brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/07/85)
While not too many people keep "Better DEAD than RED" as their motto, I think it is important to point out that the opposite is a very dangerous viewpoint. It has been suggested that most people would prefer living in a soviet dictatorship to being nuked. That's quite true, but it misses the point. The real question is who would prefer soviet slavery to the RISK of nuclear war. Nobody asks for nuclear war. We got our arms buildup because we had to do something to protect ourselves from the soviets. Otherwise we would be another Yugoslavia, Czechosolvakia, Poland, East Germany, need I go on? Given that we had to do something, what choices did we have? In the early days, only the west had nukes, but eventually there was no stopping the East. From that point on, a nuclear defense was necessary. I don't like the excessive escalation and I certainly don't like the mismanagement that our government gives us, but I would rather have a nuke that only a madman would set off than live as a slave. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/11/85)
Chris Shaw suggests that the threat of soviet domination is low, and that nobody wants to rule the world anymore. This is very tempting to believe, but it was just put forward as a statement, and not backed up with much. I realize Russia is a long ways away, but remember that the official Soviet policy is world domination. They make no bones about it. Their declared official goal is World Communism. They will also tell you that to bring about World Communism, the dictatorship of the proletariat must take over first, normally with a revolution. Then, in theory, the dictatorship lasts long enough to spark true communism, then withers away. And of course, we see that happening in the USSR right now. 8-) If you think the soviets don't like taking over countries any more, have a chat with somebody who was in Czechoslovakia in 1968. I have, and it was one of the most harrowing tales I have heard. Tanks in the street, hiding from bullets behind windows. Narrow escape, moving at night. Now, if this had been the last affair in 17 years, I might believe they were softening up, be we all know what happened before the Moscow Olympics. The U.S. has its imperialist moments too, but the Manifest Destiny/Monroe Doctrine stopped being official policy a long time ago. Not so the USSR. Anyway, the U.S.'s imperialist actions don't excuse the U.S.S.R. In fact, they simply show how a nation that is highly sensative to public opinion can still be imperialist and get away with it. What do you think the Soviets can get away with? If the Sandanistas had defences, would the U.S. attack them? It wan't too long ago they tried to take West Berlin - only a strong west ready to airlift saved those people. After WWII, the Russians took over weakened countries left right and centre. Do you suggest that they stopped because they suddenly became nice? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cdshaw@watmum.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (06/11/85)
<<support SDI.. Soviet Domination Initiative>> I think that anyone who seriously contends that we are under the threat of Soviet domination is somewhat deluded. The only people under threat of S.D. are (maybe) the Afgans, and various & sundry client states around the world. But seriously, you & me having to learn Russian? Not bloody likely. Soviet (and American) experience abroad has shown that it is no longer possible to hold down a population for very long. Not when the whole population is completely against the idea. One must sincerely question whether any Kremlin or White House boss seriously wants world domination. That's for Napoleons and Hitlers. Historically (my guess only), we are in a period like Europe after 1820. The wars being fought now by the superpowers are not go-for-the-throat battles to the death, but are sorties in a continuous game of chess where nobody but the pawns lose. Europe in 1820 was tired of war, and for about 20-30 years, the only serious fighting that happened was in the building of empires in Asia & Africa. Only when serious power re-alignments happened did serious European wars happen. The unifications of Italy & Germany, for example, upset the British/French power balance, and started serious problems of who was going to run things after all. The result was WW1. The situation now is similar. US & USSR are in the balance, playing a variation of the empire game. The real crack-up will happen when a third power starts to do the same. The only difference between then & now is that if either chess king buys it, we all do. This means we have to be careful. Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness !
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/11/85)
> <<support SDI.. Soviet Domination Initiative>> > > I think that anyone who seriously contends that we are under the threat of > Soviet domination is somewhat deluded. The only people under threat of S.D. > are (maybe) the Afgans, and various & sundry client states around the world. > But seriously, you & me having to learn Russian? Not bloody likely. > > Soviet (and American) experience abroad has shown that it is no longer possible > to hold down a population for very long. Not when the whole population is > completely against the idea. > > One must sincerely question whether any Kremlin or White House boss seriously > wants world domination. That's for Napoleons and Hitlers. I don't think that physical domination is seen as undesirable by either side though; they should each be provided with no opportunity to practice this. I think you are right it is hard to suppress a dissident population. It just has to be made clear to both that this would be the case and that extermination would not be a viable approach. I don't see possession of nuclear (or chemical/biological) weapons as necessary for this. I do think they are quite committed to the economic domination of as much of the planet as possible. It is also not clear to me that for people like R. Reagan in the US and whoever (unknown to me) in the USSR this is not a (quasi) religious issue; I mean a guy can only say "godless monsters" so many times before you have start wondering... . . . > > > Chris Shaw watmath!watmum!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath > University of Waterloo > In doubt? Eat hot high-speed death -- the experts' choice in gastric vileness John Chapman
fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) (06/11/85)
In article <280@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >While not too many people keep "Better DEAD than RED" as their motto, >I think it is important to point out that the opposite is a very >dangerous viewpoint. > >It has been suggested that most people would prefer living in a >soviet dictatorship to being nuked. That's quite true, but it misses >the point. The real question is who would prefer soviet slavery to the As I've said before, I believe in freedom and democracy! However, to be realistic slavery does not form any part of communist philosophy. I believe the word "dictatorship" is also not applicable. Communism is at best distastful. The idea that a large economy can be controlled by legislation and regulation is a pipe dream. It costs more than it gains. This is why the western world enjoys a higher standard of living. So given the choice, I would choose the system of government that gives me the greatest freedom to choose my lifestyle, etc. But lets not heap false abuse on the Soviets. It only waekens our credability. >RISK of nuclear war. > >Nobody asks for nuclear war. We got our arms buildup because we had >to do something to protect ourselves from the soviets. Otherwise we >would be another Yugoslavia, Czechosolvakia, Poland, East Germany, >need I go on? > Yes, you forgot Afganistan. I believe the solution does not lie in weapons, but rather in getting people to change the concept of hatred that is build up on both sides.We all have to live with a certain amount of propaganda, People are pretty much the same the world over. We should all try to be a little more understanding. If we can't, we'll all be dead. Cheers, Fred Williams
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (06/12/85)
> As I've said before, I believe in freedom and democracy! However, > to be realistic slavery does not form any part of communist philosophy. > I believe the word "dictatorship" is also not applicable. Communism is > at best distastful. The idea that a large economy can be controlled by > legislation and regulation is a pipe dream. It costs more than it gains. > This is why the western world enjoys a higher standard of living. Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. e.g.: the best example of "free entreprise" taken literally is the "free trade" district in the Philippines. Multinationals are free to employ local labour at whatever wages they desire. There, the most common means of ensuring employee satisfaction is hiring a few security guards with machine guns and giving them orders to shoot at any sign of rebellion. It sure works wonders and does it ever bring the cost of labour down! -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
fred@mnetor.UUCP (06/12/85)
> >Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we >support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western >multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. >e.g.: the best example of "free entreprise" taken literally is the "free >trade" district in the Philippines. Multinationals are free to employ >local labour at whatever wages they desire. There, the most common means of >ensuring employee satisfaction is hiring a few security guards with machine >guns and giving them orders to shoot at any sign of rebellion. It sure works >wonders and does it ever bring the cost of labour down! Oh, come now! Don't beat around the bush. What are you really trying to say? Seriously though, I can understand your anger at such a situation. I must admit I was not familiar with this situation, but if you say that is the way it is in the Philippines I won't argue. However, Even given the extent to which this is practised it cannot account for our standard of living. We just do not have that much trade with the "have not" nations. They could not influence our economy the same way the US or Japan do. The major trading partners of developed countries are other developed countries. We cannot be all treating each other that way. It just wouldn't work. The major key is industrialisation and free enterprise. Rewards must exist predominantly for results! That is how you get results. If you pay people good wages for being unemployed then you will get people who are skilled in that area. (Note. I don't mean that this is the only way people become unemployed. It also happens as a result of prime ministers allowing interest rates to soar to 22% so that businesses can no longer afford to finance new enterprises. etc.) >-- >Sophie Quigley >{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie Cheers, Fred Williams
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/18/85)
> Soviet ... experience abroad has shown that it is no longer possible > to hold down a population for very long. Not when the whole population is > completely against the idea. Tell it to the Afghans; I'm sure they'll be pleased to know. As it stands, unless they get serious outside help (notably antiaircraft weapons), they are under Soviet domination for the foreseeable future. And it's not because they like the idea, or are unwilling to fight it. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/19/85)
> Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we > support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western > multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. Don't fool yourself. This may -- repeat, may, although I don't believe it -- be the reason why our higher standard of living continues, but it is most emphatically not the way we got to this point in the first place. It is fashionable, particularly in developing countries, to blame the big bad developed countries and the big bad multinationals for the woes of the rest of the world. This overlooks major factors such as cultural issues (e.g., involvement in commerce considered a mark of low status) and government mismanagement (e.g., monopolization of resources and capital by the small elite that runs most "developing" countries [not just the right-wing dictatorships, either!]). Multinationals are popular scapegoats because they divert attention away from the need to make disruptive and unpopular changes to overcome internal problems. The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural dominance by trampling others (although once they reached it there was indeed quite a bit of trampling). They reached it by a form of natural selection: they developed a culture that was better suited to rapid progress and internal economic growth than the world's other cultures. The undoubted evils perpetrated against some developing societies by some western entities should not blind us to this. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/19/85)
> > Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we > > support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western > > multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. > > It is fashionable, particularly in developing countries, to blame the > big bad developed countries and the big bad multinationals for the woes > of the rest of the world. This overlooks major factors such as cultural > issues (e.g., involvement in commerce considered a mark of low status) > and government mismanagement (e.g., monopolization of resources and > capital by the small elite that runs most "developing" countries [not > just the right-wing dictatorships, either!]). Multinationals are popular > scapegoats because they divert attention away from the need to make > disruptive and unpopular changes to overcome internal problems. This is all a chicken and egg debate. Most developping countries are badly managed (often by a minority of their own who don't care about the majority, witness the likes of Idi Amin, Bokassa and co.). Some of these were just as badly managed before colons even settled in, so colonisation cannot even always be blamed for setting a precedent of corrupt management. Some were not even ever colonised, such as ethiopia. However, multinationals do take advantage of the corruption that is already in place with the result that we, in the developped world are all the richer for it. Therefore my point is still valid. Multinationals (or multinational interests) sometimes do play an active part in maintaining that corruption, therefore they are not innocent. Multinational interests were the cause behind the reinstatement of the Shah in Iran when he had been replaced by a (more) democratic government. Multinational interests were the cause behind the Chilean coup in 73 when the democratically elected government of Allende was ousted to be replaced by a military dictatorship. They are the cause behind the pressure that is now being applied on Nicaragua, whose government is at least as democratically elected as other governments in the region are. > > The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural > dominance by trampling others (although once they reached it there was If colonialism is not trampling, I don't know what is. Before colonialism, it wasn't quite clear that the western nations were economically dominant. > indeed quite a bit of trampling). They reached it by a form of natural > selection: they developed a culture that was better suited to rapid > progress and internal economic growth than the world's other cultures. > The undoubted evils perpetrated against some developing societies by > some western entities should not blind us to this. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
makaren@alberta.UUCP (Darrell Makarenko) (06/19/85)
> > Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we > > support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western > > multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. > > Don't fool yourself. This may -- repeat, may, although I don't believe > it -- be the reason why our higher standard of living continues, but it > is most emphatically not the way we got to this point in the first place. > > The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural > dominance by trampling others (although once they reached it there was > indeed quite a bit of trampling). They reached it by a form of natural > selection: they developed a culture that was better suited to rapid > progress and internal economic growth than the world's other cultures. > Give me a break!
clarke@utcs.UUCP (06/19/85)
In article <5703@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Don't fool yourself, we enjoy a higher standard of living because we >> support dictatorships in developping countries who support big western >> multinationals who plunder their resources and use their people as slaves. > >Don't fool yourself. This may -- repeat, may, although I don't believe >it -- be the reason why our higher standard of living continues, but it >is most emphatically not the way we got to this point in the first place. > >... > >The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural >dominance by trampling others.... >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Remember what the British did to the Indian cotton industry in the early 1800's? Remember how important the British cotton industry was to British industrialization, once it had finished off the Indians? I'm sure there were lots of prouder moments, but even non-historians like you and me ought to know about that particularly juicy bit of trampling. Jim Clarke
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/19/85)
> > The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural > > dominance by trampling others (although once they reached it there was > > If colonialism is not trampling, I don't know what is. Before colonialism, > it wasn't quite clear that the western nations were economically dominant. Then how do you explain tiny Western armies conquering enormous existing nations, some of them moderately sophisticated? My point was that the West's steep climb in technology and standard of living started long before colonialism existed, and was a prerequisite for colonialism rather than vice-versa. I don't deny that colonialism constitutes trampling, but this was an effect, not a fundamental cause, of Western growth. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/19/85)
> Remember what the British did to the Indian cotton industry in the early > 1800's? Remember how important the British cotton industry was to British > industrialization, once it had finished off the Indians? British industrialization was already well underway by the early 1800's, as I recall. And the West was clearly the dominant culture on the planet well before that. Non-dominant cultures are not in a position to forcibly suppress competing industries on the other side of the world! I certainly agree that the West took advantage of its position once it *had* it. But the notion that the West climbed out of the mud in the first place by pushing others back down into it is silly. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clarke@utcs.UUCP (06/20/85)
In article <5710@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Remember what the British did to the Indian cotton industry in the early >> 1800's? Remember how important the British cotton industry was to British >> industrialization, once it had finished off the Indians? > >British industrialization was already well underway by the early 1800's, >as I recall. But far from firmly established. And I don't think there were a lot of other industries so suitable for mechanization as the cloth industry. At any rate, it *was* the cotton industry that took off -- and it would have been delayed, at least for a couple of decades, if it had been in fair commercial competition with the Indian industry. > And the West was clearly the dominant culture on the planet >well before that. Non-dominant cultures are not in a position to forcibly >suppress competing industries on the other side of the world! I certainly >agree that the West took advantage of its position once it *had* it. But >the notion that the West climbed out of the mud in the first place by >pushing others back down into it is silly. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Well, apart from that phrase "in the first place", which is a bit of a weasel -- we all start at home, after all -- the notion doesn't seem at all silly to me, but perfectly natural. Everyone else did it that way. The only difference I can see between us and the Mongol hordes is that we last longer, and our means of oppression are a lot more sophisticated. Of course it's not always "oppression"; I'm glad I grew up in this culture, and most people who have tried two have a hard time rejecting ours. But there's a bad side too, and you can't just dismiss complaints of exploitation as "silly".
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/20/85)
> Well, apart from that phrase "in the first place", which is a bit of a > weasel -- we all start at home, after all -- ... > there's a bad side too, and you can't just dismiss complaints of exploitation > as "silly". Who's dismissing them as silly? If you re-read my past postings, I have quite explicitly said that the West has abused its dominant position. My point was that "in the first place" is *not* a weasel -- we started out at home, and rose a long way under our own steam before we reached a position where we could start to oppress others. To repeat a previous point: a culture that is *physically capable* of oppressing people on the other side of the planet is hardly primitive or undeveloped. It may be distasteful in certain ways, but it is hardly undeveloped. > ... it *was* the cotton industry that took off -- and it would have > been delayed, at least for a couple of decades, if it had been in fair > commercial competition with the Indian industry. In other words, the net effect of leaving the Indian industry alone would have been a modest delay in Western industrialization. This hardly sounds to me like a solid case for the idea that our accomplishments fundamentally depend on the oppression of others. I have no quarrel with the notion that the later part of our rise (after, say, 1800) was speeded up moderately by exploitation of others. But vitally dependent on it? No. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clarke@utcs.UUCP (06/21/85)
In article <5712@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Well, apart from that phrase "in the first place", which is a bit of a >> weasel -- we all start at home, after all -- ... >> there's a bad side too, and you can't just dismiss complaints of exploitation >> as "silly". > >Who's dismissing them as silly? If you re-read my past postings, I have >quite explicitly said that the West has abused its dominant position. >My point was that "in the first place" is *not* a weasel -- we started >out at home, and rose a long way under our own steam before we reached >a position where we could start to oppress others. It is a weasel (apologies to weasel-lovers: maybe I shouldn't have picked that word in the first place) in the context of a discussion on whether or not western nations have a history of colonial exploitation from the beginning of their colonial activities. It is a weasel because it implies that we are thinking about the history of our culture from its own beginning -- if that event is well-defined -- rather than from when it began to colonize abroad. I think the question we started with (if *that* event is well-defined) is something like, "Did western industrialization receive significant benefit by mistreatment of colonies?" My answer is a loud, "I don't know," followed by a quieter, "Well, there are some unpleasant but significant examples." > To repeat a previous >point: a culture that is *physically capable* of oppressing people on >the other side of the planet is hardly primitive or undeveloped. It >may be distasteful in certain ways, but it is hardly undeveloped. I still like the Mongolian example. It's a long way from Ulan Bator to Moscow, especially when you're busy in Delhi at the same time. And (sorry, Mongolian-lovers) I don't think the Golden Horde could be described as "developed" in the terms of this discussion. It might even be called "primitive" by comparison with, say, Union Carbide. [Most people I talk to think I'm a bit of a reactionary. I don't know why I'm sounding like this here. Electronic conversations do strange things to a guy's personality.]
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/21/85)
> It is a weasel ... in the context of a discussion > on whether or not western nations have a history of colonial exploitation > from the beginning of their colonial activities... > I think the question we started with > (if *that* event is well-defined) is something like, "Did western > industrialization receive significant benefit by mistreatment of colonies?" Funny, I thought the question we started with was the all-too-common assertion that the wealth of the Western world is fundamentally and primarily the result of oppression of the colonies. And I don't recall "industrialization" (as opposed to the more general issue of "wealth") being part of the original question at all. As I've said, I am willing to concede modest-but-significant benefits to the later phases of Western growth from colonial oppression. What I dispute is the silly notion that the West would have gotten nowhere without other people to exploit. Proponents of that view seemingly have never grasped the concept of a non-zero-sum game. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/24/85)
. . . > The western nations did not reach their position of economic and cultural > dominance by trampling others (although once they reached it there was > indeed quite a bit of trampling). They reached it by a form of natural > selection: they developed a culture that was better suited to rapid > progress and internal economic growth than the world's other cultures. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > The undoubted evils perpetrated against some developing societies by > some western entities should not blind us to this. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry I don't think this is precisely true. The type of economy we are talking about *requires* constant expansion and *external* markets. Originally external may have meant the next village/town however eventually a country's economy reached it's limits and economic/physical domination of other cultural/economic entities became a necessity for the (required) continued expansion. Social Darwinism is a dangerous paradigm.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/24/85)
. . . > Then how do you explain tiny Western armies conquering enormous existing > nations, some of them moderately sophisticated? My point was that the > West's steep climb in technology and standard of living started long before > colonialism existed, and was a prerequisite for colonialism rather than > vice-versa. I don't deny that colonialism constitutes trampling, but this > was an effect, not a fundamental cause, of Western growth. ^^^^^^ > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry It was a requirement of perpetuating the system.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/25/85)
. . . > > I think the question we started with > > (if *that* event is well-defined) is something like, "Did western > > industrialization receive significant benefit by mistreatment of colonies?" > > Funny, I thought the question we started with was the all-too-common > assertion that the wealth of the Western world is fundamentally and > primarily the result of oppression of the colonies. And I don't recall > "industrialization" (as opposed to the more general issue of "wealth") > being part of the original question at all. One thing never agreed on in this discussion is: when do you start measuring from? Henry you seem to want to begin measuring before full scale colonization; but how far back? > > As I've said, I am willing to concede modest-but-significant benefits > to the later phases of Western growth from colonial oppression. What I > dispute is the silly notion that the West would have gotten nowhere without > other people to exploit. Proponents of that view seemingly have never How can you say where it would have gotten *without* colonial oppression? The chinese had technology, knowledge etc. but obviously didn't travel the same path as the "west". Would the west have done anything of major importance if they had limited themselves to, say, europe? The major force/power/whatever of the west today is the US, a direct result of colonial oppression. Without the relatively free and easy access to raw materials and resources, the slave labour for all sorts of work, the (at first) cheap furs etc. from indians and (later) the free land (once it was taken away from the indians) how far would things have gone? Perhaps the extra hour or more a day that someone had to cogitate because they had a slave resulted in all sorts of new knowledge, techniques etc. Would a similar european power have evolved with their limited (and somewhat exhausted) resources if north america had never been colonized? Would the european economies have survived without the influx given by colonization? All that technology etc. may have been completely useless *unless* it was used to dominate others. I don't know the answer to these; although I have some opinions I don't think anyone can say what would have happened or how important a single facet was. > grasped the concept of a non-zero-sum game. Sure it's a non-zero sum game thats not the point though. The point (for me anyway) is: given the wealth that exists at any given point in time - how is it distributed?, and - how does this distribution change with time? Do the rich always get richer (relative to the poor)? etc. etc. Where rich can mean education, health, access to information, ability to travel.... as well as material things. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry John Chapman ...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/25/85)
> ... The type of economy we are talking > about *requires* constant expansion and *external* markets. Originally > external may have meant the next village/town however eventually a > country's economy reached it's limits ... If the internal economies of the Western nations have limits, there is no evidence for them in any major economic indicator. Disregarding short-term fluctuations and compensating for inflation, the *internal* trade and commerce of the Western nations is monotonic-increasing even today, and has been for a number of centuries. Remember, this is not a zero-sum game we are talking about. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/27/85)
> One thing never agreed on in this discussion is: when do you start > measuring from? Henry you seem to want to begin measuring before > full scale colonization; but how far back? It's hard to say just when the rise of the West began; one can make a persuasive argument, I am told, for quite a bit of technological progress in medieval times. Certainly the process was well underway by the time of the Renaissance. > ... Would the west have done > anything of major importance if they had limited themselves to, say, > europe? The major force/power/whatever of the west today is the > US, a direct result of colonial oppression [against the Amerinds]... Western Europe as a whole has just as big a GNP as the US, and could have just as much clout in world affairs if it could manage to act in unison. > ... Perhaps the extra > hour or more a day that someone had to cogitate because they had > a slave resulted in all sorts of new knowledge, techniques etc. People who are living in Fat City -- e.g., owning slaves -- seldom are major sources of innovation and invention. Having people to do the work for you means you think less, not more. > ... I don't know the answer to these; although I have some > opinions I don't think anyone can say what would have happened or > how important a single facet was. Inability to be certain != inability to know anything. > Sure it's a non-zero sum game thats not the point though. The > point (for me anyway) is: given the wealth that exists at any > given point in time - how is it distributed?, and - how does > this distribution change with time? ... Unfortunately, it *is* the point. By asking "how does the distribution change with time" as the major question, you are assuming that relative levels of wealth are important and absolute levels are not. The two are identical only if you assume a zero-sum game. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is only half the truth; the other half is "the rich get richer and so do the poor (although not as much)". Most everyone in the Western nations today is richer than most anyone was 500 years ago, even though the distribution of total wealth is still very uneven. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/28/85)
> > ... The type of economy we are talking > > about *requires* constant expansion and *external* markets. Originally > > external may have meant the next village/town however eventually a > > country's economy reached it's limits ... > > If the internal economies of the Western nations have limits, there is > no evidence for them in any major economic indicator. Disregarding > short-term fluctuations and compensating for inflation, the *internal* > trade and commerce of the Western nations is monotonic-increasing even > today, and has been for a number of centuries. Remember, this is not a > zero-sum game we are talking about. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > Yes but increasing how fast? Would we today (without external trade) be at a level that we were at 200-300 years ago (with external trade). Look at what happens to our economy when for example the US puts a tariff on our lumber or hogs or ore.
jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman) (06/28/85)
> > One thing never agreed on in this discussion is: when do you start > > measuring from? Henry you seem to want to begin measuring before > > full scale colonization; but how far back? > > It's hard to say just when the rise of the West began; one can make a > persuasive argument, I am told, for quite a bit of technological progress > in medieval times. Certainly the process was well underway by the time > of the Renaissance. > > > ... Would the west have done > > anything of major importance if they had limited themselves to, say, > > europe? The major force/power/whatever of the west today is the > > US, a direct result of colonial oppression [against the Amerinds]... > > Western Europe as a whole has just as big a GNP as the US, and could have > just as much clout in world affairs if it could manage to act in unison. Perhaps this is another benefit of colonization; a huge, rich, land taken and controlled by (virtually) a single group. Europes technological expertise (which is what we were talking about I think) has not enabled them to be a world power because the way europe runs "it's" society is the dominant factor. > > > ... Perhaps the extra > > hour or more a day that someone had to cogitate because they had > > a slave resulted in all sorts of new knowledge, techniques etc. > > People who are living in Fat City -- e.g., owning slaves -- seldom are > major sources of innovation and invention. Having people to do the work > for you means you think less, not more. If the work you are having them do for you is thought work then that is true but that is obviously not what I was talking about. Having someone to do the grungy/menial/physical work for you (even if it is just providing the bare necessities and not "Fat City" stuff) may be all that gives you the opportunity to indulge in thought. > > > ... I don't know the answer to these; although I have some > > opinions I don't think anyone can say what would have happened or > > how important a single facet was. > > Inability to be certain != inability to know anything. True. It does mean one should probably not state lossely supported theories as fact though. > > > Sure it's a non-zero sum game thats not the point though. The > > point (for me anyway) is: given the wealth that exists at any > > given point in time - how is it distributed?, and - how does > > this distribution change with time? ... > > Unfortunately, it *is* the point. By asking "how does the distribution > change with time" as the major question, you are assuming that relative > levels of wealth are important and absolute levels are not. The two are Well perhaps we should just agree to disagree then because I think that that is a very good indicator of a society's success. > identical only if you assume a zero-sum game. "The rich get richer and > the poor get poorer" is only half the truth; the other half is "the rich > get richer and so do the poor (although not as much)". Most everyone in > the Western nations today is richer than most anyone was 500 years ago, > even though the distribution of total wealth is still very uneven. > -- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology