We are calling destruction down on ourselves due to a lack of rational compassion. As I recall that is ancient wisdom. Encoded in some very old books.
And some more recent ones:
"Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful" Friedrich Nietzsche
Economic Facts and Fallacies
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
Hmmm... Heath Ledger ? Amy Winehouse ?Nanos wrote:> Their life's suck
I wonder if we made peoples lives better, would they use drugs less ?
As a general rule, I notice the more money/wealth anyone I know has, the less chance they are using drugs as regularly.
Wealth and Fame are not the secret to happiness. There are plenty of rich people using drugs regularly.
Nanos wrote: Except for the very religious people, who can be dirt poor and not use drugs.
Interestingly I once knew a heavy drug user who found religion, they stopped taking them, but none of their other bad habits changed! (Eg. they still stole/cheated/etc.)
What, inconsistancies with people ? Outrageous !
David
> Wealth and Fame are not the secret to happiness
I'd disagree there, the wealthy people I know are really far happier than the poor people I know.
Fame on the other hand is a two edged sword..
> It's all about sex, and attracting better
> quality mates.
Agreed.
> 2,000+ ? Are you serious ?
Yep, I've been in online forums (previously LAN based ones I've chatted like this for 20+ years.) for 13 years now and worked out last year that in that time I've posted over 1 million messages. (Being able to type 70wpm since I was 14 helps.)
If you know where to look you can see what I said 10 years ago
Also a few newsgroups.
> what is to become of us human workers when
> our services are no longer needed ?
>
> The people who own the machines will be the rich
> who have no further need for the poor.
They enjoy the fruits of the machines labour. Rather than a few people owning the machines and the rest of us unemployed, like now. Why not have collective ownership, just like a cooperative say and then the wealth created by the machines/etc. is shared between everyone, then as working hours go down, wealth goes up, so do wages.
I've experimented with such an approach in a MMORPG and it works well, with people earning 10x the norm salary wise for the same hours worked.
(It always strikes me as far better to have say 2 people employed working half the hours each than 1 person having to work all hours, sure its half the wages, but if you don't extract the profits out at the top, and share them more with everyone at the bottom you can afford to do it that way.)
> I have long since decided that MOST of our economy
> is frivolous.
Agreed.
(So much agreement! if we can agree so easily on what the problems are, can we agree on working solutions we can action in todays society that doesn't require governmental/law changes ?)
I'd disagree there, the wealthy people I know are really far happier than the poor people I know.
Fame on the other hand is a two edged sword..
> It's all about sex, and attracting better
> quality mates.
Agreed.
> 2,000+ ? Are you serious ?
Yep, I've been in online forums (previously LAN based ones I've chatted like this for 20+ years.) for 13 years now and worked out last year that in that time I've posted over 1 million messages. (Being able to type 70wpm since I was 14 helps.)
If you know where to look you can see what I said 10 years ago
Also a few newsgroups.
> what is to become of us human workers when
> our services are no longer needed ?
>
> The people who own the machines will be the rich
> who have no further need for the poor.
They enjoy the fruits of the machines labour. Rather than a few people owning the machines and the rest of us unemployed, like now. Why not have collective ownership, just like a cooperative say and then the wealth created by the machines/etc. is shared between everyone, then as working hours go down, wealth goes up, so do wages.
I've experimented with such an approach in a MMORPG and it works well, with people earning 10x the norm salary wise for the same hours worked.
(It always strikes me as far better to have say 2 people employed working half the hours each than 1 person having to work all hours, sure its half the wages, but if you don't extract the profits out at the top, and share them more with everyone at the bottom you can afford to do it that way.)
> I have long since decided that MOST of our economy
> is frivolous.
Agreed.
(So much agreement! if we can agree so easily on what the problems are, can we agree on working solutions we can action in todays society that doesn't require governmental/law changes ?)
MSimon:
I would never advocate the death penalty for drug-users, only drug-dealers.
Yes a minority may require drugs from the get-go. That is an issue of perscription, not total indiscriminate legalisation. I for one would take no issue with perscribing serious addicts heroine, those people you mentioned who have problems with traumatic memory THC or shizophrenics nicotine for that matter. These people must be diagnosed by a competent doctor who is sure that their particular situations would be enhanced rather than impeded through being medicated with such drugs.
I would also agree that there are people who are less likely to become addicted to drugs and can take drugs in moderation without ever getting addicted. I don't think its just down to genes though undoubtedly they would be a factor, but also their environment which would surely impact how often they end up taking them and whether they go over the addiction threshold. I believe that people who can use these drugs now and again without getting addicted, do not enhance their lives significantly by taking them. In otherwords these al-la-carte junkies would be just as well off if they never took the drugs.
Yet there is no denying that there is a large body of humanity that does not need to take drugs, is capable of getting addicted. Can have their lives ruined as a result of their addiction aswell as ruining the lives of those around them, yet would never have got addicted if they didn't start abusing them in the first place.
If you create an environment awash with readily available drugs for all you will get more addicts, cause and effect. If that were not the case then you wouldn't have local areas with drug problems, the drug problem would be uniformly distributed throughout the country.
I don't believe legalisation of drugs would create a Utopia, yes there would be less organized criminal gangs (though killing those criminal gang members would also reduce their numbers) but they would be replaced by a more pervasive yobbery and violence. As Nanos said if you see the negative impact alchohol has on the U.K. you will realize that total indiscriminate legalisation creates as many problems as it solves.
On alchohol I've toyed with the idea of issuing drinking licenses. I.e. letting people drink as often as they liked so long as they didn't cause trouble, but people who caused trouble and got involved in drunken brawls would get their licenses suspended and repeated drunken offenses would result in them being revoked. That would be a far greater disincentive to get in trouble as a result of drinking excessively then a night in the cell.
I would never advocate the death penalty for drug-users, only drug-dealers.
Yes a minority may require drugs from the get-go. That is an issue of perscription, not total indiscriminate legalisation. I for one would take no issue with perscribing serious addicts heroine, those people you mentioned who have problems with traumatic memory THC or shizophrenics nicotine for that matter. These people must be diagnosed by a competent doctor who is sure that their particular situations would be enhanced rather than impeded through being medicated with such drugs.
I would also agree that there are people who are less likely to become addicted to drugs and can take drugs in moderation without ever getting addicted. I don't think its just down to genes though undoubtedly they would be a factor, but also their environment which would surely impact how often they end up taking them and whether they go over the addiction threshold. I believe that people who can use these drugs now and again without getting addicted, do not enhance their lives significantly by taking them. In otherwords these al-la-carte junkies would be just as well off if they never took the drugs.
Yet there is no denying that there is a large body of humanity that does not need to take drugs, is capable of getting addicted. Can have their lives ruined as a result of their addiction aswell as ruining the lives of those around them, yet would never have got addicted if they didn't start abusing them in the first place.
If you create an environment awash with readily available drugs for all you will get more addicts, cause and effect. If that were not the case then you wouldn't have local areas with drug problems, the drug problem would be uniformly distributed throughout the country.
I don't believe legalisation of drugs would create a Utopia, yes there would be less organized criminal gangs (though killing those criminal gang members would also reduce their numbers) but they would be replaced by a more pervasive yobbery and violence. As Nanos said if you see the negative impact alchohol has on the U.K. you will realize that total indiscriminate legalisation creates as many problems as it solves.
On alchohol I've toyed with the idea of issuing drinking licenses. I.e. letting people drink as often as they liked so long as they didn't cause trouble, but people who caused trouble and got involved in drunken brawls would get their licenses suspended and repeated drunken offenses would result in them being revoked. That would be a far greater disincentive to get in trouble as a result of drinking excessively then a night in the cell.
Ravingdave:
On suspended animation
>What you are proposing doesn't result in any reformation and a small >punishment if any. Because I believe that human social dynamics is >virtually a constant, I have long thought that incorigibles should be >offered the opportunity to create their own community apart from the >rest of humanity. I dare say that they would very likely recreate a >relatively ordinary community with the same basic structure as exists >elsewhere in humanity. There would be the rich, the poor, the middle >class, the law enforcement, etc. Of course it would be a dictatorship with >the baddest guy in charge, but that's how all our societies started.
>In any case, while we're getting futuristic, guards will be very cheap >when they finally get the software written for them.
Yes, it does not do anything regarding reformation, but neither does prison. Infact send someone to prison increases the likelihood that they will reoffend. Suspended animation probably would not increase this likihood and would also be cheaper to maintain.
I completely disagree that it wouldn't result in any punishment. Being separated from you group of friends for say six months a year, when they have all moved on would be a major punishment. Also social interactions are very much based on telling stories, if you go away to another country you have a story to tell, if you are sent to prison, you have a story to tell. But if you are put into suspended animation you would have no story. You're wife or girlfriend could be cheating on you and you would be none-the-wiser. Your role in work would be replaced by someone else. Suspended animation would be a considerable punishment.
An if you don't think its punishment enough then you could have suspended animation and flogging.
* * * *
I completely disagree with sending the incorrigables away from society to form their own commune. What if they sent raiding parties from their commune into the surrounding neighbourhood? Another problem is its not a just way to punish people. In a rough society like that some criminals would be treated like crap, far worse then in prison while others would rise to the top and have the time of their lives.
Commited multiple rapes and murder? Tortured a few children for ten years on end? I sentence you to be dictator of a criminal commune where you can rape and murder as many of your underlings as you want get all the best criminal women and have the time of your life in the process!
Is that justice?
On suspended animation
>What you are proposing doesn't result in any reformation and a small >punishment if any. Because I believe that human social dynamics is >virtually a constant, I have long thought that incorigibles should be >offered the opportunity to create their own community apart from the >rest of humanity. I dare say that they would very likely recreate a >relatively ordinary community with the same basic structure as exists >elsewhere in humanity. There would be the rich, the poor, the middle >class, the law enforcement, etc. Of course it would be a dictatorship with >the baddest guy in charge, but that's how all our societies started.
>In any case, while we're getting futuristic, guards will be very cheap >when they finally get the software written for them.
Yes, it does not do anything regarding reformation, but neither does prison. Infact send someone to prison increases the likelihood that they will reoffend. Suspended animation probably would not increase this likihood and would also be cheaper to maintain.
I completely disagree that it wouldn't result in any punishment. Being separated from you group of friends for say six months a year, when they have all moved on would be a major punishment. Also social interactions are very much based on telling stories, if you go away to another country you have a story to tell, if you are sent to prison, you have a story to tell. But if you are put into suspended animation you would have no story. You're wife or girlfriend could be cheating on you and you would be none-the-wiser. Your role in work would be replaced by someone else. Suspended animation would be a considerable punishment.
An if you don't think its punishment enough then you could have suspended animation and flogging.
* * * *
I completely disagree with sending the incorrigables away from society to form their own commune. What if they sent raiding parties from their commune into the surrounding neighbourhood? Another problem is its not a just way to punish people. In a rough society like that some criminals would be treated like crap, far worse then in prison while others would rise to the top and have the time of their lives.
Commited multiple rapes and murder? Tortured a few children for ten years on end? I sentence you to be dictator of a criminal commune where you can rape and murder as many of your underlings as you want get all the best criminal women and have the time of your life in the process!
Is that justice?
Nanos:
Maybe my situation is different from yours so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be mixing the chicken up with the egg when you say that poverty causes drug abuse.
I too know of people who have drug problems, and yes they tend to be poorer and more strapped for cash than the people who don't. But many of them have come from good families and have been given every opportunity in life, its their drug problem that makes them poor not their poverty that gives them a drug problem. I remember giving the odd pound to some people I thought were homeless who were begging on the streets of Oxford when I first moved into Oxford. Later I ended up renting a house with someone who knew them. He told me they were all on heroine (he had a slight addiction to crack cocaine himself). But not only that, it turned out they had a flat, the man was sent to public school (in the U.K. for some reason "public school" means posh private school while "comprehensive school" means state-funded school) he had shares and a trust fund in his name worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, his parents just didn't give him much of the money because they knew he'd spend it all on heroine.
I went to a private school in Ireland and I can tell you there are plenty of people from repectable backgrounds with serious drug problems. One guy from my year died in a motorcycle accident in Thailand while high on drugs.
Maybe my situation is different from yours so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be mixing the chicken up with the egg when you say that poverty causes drug abuse.
I too know of people who have drug problems, and yes they tend to be poorer and more strapped for cash than the people who don't. But many of them have come from good families and have been given every opportunity in life, its their drug problem that makes them poor not their poverty that gives them a drug problem. I remember giving the odd pound to some people I thought were homeless who were begging on the streets of Oxford when I first moved into Oxford. Later I ended up renting a house with someone who knew them. He told me they were all on heroine (he had a slight addiction to crack cocaine himself). But not only that, it turned out they had a flat, the man was sent to public school (in the U.K. for some reason "public school" means posh private school while "comprehensive school" means state-funded school) he had shares and a trust fund in his name worth hundreds of thousands of pounds, his parents just didn't give him much of the money because they knew he'd spend it all on heroine.
I went to a private school in Ireland and I can tell you there are plenty of people from repectable backgrounds with serious drug problems. One guy from my year died in a motorcycle accident in Thailand while high on drugs.
> drinking licenses
Thats an idea I've not thought of, or heard of before.
FX [ adds to list of things to ponder about ]
> say that poverty causes drug abuse.
It would be interesting if there was any studies done to show differences between income groups. But I'd still stick by my experiences of meeting thousands of people that as a general rule, if they are poor and under 25, 9 out of 10 will be into drugs, both alcohol and illegal substances. Where as if I befriend some wealthy folk, its perhaps 1 to 2 out of 10.
I can quite agree though that either mine, yours or both of our experience pool only gives some level of accuracy of the problem in either income group and that your data may well be better than mine in having greater accuracy.
In which case, both groups have a problem.. (Or as mentioned, some have a problem rather than everyone.)
Thats an idea I've not thought of, or heard of before.
FX [ adds to list of things to ponder about ]
> say that poverty causes drug abuse.
It would be interesting if there was any studies done to show differences between income groups. But I'd still stick by my experiences of meeting thousands of people that as a general rule, if they are poor and under 25, 9 out of 10 will be into drugs, both alcohol and illegal substances. Where as if I befriend some wealthy folk, its perhaps 1 to 2 out of 10.
I can quite agree though that either mine, yours or both of our experience pool only gives some level of accuracy of the problem in either income group and that your data may well be better than mine in having greater accuracy.
In which case, both groups have a problem.. (Or as mentioned, some have a problem rather than everyone.)
I think alot of it is that poor people have less to lose.
We live in a society where a lot of things are against the law but few are well enforced, its easy to get a criminal record in Britain, which can act as a severe blemish on your CV. But once you have a fairly full one, because the jails are quite full people often get off with quite light punishments for quite severe crimes.
So you have two tiers, people with good jobs and career aspirations who desperately try to keep all the laws so they can keep their CVs squeaky clean and people lying on the safety net of society who find it almost impossible to move up because of their past record but because our socialist society gives them a tolerable quality of life no matter what they do they is very little they can do that will cause to sink much lower. Many in the bottom tier don't really give a toss about much at all.
We live in a society where a lot of things are against the law but few are well enforced, its easy to get a criminal record in Britain, which can act as a severe blemish on your CV. But once you have a fairly full one, because the jails are quite full people often get off with quite light punishments for quite severe crimes.
So you have two tiers, people with good jobs and career aspirations who desperately try to keep all the laws so they can keep their CVs squeaky clean and people lying on the safety net of society who find it almost impossible to move up because of their past record but because our socialist society gives them a tolerable quality of life no matter what they do they is very little they can do that will cause to sink much lower. Many in the bottom tier don't really give a toss about much at all.
Actually it is the high cost of drugs and all the time required for searching them out in a black market.its their drug problem that makes them poor not their poverty that gives them a drug problem.
When provided with a regular source of drugs 1/3 of Dr. Mark's patients got jobs.
Add in that crime rates go down very significantly and I think we have a winner.
Perfect? Far from it. Better than what we have today.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
In times past a man could move and start over.jmc wrote:I think alot of it is that poor people have less to lose.
We live in a society where a lot of things are against the law but few are well enforced, its easy to get a criminal record in Britain, which can act as a severe blemish on your CV. But once you have a fairly full one, because the jails are quite full people often get off with quite light punishments for quite severe crimes.
So you have two tiers, people with good jobs and career aspirations who desperately try to keep all the laws so they can keep their CVs squeaky clean and people lying on the safety net of society who find it almost impossible to move up because of their past record but because our socialist society gives them a tolerable quality of life no matter what they do they is very little they can do that will cause to sink much lower. Many in the bottom tier don't really give a toss about much at all.
Once you make that impossible then you get a group who will not try. After all what is the use?
A lot of this goes down to excessive punishment for failure.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Like I said, I've got no problem prescribing drugs to cases of extreme addiction. I'm still grossly opposed to any attempt to legalize them for casual use and I still think drug dealers operating on the black market for personal profit deserve to die.MSimon wrote:Actually it is the high cost of drugs and all the time required for searching them out in a black market.its their drug problem that makes them poor not their poverty that gives them a drug problem.
When provided with a regular source of drugs 1/3 of Dr. Mark's patients got jobs.
Add in that crime rates go down very significantly and I think we have a winner.
Perfect? Far from it. Better than what we have today.
The NIDA says you can't get addicted unless you have the genetic factors and some unspecified "environmental factor". I've made a pretty good case that the environmental factor is trauma. So the only people who can get "addicted" to drugs are those that need them. Which says that the drug dealers are serving an under served population. Kill them? If they weren't such scum they would deserve a medal.jmc wrote:Like I said, I've got no problem prescribing drugs to cases of extreme addiction. I'm still grossly opposed to any attempt to legalize them for casual use and I still think drug dealers operating on the black market for personal profit deserve to die.MSimon wrote:Actually it is the high cost of drugs and all the time required for searching them out in a black market.its their drug problem that makes them poor not their poverty that gives them a drug problem.
When provided with a regular source of drugs 1/3 of Dr. Mark's patients got jobs.
Add in that crime rates go down very significantly and I think we have a winner.
Perfect? Far from it. Better than what we have today.
BTW the illegal drug market is proof positive that supply and demand meet at a price.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
ravingdave
- Posts: 650
- Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:41 am
Nanos wrote:> Wealth and Fame are not the secret to happiness
I'd disagree there, the wealthy people I know are really far happier than the poor people I know.
Money doesn't make people happy, but it helps.
Nanos wrote:
> 2,000+ ? Are you serious ?
Yep, I've been in online forums (previously LAN based ones I've chatted like this for 20+ years.) for 13 years now and worked out last year that in that time I've posted over 1 million messages. (Being able to type 70wpm since I was 14 helps.)
If you know where to look you can see what I said 10 years ago
Also a few newsgroups.
Years ago (1991?) I was burning up local bulletin boards and eventually I took a peek into the MENSA echo. Being familiar with the reputation of MENSA I expected to see high level discussions of History, Philosophy, Politics, Science, etc. I was amazed to discover that the discussions were mundane and trivial. ( "My dog ate his dog food. He is such a pretty dog." e.g.)
I posted a message in which I said that I expected to see highly intelligent discussions of things like Science, Philosophy, etc. and I expressed suprise that there were none as far back as I could go in the message base. I then asked "Where are all the Smart people ? "
That opened up a firestorm the likes of which I have yet to see the equal. Well, I love a good flame war as well as the next person, and I went into it with Gusto. I responded to every single message they posted, and eventually I had a following. People claiming to be objective informed me that I had kicked all my oponents asses, and they had never laughed so hard in all their lives ! After awhile, people started getting civil, and then it just wasn't any fun anymore.
In any case, to get to something resembling a point, I had a similar experience to you. My typing speed got up to 72 wpm, and I was perusing probably a hundred messages every evening, but nothing in my heyday compares to being active on 2000 + forums.
Bravo.
Nanos wrote: > what is to become of us human workers when
> our services are no longer needed ?
>
> The people who own the machines will be the rich
> who have no further need for the poor.
They enjoy the fruits of the machines labour. Rather than a few people owning the machines and the rest of us unemployed, like now. Why not have collective ownership, just like a cooperative say and then the wealth created by the machines/etc. is shared between everyone, then as working hours go down, wealth goes up, so do wages.
The problem with this theory is that it flies completely in the face of historic human nature. People WANT a pecking order. People NEED a pecking order, and people will CREATE a pecking order. How can someone be better than everyone else if we're all equal ?
Wealth isn't ownership of land, money, or property. It's the demonstration of power to make others do your bidding. It's the human component that makes anything valuable. Take Gold for example. Compared to most other metals, the stuff is pretty darn useless. Yeah, it's used for electrical contacts, and a few other things here and there, but copper or iron is far more useful. Why is Gold so much more valuable?
Because people want it ! Why do they want it ? Cause it's valuable !
(geeze, talk about circular reasoning... ) No, the value of Gold is that it is rare and shiny. If it were rare and dull, it probably wouldn't have the same effect, but people make it into jewelry, which you agreed earlier is nothing more than a status symbol.
People demand their status symbols, even if they're nothing but symbols. It establishes their position in their social circles. (Social circles are dynamic and people can be of various grades in various catagories to achieve status. Think of the Historical Church vs. State. the leaders of each regarded themselves as the superior of the other. It worked out because they pretended to be equals.)
Giving EVERYONE the fruits of the machine's labor defeats the whole point ! (smile)
We have the most comfortable poor in the history of the world. They have luxuries that no kings in history ever had. There is no objective standard of poverty. They are poor because they are not rich ! ha ha ha (laughing insanely)
Nanos wrote: I've experimented with such an approach in a MMORPG and it works well, with people earning 10x the norm salary wise for the same hours worked.
(It always strikes me as far better to have say 2 people employed working half the hours each than 1 person having to work all hours, sure its half the wages, but if you don't extract the profits out at the top, and share them more with everyone at the bottom you can afford to do it that way.)
People would rather get all of the money and make the other guy do without. Have you ever heard the term "schadenfreude" ? It explains human nature in a nutshell.
Nanos wrote:
> I have long since decided that MOST of our economy
> is frivolous.
Agreed.
(So much agreement! if we can agree so easily on what the problems are, can we agree on working solutions we can action in todays society that doesn't require governmental/law changes ?)
Some of the answers might come in the form of "you can't get there from here. " But yeah, we can come up with ideas that would work, but I expect solutions will usually have a human nature violation in them somewhere. (catch 22)
David