h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just to go back a bit, Edward wrote:

'Obviously there's no gene for 'Crime'. That would be far too simplistic. But it's entirely possible that thare are some heritable (note 'heritable' - not quite the same as 'inheritable') traits that predispose some individuals towards crime, given certain social/environmental conditions - aggression; lack of empathy; limited ability to link actions to consequences.

Then the question is "What should we do about them?" '

I think that may be a bit backwards. The question shouldn't be "what do we do about the individuals who have heritable traits which predispose them to crime?" The question should perhaps be "What do we go about the certain 'social/environmental conditions' which trigger the predisposition?"

I agree...but that's too grandiose for those who deny the societal links. But even I we concentrate on the individual (supposed) genetic wrongdooers. it still gives us an issue about what to do about them. Eugenics? Internment without trial? The knee-jerk right wing ideas are utterly wide of the mark. It's the namby-pamby pinko *which are also appropriate to the non-genetic model* that actually work.

>>Poverty is directly linked to idleness.

Call me dense, but I really don't understand this sentence. What is meant by 'connected with'?

Does it mean that the idleness of a trustafarian is connected with poverty? Or that Prince Andrew is poor?

And what is the connection between the hard work of the immigrant cleaner and her wages? Or of he seventeen hours per day Nike-stitcher?

Or the *very* hard working parent doing unpaid childcare? Sometimes at the expense of wealth creation, but with ultimate benefit to wider society.

Granted, some people in this country could earn a little more, given access to a decent job (and the skills required by the employment market; and the social environment conducive to seeking and holding down a job;...etc. etc.).

But the bald statement "Poverty is directly linked to idleness" is, at best, meaningless, knee-jerk sloganeering.

It's certainly not sound economics - a least, Adam Smith didn't think it was.

'that's too grandiose for those who deny the societal links.'

Which brings my thoughts back to the Fox News coverage of the Virginia Tech killer in which he was simply characterized as 'evil' and perhaps even 'possessed by Satan.' And so, criminals are simply a threat to society which must be defended against rather than members of society who might be helped.

Now, if i post something about capitalism on the Virginia Tech thread the two threads will unite.

Yup. 'Guns don't kill people. Anomie kills people."

*call me dense*

OK, *You're dense*. But I really don't believe it.

I think the link between idleness and poverty is just the simple fact that many people who are idle don't make a lot of money as a result. That's not to say that there aren't idle rich people of course but the common sense is that idleness = less money. One could argue that the richest man in the world is indeed idle but then you would have to exactly define w**k. I imagine that giving away huge sums of money to charities is as least as taxing (if you'll excuse the pun) as creating those huge sums. Who works harder, the ditch digger or the programmer? Each might say the other, then again they could say themselves.

Statements like these:

"It's an important point because we have millions of people unemployed. There is no realistic attempt by government to help people back into employment in the short-term. With upwards of four million people effectively idle, this is the entire excuse given for mass immigration of supposedly temporary workers. To deny that being unemployed is linked to poverty (notwithstanding the myriad excuses), is to blind yourself to reality.

This is a capitalist society. Unless you're really, really lucky, if you don't work you can expect to be poor.

So no, I'm not backpedalling. I'm making the mistake of indulging those who are making a circus ring on the head of a pin."

are linked to being retarded. Not caused by, not the cause of, but linked.

http://www.qwantz.com/comics/comic2-1014.png

Anyone for link ping pong?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6594577.stm
"After three weeks, he received £97 for 20 hours' work in his first week, although £50 was deducted for accommodation costs."

Capitalism "its great". Oh no tha'ts frosties capitalism; that's people with money and power consolidating their wealth and screwing everyone else in the process, silly me always getting those two mixed up. You'd think it'd be easy to tell a mindless dog eat dog system perpetuated by greed and a breakfast cereal apart. Maybe I just need more sleep?

one love

Well...*of course* capitalism works. The question is, "For whom?".

Ask not for whom the bairn toils?

I can tell you it works relatively well for me, now if I could just become a member of the idle rich...

Indeed Edward, And not for our descendents if the C4 programme I saw earlier, 'The Human footprint', is anywhere near the truth.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/H/human_footprint/index.html?intcmp=homepage_box1

They gave a lot of statistics about the environmental effects of our western capitalism, which were presented visually by masses of various consumer goods laid out in various locations. Off the top of my head 2 statistics I remember were that in our lifetime we each produce on average 40 tons of landfill rubbish. And apparently one longhaul airflight produces as much CO2 as the average car in a year. Obviously I can't vouch for the absolute accuracy of the figures from a TV programme. But it certainly gave me food for thought.

(Oh and one slightly irrelevant stat, which ammused me, at any on time 0.7% of the world's population are pished.)

I say we all work together and try to increase that stat!

I saw a wonderful little piece on today about how oceanic shipping and (as you say) long haul flights contribute a huge percentage of greenhouse gasses and pollution. One company in Germany has produced an enormous automated parasail to augment ships' engines and they go into production this summer. On average, given that the wind will not always be favourable, ships have saved up to 30% of their fuel. When it's profitable, capitalism will always choose green.

Of course, give me a three masted schooner any day.

"And a star to steer her by" ( quote )

Novo
2

There have been many sensible posts on this thread, but I would like to ask the anti-capitalist side , what they envisage instead?

Surely there are now too many people around to stand in a queue waiting to be offered two chickens or a couple of rabbits to dig over someones back yard - just because they liked your face, or the cut of your jib.

Novo
2

>>When it's profitable, capitalism will always choose green.

That's a good point. One thing to be cautious of, though, is assigning intention to capitalists. Economics is impersonal. Capitalism is incapable of 'choosing' between green and non-green alternatives. The logic of the market is that enterprises constantly have to cut their cost bases in order to compete. Parasails will be used...because everyone else is suddenly using less fuel and is able to undercut transportation costs. Call centres will be outsourced overseas, because the personnel are cheaper. Goods will be manufactured in China because of their low-wage, environmentally unregulated market conditions. Etc. etc.

Capitalists might be screwing us...but it's nothing personal.

I'm not anti-capatalist per se.

I'm against the right of someone to screw his fellow man on the totally spurious grounds that 'Me making money is good for you'.

Given the right conditions/incentives/penalties, yes it can be good for all of us. But it needs controlling.

Likes Blues Shark I'm not anti-capitalist either
Capitalism isn't immoral, its amoral
I don't want to abolish it, just place limitations on its excesses