are saying though, and you articulated my point probably better than I did.
As for economic collapse, I kinda hope so. War and strife I'd prefer not, but I don't think any country has peacefully changed it's method of government that I know of. We are entering an age where amazing new technologies are being developed, the resources exist to provide them to those who need them the most, and our current economy is the only thing that gets in the way. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, it's the best we've developed so far. It just has some glaring flaws that without the work of philanthropists wouldn't get dealt with at all.
If an invention comes along like free energy, our economy will be treated like the dinosaur it is, and there will be strife and societal change to follow. Change can be difficult, but it's for the best in these situations.
As for economic collapse, I kinda hope so. War and strife I'd prefer not, but I don't think any country has peacefully changed it's method of government that I know of. We are entering an age where amazing new technologies are being developed, the resources exist to provide them to those who need them the most, and our current economy is the only thing that gets in the way. I'm not saying capitalism is bad, it's the best we've developed so far. It just has some glaring flaws that without the work of philanthropists wouldn't get dealt with at all.
If an invention comes along like free energy, our economy will be treated like the dinosaur it is, and there will be strife and societal change to follow. Change can be difficult, but it's for the best in these situations.
>> crush our economy
i don't really see a problem with that. i mean, if the economy becomes irrelevant in the form that it is now then we do away with it. it is just a tool to accomplish an end.
i don't really see a problem with that. i mean, if the economy becomes irrelevant in the form that it is now then we do away with it. it is just a tool to accomplish an end.
that ("[the economy] is just a tool to accomplish an end") is such a "this is such an abstract and hence inconceivable event that despite unavoidably involving such concrete things as death, starvation, and disease, means less than enough for anyone to feel it's impact realistically enough on their social desires and predictions" thing.
heh. true.
can you explain, asemi? i didn't understand your sentence.
sorry, I probably should have put "if the economy becomes irrelevant...then we do away with it" in parentheses rather than what I quoted.
people were just kind of casually tossing around the idea of the economy failing, and that is such an abstract and inconceivable event for us (at least on a scale larger than what is happening now) that the very concrete things that would go along with it (suffering, death, poverty, etc.) are kind of lost unless you take a second to think about it. that's all.
people were just kind of casually tossing around the idea of the economy failing, and that is such an abstract and inconceivable event for us (at least on a scale larger than what is happening now) that the very concrete things that would go along with it (suffering, death, poverty, etc.) are kind of lost unless you take a second to think about it. that's all.
It's interesting some lunatic was espousing the virtues of doing away with major financial institutions the other day ( like entirely ). I asked him how he would pay for something in china then.
At which point he kind of failed to get it.
People today don't understand... when you buy something from a vendor in hong kong or italy or mexico, the only reason that you can even pay the vendor is because a MAJOR financial institution is trusted by a large number of governments and other banking institutions to transfer and track the values of international currencies properly. I mean, major banking institutions play a critical roll in establishing the functional basis for any and all global trade. Without the JP Morgans, and Deutsche Banks of the world there'd be no way for us to share our wares across political lines.
If one of our major institutions were to destabilize, and I'm not talking some little ole lehman brothers... I mean like citibank or jpmc... it could literally rip apart the fabric of trust that allows international trade to exist.
In point of fact as global currency markets mathematically rely on the stability of the US dollar, the recent events demonstrated that rapid devaluation of it can literally cause the money market to fail catastrophically. That can collapse nations. In fact, anyone remember japan's banking system collapsing in 1998? I was in Brazil for that. People died because of that. The real ( R$ ) could no longer be kept artificially equal to the US dollar. When it began to inflate it destabalized trade between brazil and their very close trade partner argentina ( who ties their currency to the US dollar ). Brazil entered a severe recession. Many people turned to crime and there were riots in some cities. Argentina soon faced some similar issues. It's not wrong to say that banking failures in Japan directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of brazilians through crime and civil unrest.
Functioning international banking systems are as important to our way of life and national security as essential living requirements ( water, food, shelter, medical care ) and the rule of law ( via enforcement, justice, and fair representation ). People need to remember that some of these "companies", can't simply be allowed to fail. Mind you lehman and goldman could fail and no one would shed a tear... most of the bailouts didn't target institutions that either needed assistance or required intervention. One could argue AIG did require intervention due to their close affiliation with the US government.
At which point he kind of failed to get it.
People today don't understand... when you buy something from a vendor in hong kong or italy or mexico, the only reason that you can even pay the vendor is because a MAJOR financial institution is trusted by a large number of governments and other banking institutions to transfer and track the values of international currencies properly. I mean, major banking institutions play a critical roll in establishing the functional basis for any and all global trade. Without the JP Morgans, and Deutsche Banks of the world there'd be no way for us to share our wares across political lines.
If one of our major institutions were to destabilize, and I'm not talking some little ole lehman brothers... I mean like citibank or jpmc... it could literally rip apart the fabric of trust that allows international trade to exist.
In point of fact as global currency markets mathematically rely on the stability of the US dollar, the recent events demonstrated that rapid devaluation of it can literally cause the money market to fail catastrophically. That can collapse nations. In fact, anyone remember japan's banking system collapsing in 1998? I was in Brazil for that. People died because of that. The real ( R$ ) could no longer be kept artificially equal to the US dollar. When it began to inflate it destabalized trade between brazil and their very close trade partner argentina ( who ties their currency to the US dollar ). Brazil entered a severe recession. Many people turned to crime and there were riots in some cities. Argentina soon faced some similar issues. It's not wrong to say that banking failures in Japan directly contributed to the deaths of thousands of brazilians through crime and civil unrest.
Functioning international banking systems are as important to our way of life and national security as essential living requirements ( water, food, shelter, medical care ) and the rule of law ( via enforcement, justice, and fair representation ). People need to remember that some of these "companies", can't simply be allowed to fail. Mind you lehman and goldman could fail and no one would shed a tear... most of the bailouts didn't target institutions that either needed assistance or required intervention. One could argue AIG did require intervention due to their close affiliation with the US government.
PS: We bailed out the Japanese in 1998 to stop a domino effect that was tearing across the global banking industry. I think that was a clinton maneuver. But people forget how narrowly we avoided a serious global economic crisis then. We staved it off through most of the bush administration, but it was never far from gone... just sept 11 and the resulting fiascos kind of hid the harsh realities from view for a while.
^^ This is fuckin' genius.
"Without the JP Morgans, and Deutsche Banks of the world there'd be no way for us to share our wares across political lines."
were tribes back in the day able to exchange arrowheads for pottery without JP Morgans?
i don't see any reason to believe that you need super-banks to "establish the functional basis for any and all global trade". all you need is a money trading market. if there is arbitrage opportunities, then clever investors buy sell or hedge in whatever manner they need to in order to capitalize on the situation. thus the piles of cash lying around are snatched up and money markets self-stabilize. having a few huge banks might help the process be a little smoother. but as the current financial stress shows they can also cause it to be a lot worse.
whether the bailout package should have been given out is one question. i would probably say yes. the debt to GDP ratio is well below historic peaks, so i think it unlikely that complete financial collapse will result (since it didn't result previously). on the other hand letting the big banks fail would have created massive shocks that could have resulted in a dramatic recession.
so perhaps we should have bailed them out, then nationalized and auctioned them off piece by piece. if we can't allow big banks to fail then we must keep big banks from existing, since we know we can't prevent super bank managers from engaging in risk seeking behavior.
were tribes back in the day able to exchange arrowheads for pottery without JP Morgans?
i don't see any reason to believe that you need super-banks to "establish the functional basis for any and all global trade". all you need is a money trading market. if there is arbitrage opportunities, then clever investors buy sell or hedge in whatever manner they need to in order to capitalize on the situation. thus the piles of cash lying around are snatched up and money markets self-stabilize. having a few huge banks might help the process be a little smoother. but as the current financial stress shows they can also cause it to be a lot worse.
whether the bailout package should have been given out is one question. i would probably say yes. the debt to GDP ratio is well below historic peaks, so i think it unlikely that complete financial collapse will result (since it didn't result previously). on the other hand letting the big banks fail would have created massive shocks that could have resulted in a dramatic recession.
so perhaps we should have bailed them out, then nationalized and auctioned them off piece by piece. if we can't allow big banks to fail then we must keep big banks from existing, since we know we can't prevent super bank managers from engaging in risk seeking behavior.
Only one major bank needed a bail out... citi... all the other major ones were fine... some have come out of this richer than they were before by far.
i am no expert. the bit about the banks needing it is what my macro professor says. it might just be the party line though.