Elevated from comments

I thought this exchange from the comments thread of the post that precedes this one was worth a post of its own.

I wrote,

... when I talk about society going downhill, I'm mainly comparing present times to the 1940s and '50s. Although there were obvious social problems back then, most notably racism, the overall social picture was considerably brighter than it is today. Compare statistics on violent crime, divorce, drug abuse, or pretty much any other measure of societal well-being.

Larry Boy responded,

But that seems to be a self-contradictory statement to me, because if you're talking about the 1940's and 50's, our worldview was *much more* materialistic back then. I don't remember the source, but I'm quite certain, for instance, that I read somewhere that belief in the paranormal was almost half as low back then (or something). Also, the prevailing psychology was behaviourism.

So where does spirituality vs. atheism enter the picture, really? All of this seems to be a cultural trend, if you ask me, not a matter of metaphysical views. Again, I ask you to consider the fact that Japan, a very materialistic and "western" society (make no mistake about it), has extremely low crime rates compared to most Western countries.

To which I said,

>if you're talking about the 1940's and 50's, our worldview was *much more* materialistic back then.

I disagree. Religion was a much bigger part of the cultural landscape in the 1940s and '50s than it is today. Look at Hollywood movies of the period. Religious values were taken for granted by most people, including many intellectuals. Today the trend is away from religion, and among intellectuals the trend is toward outright demonization of religion.

I don't think belief in the paranormal has much to do with anything. The paranormal encompasses many things. Belief in ESP or alien abductions has little to do with religious or spiritual values, or with the search for meaning in life.

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that Larry Boy may be a little too young to remember the time period in question. I grew up in the early 1960s, just in time to catch the tail end of mid-century American culture. It was a very, very different world from the one that kids grow up in today. There were no sex ed classes for fourth graders, no DARE signs outside schools, no free access to porn for anyone with a modem (there were no modems), no R-rated TV shows, no firecrotch snapshots of teen ingenues, no lesbian kisses at awards shows, no urine-soaked cricifixes in museums, etc. The Sound of Music was a big hit movie. It was probably a more naive and more repressed era, but kids had a chance to be kids, sheltered from the darker side of life.

Now, that world is gone, and we have Columbine, Virginia Tech, millions of drug addicts, urban warfare in the inner cities, street gangs branching out into rural areas, twelve-year-olds being raped by thirteen-year-olds, crack babies, AIDS ...

Something has changed. And the pervasive sense that life has no meaning, no higher purpose, and no ultimate point is, I think, the root cause of much of this change. It's not simply a matter of believing in life after death, but believing that life continues because we have some ultimate destiny that we are meant to fulfill. This sense of personal destiny is what has given meaning to people's lives throughout history, and in its growing absence, there is a bad kind of craziness afoot in the world.

Comments

[Alex]

"This sense of personal destiny is what has given meaning to people's lives throughout history, and in its growing absence, there is a bad kind of craziness afoot in the world."

There have been some good points in this discussion, but what exactly are we supposed to do. Modern society is built to cater to the lowest common denominator. How can we expect it to spoonfeed its citizens when it comes to these questions? Why would we want it to? I have to remind you of what can happen when "higher purpose" ideologies take over a whole society: the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Communist atrocities, etc. People need to take some personal responsibility and determine the answers to these questions to the best of their ability. My opinion is that this is something that we can only solve individually.

Well, I think it would be fair to say that, at the very least, the 1940s and '50s was not *less* materialistic than today's society. Again, what you were asking, initially, was whether or not the belief in the extinction of consciousness at death is responsible for the moral degradation of our society.

I doubt it is. I believe cultural factors are lot more important. Again, I ask you to consider how Japan, which is a very, very materialistic society (I have lived there myself), is able to keep their crime rates so low. Is it because morality and respect for one's fellow human beings is part of their heritage, or is it because they possess certain metaphysical beliefs (which, I repeat, they do not)?

[Larry Boy]

Last post was by me, Larry Boy. (1940s and '50s *were*, it should be. Sorry.)

[Ulysses]

Speaking of Japan, where I have lived too and still have some good Japanese friends, I disagree with the assertion that Japan is a very materialistic society. I found the Japanese to be very spiritual, but in a different way that we are accustomed to use that word in our Western society. For me spirituality is a sense of higher and ultimate purpose beyond this brief physical experience we call life, and it may include some concept of God or not –anthropomorphic or not--. Obviously spirituality and organized religions are two different things, and in that sense Japanese seems to be very spiritual from my own experience. I also think that a combination of uniformity in their culture, as well as a very strong sense of community and compassion for the less fortunate, plus a strong economy, helps the Japanese to keep their crimes rates so low.

[Michael Tymn]

Having also lived in Japan for several years, I agree with Ulysses; however, I think there is a 10-15 year lag in the cultural disintegration. Unless something catastrophic happens, Japan will be where we are by around 2020.

I also think you have to make the distinction between materialism and hedonism. The former can have a certain humanistic attitude with it. In hedonism, it's every person for himself -- eat, drink, and be merry. Hedonism is simply materialism at an extreme and without checks and balances. At least that's how I see it.

[Leo]

I agree with your Michael Prescott there are many scientists who are materialists i understand and I everyone else does that it's no wonder why they should take religion seriously but throwing the baby out with the bathwater is what most materialist's do.

[william]

In statistics we talk about causal correlation and two to five significant variables being responsible for 80 per cent of the outcome. Much research and learning is needed to determine what variables can be causally correlated with the problems that have been discussed here.

The problem with research is that the bias of the researchers almost always alters the outcomes. Example a group of religious researchers might conclude that people need to be more religious and a group of atheists’ researchers might reach the conclusion that the significant variable was too much religion.

I think America is considered the most religious of the industrialized world and we still seem to have an abundance of problems. The religious people I talk to seem to think more people should be in church on Sundays.

From my point of view one of the changes needed is the format of religious practice in America has to change from Sundays with a few songs and a lecture (i.e. sermon) to some type of interactive experiences that touch our inner most being. Blogs like this one may be providing these interactive experiences that churches are not providing.

In Japan they have a saying that problems are opportunities. This materialistic and atheist phase may have been needed to break the shackles of illogical religious beliefs. A word in Japan that appears to apply to more than making quality Toyota’s is Kaizen. It means on-going continuous improvement and this concept may also apply to human and soul growth and development. Often things can look worst before they get better.

Also life is about process; and we have become a results-oriented society and the sub optimization this is causing in our schools and organizations is monumental.

[Larry Boy]

> Speaking of Japan, where I have lived too and still have some good Japanese friends, I disagree with the assertion that Japan is a very materialistic society. I found the Japanese to be very spiritual, but in a different way that we are accustomed to use that word in our Western society. For me spirituality is a sense of higher and ultimate purpose beyond this brief physical experience we call life, and it may include some concept of God or not –anthropomorphic or not--.

Well, obviously, belief in some spiritual reality is as widespread in Japan as in the West (a majority of people believe in it, I think, in both societies). When I say that Japan is materialistic I simply mean that a large proportion of the population is atheistic/agnostic, just as in the West, and that it's as much taboo there as here among scientists and academics. When I speak with my Japanese friends about these topics, I find that the attitudes are pretty much the same there as in the west: some will say it's nonsense, others will find it persuasive, etc. People have a tendency to mystify Japan and the Japanese people, even idealize them, but my impression is that they're very much like us in most ways (but different in many ways, too, of course). But then I'm from Sweden not the U.S.

And yes, the Japanese have a strong sense of community, but that's part of their cultural heritage and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with spiritual or metaphysical or even philosophical beliefs.

[Tony M]

The difference between the 1950s and today is that back then, people suffered quietly behind closed doors. Now they do it loudly on Jerry Springer and Maury Povich. (I am reminded of the line form the Chekov story Gooseberries "Only mute statistics speak. So many gallons of vodka drunk...")

That is only somewhat of a joke. But if fewer people had affairs or extra marital sex in the 50s, or fewer people abused substances, it may be that people had fewer choices back then. Much of it was economic necessity. Without the disposable income and affluence of today, for example, women more or less had to work extremely hard at home to keep a family going. Families were cramped and larger, reducing privacy. Young men had to get jobs and if young people wanted sex, they had to get married and if they got married they had kids and so on... You were more locked in.

Two things have changed. First is greater affluence. Compare, for example, the expense of a typical lower middle class family going out for dinner in the 50s and now. Back then, it was rare and comparatively very expensive. Now, families routinely go to restaurants. (Thereby reducing the need for a full time domestic parent.) With affluence comes choice, with choice comes the opportunity to for some of the less savory yet ever-present aspects of human nature to emerge.

The other thing that has changed may have something to do with Michael’s argument about spirituality, but it may also be the result of economic forces. Crudely put, the "I" has replaced "Society". Personal gratification and pride are more important socially that ‘the greater good’. Worse, this has lead to the idea that we are in competition with everyone else, that if HE gets HIS, then I won’t get MINE.

There are many possible reasons for this shift but the emergence of the consumer society and the decades of increasingly invasive and psychologically astute advertising has helped place the idea of acquiring objects as the way to define ourselves. I think that Michael (if I may put words into his mouth on his very own blog) would say that the shift from “Society” to the “I” is a result of the decline of spirituality. I think it is the CAUSE of the decline.

[Michael Prescott]

>For me spirituality is a sense of higher and ultimate purpose beyond this brief physical experience we call life,

Well stated, and it clarifies what I mean by spiritual values.

When people lose the "sense of higher and ultimate purpose," they often drift into hedonism or nihilism (or both). Look at the collapsing birth rates in the former USSR, where prospect of a dramatic decline in population has the government actively propagandizing people to make babies.

As for the higher purpose offered by totalitarian movements, I think it usually emerges as a substitute for true spiritual purpose - and not a very effective one. But something beats nothing; people will accept even a bad option if it's the only thing they've got.

>I also think you have to make the distinction between materialism and hedonism. The former can have a certain humanistic attitude with it. In hedonism, it's every person for himself -- eat, drink, and be merry.

>I think that Michael (if I may put words into his mouth on his very own blog) would say that the shift from “Society” to the “I” is a result of the decline of spirituality. I think it is the CAUSE of the decline.

Good points. But I'd say that the same kind of attitudes can be found in a lot of religious people as well. What about the Christian missionaries? What about all "Holy Wars"?

I just don't see why we need to divide ourselves like this. "People are just people," as Regina Spektor so beautifully puts it in her song Ghost Of Corporate Future.

[ersby]

By coincidence, I'm reading this while listening to a debate on Radio 5 about education, and someone is making the point that no one these days appears to be proud to be British any more. He's saying that the lack of cohesion given by a sense of nation-hood has contributed to a decline in society.

Funny, that.

[Alex]

"When I say that Japan is materialistic I simply mean that a large proportion of the population is atheistic/agnostic, just as in the West, and that it's as much taboo there as here among scientists and academics."

True, but you have to remember that Japan was never really influenced by the Judeo Christian tradition or theism. Japan's main traditions were Zen Buddhism and Shinto; both are known for their pragmatic and down to earth values.

[william]

When I talk about significant variables influencing human behavior during my consulting career I noticed the huge impact systems and structures had on human behavior.

Communism had a huge impact on Russian behavior and I suspect unchecked capitalism and consumerism has had a huge impact on American corporate and human behavior.

Ike warned us what could happen if we had an unchecked economic system in the industrial military arena. It appears to be happening.

As far as Japan I worked for a Japanese consulting organization and I noticed a huge difference in attitudes between the middle age consultants and the ones over 65 years of age.

Can wealth create arrogance? Surely the rest of the world does not see Americans as arrogant? Maybe wealth is one of those significant variables.

[Tony M]

William:

Just to nitpick, wealth and consumerism are not necessarily the same. Just ask any dumb working stiff who racked up $12,000 in credit card debt buying a home entertainment system....

[Leo MacDonald]

I love this new song called the riddle [you and i] by five for fighting this song got me thinking a lot. I listen to it a few times so far.

it has a lot of relevence to what we discuss on here the big questions like why are we here? is there life after death? does god exist? is there free will?.

The Riddle (you And I)

There was a man back in '95
Whose heart ran out of summers
But before he died, I asked him

Wait, what's the sense in life
Come over me, come over me

He said,

"Son why you got to sing that tune
Catch a Dylan song or some eclipse of the moon
Let an angel swing and make you swoon
Then you will see... You will see."

Then he said,

"Here's a riddle for you
Find the answer
There's a reason for the world
You and I..."

Picked up my kid from school today
Did you learn anything cause in the world today
You can't live in a castle far away
Now talk to me, come talk to me

He said,

"Dad I'm big but we're smaller than small
In the scheme of things, well we're nothing at all
Still every mother's child seems to know this song
So play with me, come play with me"

And hey dad
Here's a riddle for you
Find the answer
There's a reason for the world
You and I...

I said,

"Son for all I've told you
When you get right down to the
Reason for the world...
Who am I?"

There are secrets that we still have left to find
There have been mysteries from the beginning of time
There are answers we're not wise enough to see

He said... You're looking for a place I love you free...

The batter swings and the summer flies
As I look into my angel's eyes
A song plays on while the moon is high over me
Something comes over me

I guess we're big and I guess we're small
If you think about it man you know we got it all
Cause we're all we got on this bouncing ball
And I love you free
I love you freely

Here's a riddle for you
Find the answer
There's a reason for the world
You and I...

This part of the song strikes me the most

There are secrets that we still have left to find
There have been mysteries from the beginning of time
There are answers we're not wise enough to see

[Filip]

I think we see this polarisation in 2 ways, on bad and good ways. Never been so much world wide calls for peace, never been so much solidarity about some subjects... On the other hand there is a lot of crime and fighting.
I also think you have to be carefull in overgeneralising it. USA has a a big issue with killing by guns but we totally don't have such a problem in Belgium.
There is a stronger polarisation in both ways. The choice between service to self or service to others and there are a lot of people who are a little bit of both and have no real orientation.

I agree with Alex on this that this has to be solved individually, I mean people not really aware and supressed, not thinking for themselves are as orientationless as people that are swimming in both pools.

The society one lives in, has a big responsibility to, I mean if your country gives you the ability to buy guns easily then it's pretty normal that a lot of stuff will happen with guns... Or if it has no universal health care, a super expensive education system...
These factors just feed negativity...

greets,
Filip

[Kevin]

For what it's worth, all of the discussion on this thread seems a strong indicator that there is at least SOME measure of free will exercisible in this physical existence, which I find heartening. Choosing ego-gratification may not be the most enlightened selection, but it WOULD allow for a subject of education in a following life, in a quasi-karmic way. Most likely, it won't be a pretty learning experience, but that seems fitting if it's the actual case.

[Markus Hesse]

I get what Michael is trying to say, it's basically an erosion of "traditional values," and religion/spirituality have always been an integral part of those values.

For better or worse, religion exacts a measure of social control, it compells the believer to keep their base instincts in check, and if a person feels that there is no higher purpose to existence or that they won't be held accountable for their actions in the next life it becomes easier for them to rationalize and act on their anti-social, criminal inclinations, if they have them, of course.

Because if there really is no higher purpose to existence, if I really won't be held accountable for my actions in the next life then why shouldn't I do what's good for ME, even if it hurts, maims or kills others?

[william]

Tony m never said wealth and consumerism were the same from my point of view consumerism has more to do with materialism than wealth.

As far as wealth it appears to me that if we look at history wealth can be as destructive to a society as poverty.

I have reread my post and for the life of me I cannot see where I equated wealth and consumerism. I think much of America’s wealth today is based on Chinese loans and not on reality.

Michael,

You might be interested in a book by Chantal Delsol called Icarus Fallen:

http://www.amazon.com/Icarus-Fallen-Meaning-Uncertain-Crosscurrents/dp/193223604X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/105-9360969-9031631?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190683137&sr=8-2

Here is a good review of it (the first half is a review of Alister McGrath's book):

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3431831.html

[Michael Tymn]

The PBS special now running on WWII offers some good commentary between the 40s and now.

I believe baseball is a microcosm of the overall change, although this more or less applies to all sport. Back then it was about team, and players spent their careers with one team. Players didn't pump their arms, shake their fists, or beckon to the crowd for more applause. There was no exhibitionism. Sure there was ego, but it was balanced with proper humility or humbleness. They were much like today's Japanese athletes. The change in sports all started with Muhammad Ali, who is idolized by today's sports writers. What a paradox that he is now so humble appearing. Where have you gone, Sandy Koufax and Floyd Patteson?
Of course, TV is mostly responsible for this and the overall celebrity worship we now witness. I think there is something to the First Commandment.

[william]

"What a paradox that he is now so humble appearing."

Very interesting paradox to say the least.

Could that also be stated as irony?

[Larry Boy]

> True, but you have to remember that Japan was never really influenced by the Judeo Christian tradition or theism. Japan's main traditions were Zen Buddhism and Shinto; both are known for their pragmatic and down to earth values.

Yeah, and what's funny is that Shintoism actually never deals with death. Zen Buddhism doesn't say where you will go after death, either (even though it may maintain that consciousness survives in some form, but I'm no expert on Zen).

So it's not strange at all that a lot of people in Japan today find themselves unsure about what happens at death.

[william]

“There is a bad kind of craziness afoot in the world.”

It sure looks bad but is it something that as a society we have to go thru. I grew up in the 50's and those were pretty rigid times. Interesting times in the 50’s on that farm as we did not lock our doors at night and left the keys in the cars and tractors.

I never heard of a car or tractor being stolen in my 18 years on that small farm in Illinois and trust me everybody knew your business for a several mile radius. Several people were on each telephone line and they all heard your ring, and if you called in the middle of the night you had to wake up the operator as she was sleeping.

Talking on the phone was a rare occasion.

As one of my favorite authors would say if it did not need to happen in your life it would not have happened. Scary thought but worth thinking about.

[ersby]

Markus Hesse said: "Because if there really is no higher purpose to existence, if I really won't be held accountable for my actions in the next life then why shouldn't I do what's good for ME, even if it hurts, maims or kills others?"

Because hurting, maiming and killing others is almost never good for you, nor society as a whole, whether there's a higher purpose or not.

[Tony M]

William, re-reading it, I don't know either. It must have been inattention on my part while watching my big screen tv, taking drugs and engaging in promiscuous sex all at the same time.

[Markus Hesse]

>>Because hurting, maiming and killing others is almost never good for you, nor society as a whole, whether there's a higher purpose or not.<<

If it gets me what I want and I can get away with it, why not? Why should I care about society or others?

Stalin, Mao, Tito (all godless Marxists) and their fellow lifelong dictators lived by this mantra, they did very well for themselves because they were unhindered by altruistic "spiritual" notions of morality and virtue, and from a purely naturalistic view they did nothing "wrong," it's simply prosperity of the fittest and most ruthless, just like in the wild.

[Tony]

> Because hurting, maiming and killing others > is almost never good for you, nor society as > a whole, whether there's a higher purpose or > not.

Many people are motivated by what's best for themselves or at best what's best for themselves and close friends/associates, not what's best for society.

I know alot of materialists assume that "Secular Humanism" can replace religion, but if you actually follow the Secular Humanism movement, you find that it's rather small, and they are at a loss to figure out how to attract more members.

[Tony]

One other observation..

In the 50s, whether you were religious, or not, it seems to me that American society's values were based on Judeo-Christian ideals. So even if you were athiest, social pressure would dictate that you behaved a certain way, and if you did something socially unacceptable, like say have a child out of wedlock you kept it very private.

Today, we have the ideas of political correctness and multiculturism that has eroded societies values, and states that all value systems are basically equal.

Were things better then than now? Hard to say for sure. We know that human depravity has been with us since the beginning of the human race, and much of it probably just went on behind the scenes back then.

Probably there is a swinging pendulum that takes society from one extreme to the other. I get the sense that from the 60s-90s it swung too far one way and it is now in the process of swinging back,

> Stalin, Mao, Tito (all godless Marxists) and their fellow lifelong dictators lived by this mantra, they did very well for themselves because they were unhindered by altruistic "spiritual" notions of morality and virtue, and from a purely naturalistic view they did nothing "wrong," it's simply prosperity of the fittest and most ruthless, just like in the wild.

What about all the dictators that have been religious?

[Markus Hesse]

They were shameless hypocrites, obviously.

For instance, Franco considered himself a devout Catholic yet his actions were frequently at odds with the fundamental teachings and example of Jesus Christ, which admonish the faithful to not kill, to not covet, to forgive, to love one's enemies, ect.

[Cyrus]

Contemporary spirituality inspires me because it's free of the eternal damnation and bigotry of the ancient, bickering religions, and it promotes the value and importance of life and the chance for individual existences to prosper without suffering and the absence of love.

For that reason, I think issues like human rights are of the utmost importance. Many people can disagree, religionists can claim hell-fire and materialists can say our heads are in the clouds, but one thing which cannot be logically debated are the "spiritual" principles which Michael is afraid people are lacking. I believe human-rights should be an utmost goal in our lives. We should throw away those sweat-shop manufactured Nike shoes, and keep working to make a difference in the world, whether spirituality, the afterlife and such matters are true and genuine, or just figments of our imaginations (Which I doubt!)

[ersby]

Markus Hesse said "If it gets me what I want and I can get away with it, why not? Why should I care about society or others?"

Well, assuming you get away with it is a big assumption. Plus, you'll have to keep making sure that people don't find out etc, which is hardly conducive to a happy life. Caring about others has pretty clear advantages over being nasty to others, whether you're spiritual or not.

Tony said: "Many people are motivated by what's best for themselves or at best what's best for themselves and close friends/associates, not what's best for society."

But that's what society is made up of.

[ersby]

I know little about Mao or Tito, but I think a strong case could also be made that Stalin was a shameless hypocrite too.

[Larry Boy]

>We should throw away those sweat-shop manufactured Nike shoes, and keep working to make a difference in the world, whether spirituality, the afterlife and such matters are true and genuine, or just figments of our imaginations (Which I doubt!)

Exactly my point. Why keep on arguing about sprituality and materialism when what we really need is some plain common sense? As I see it, morality should be something worth striving for in and of itself, not because you feel you're on a spiritual mission or something. Spirituality, in the sense that you care about other people, about nature and society, has nothing to do with metaphysical beliefs. It's about good ole' common sense. Treat others as you would like them to treat you.

Also, as Ersby pointed out: "Caring about others has pretty clear advantages over being nasty to others, whether you're spiritual or not."

Again, I ask you to consider the fact that Japan, which, I maintain, is at least as materialistic as most Western countries (in the sense that materialism and atheism pervades "official" thinking), is a lot less morally degraded than the U.S., or perhaps any other Western society.

[Matthew C.]

We should throw away those sweat-shop manufactured Nike shoes

One thing that bothers me enormously about many people who want to be compassionate is some very muddled thinking about economics.

Do you honestly think that the people (mostly women) who work for (what we consider) low wages in factories in countries like Vietnam (where their wages are considered very high and enviable for most) would be better off out of work and begging on the streets, or selling their bodies for sex, or famished as subsistance farmers trying to scratch a living out of an acre of farmland?

Do you understand that ending development in the third world means ending the climb out of poverty and starvation that we are seeing in China and India, and saw in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan over the past hundred years, and happened in the west during the industrial revolution?

There is absolutely nothing compassionate about causing people in poor societies to lose their jobs, and this is what the anti-sweatshop crusaders will accomplish if their efforts are successful. Having a 23 y/o mother of three lose her income from a Nike factory and be forced to prostitute herself to feed her children is not progress! So please stop "helping" her with such well intentioned, but poorly considered "compassion".

[Matthew C.]

We should throw away those sweat-shop manufactured Nike shoes

One thing that bothers me enormously about many people who want to be compassionate is some very muddled thinking about economics.

Do you honestly think that the people (mostly women) who work for (what we consider) low wages in factories in countries like Vietnam (where their wages are considered very high and enviable for most) would be better off out of work and begging on the streets, or selling their bodies for sex, or famished as subsistance farmers trying to scratch a living out of an acre of farmland?

Do you understand that ending development in the third world means ending the climb out of poverty and starvation that we are seeing in China and India, and saw in Singapore, South Korea, and Japan over the past hundred years, and happened in the west during the industrial revolution?

There is absolutely nothing compassionate about causing people in poor societies to lose their jobs, and this is what the anti-sweatshop crusaders will accomplish if their efforts are successful. Having a 23 y/o mother of three lose her income from a Nike factory and be forced to prostitute herself to feed her children is not progress! So please stop "helping" her with such well intentioned, but poorly considered "compassion".

[Larry Boy]

> There is absolutely nothing compassionate about causing people in poor societies to lose their jobs, and this is what the anti-sweatshop crusaders will accomplish if their efforts are successful. Having a 23 y/o mother of three lose her income from a Nike factory and be forced to prostitute herself to feed her children is not progress!

Good point. That doesn't make using poor people like slaves any more acceptable, though. What are you supposed to do? We need to put some leverage on the big companies, and then what can we do besides refusing to buy products from these companies?

If we really want to help we should not support companies that abuse people, we should help *the people* by giving them what they need. It would be enough if every Western citizen gave a small amount of their income to the poor. Also we should help them develop their own industries and not invade their countries with our own companies, use up all their resources etc. I believe it was in India that Coca Cola used so much water (that should have been given to the people) that the government had to stop them from taking the water.

[Matthew C.]

Good point. That doesn't make using poor people like slaves any more acceptable, though. What are you supposed to do? We need to put some leverage on the big companies, and then what can we do besides refusing to buy products from these companies?

I'm not sure that your language is appropriate or helpful here.

With slaves, they are literally forced to do the work, or be shot, whipped, etc.

Corporate employees are able to evaluate their options and choose not to work, find other companies, beg on the streets, etc. Of course many of those options are less desirable than others. I would assume that most of the people here are in the same boat -- we are "forced" to work in order to have money to pay mortgages, buy horse feed, etc. Some of us have accumulated enough capital or retirement credits that we no longer need to work. Others might be on disability or welfare, or have their expenses paid by others. . .

If you want to help poor people in other parts of the world, my suggestion is to contribute or loan money to microcredit companies or charities that help people in the third world start their own businesses. Alternatives are buying "fair trade" goods certified by an organization you approve of.

[Tony]

> Good point. That doesn't make using poor
> people like slaves any more acceptable,
> though. What are you supposed to do? We need
> to put some leverage on the big companies,
> and then what can we do besides refusing to > buy products from these companies?

Every developed country goes through a 'sweatshop' phase. It's part of the growing pains. It occurs b/c there's a large pool of available labor when companies start building factories, so the companies hold all the cards.

The silver lining is that as more companies rush in to take advantage of the cheap labor, labor becomes more scarce, workers get more options and power and wages go up. We can see this happening in the tech industry in India, for example.

Also keep in mind that unless there's some sort of slavery going on, workers don't have to take those jobs. They only do so because it's better than the alternative.

> We should throw away those sweat-shop
>manufactured Nike shoes, and keep working
>to make a difference in the world,

This type of thinking makes no sense to me. If you purchased the shoes then any damage has already been done. Why send a perfectly good pair of shoes to the landfill and buy new ones? Are you really certain that new pair was made in better conditions?

[Cyrus]

<>

VANS brand shoes are guaranteed to be made without human-rights abuses. I'd buy those instead. I don't understand the counter-point arguments here at all. Nike, and companies like them, have the ability to provide better conditions for their laborers so that it isn't a choice between "making shoes" or "becoming a prostitute." But, they DON'T, and the reason is because the poorer conditions, the cheaper labor, etc increase THEIR profit margins.

They could considerably cut the amount of money they are making to provide suitable working conditions for their laborers, and this would do a world of good. But, that's not what's happening. Instead, you have little kids being paid pennies an hour to labor in dangerous conditions. If those pennies turned into the U.S. equivalent of minimum wage, the conditions of the laborers' lives would greatly improve, but in that case... they could just make the shoes in the U.S, and then they wouldn't be making as much cash.

[Matthew C.]

Cyrus,

Nike is offering to pay a salary to the workers, and the workers are offering their labor to Nike. Obviously the workers have deemed that working for Nike beats any of their alternatives. Clearly they are in a much better position to make that judgement than you and I are.

If you want to offer them improvements in their living conditions, then work with the organizations that negotiate better wages, benefits and conditions from the manufacturers, in exchange for a "seal of approval". Boycotting Nike so that they close the factory down will NOT help any workers!

Sweatshop workers are certainly much better off materially than people in countries that do not have any sweatshops, like most of Africa.

Tony is right, the sweatshop stage is part of the chain of economic progress that leads to a middle class, more investment, higher wages, and better working conditions. That is why many of the countries where "sweatshops" were located fifty years ago are now on par with Europe, the US and Canada. Some of them like Singapore have even higher incomes than the US average.

[Matthew C.]

BTW, I am not suggesting that it would be counterproductive to support companies who provide better conditions in Vietnam for their workers and buy their shoes instead of Nike. But if you support a company who makes shoes in the US because you "care about those poor sweatshop workers" in Vietnam, you are absolutely hurting the Vietnamese who will lose their "terrible" "sweatshop" jobs if there is no market for their labor.

This is the kind of basic economic thinking that needs to be considered when people make policy recommendations. Wages are based on supply and demand. The more demand (sweatshops) we see in a country, the higher the wages will go. That is why most people in the US make far more than the minimum wage -- the demand for their labor skills is high. Factory jobs here, while not wonderful compared to white collar jobs, generally pay two to three times the minimum wage, and very often much higher than that.

[Larry Boy]

> I'm not sure that your language is appropriate or helpful here.
With slaves, they are literally forced to do the work, or be shot, whipped, etc.

Well, whatever you want to call it, their working conditions are horrible. Why should we support companies that see their employees as some kind of machines that you can press to their absolute limits? Why not give the people the help and money they need to build up their own industries instead? Instead of buying a new pair of jeans when you already have enough of them, why not give the money for that pair of jeans to charity?

[lucyjane]

Hi Michael
I'd like to follow-up on this thought of yours which has been bothering me why it is or seems the focus of your searching for why we exist:
[It's not simply a matter of believing in life after death, but believing that life continues because we have some ultimate destiny that we are meant to fulfill.]
If I may ask, how have you came to beleive in the afterlife? I was raised Catholic and always without second thoughts been taught to beleive that we have a soul that goes to heaven after death. My mother and dad were so religious that to skip from going to mass on sundays was a sin etc.. as I became an adult and moved on to middle age my belief system suffers much from what I see in the world today.I want to beleive with all my heart and this seems to be my *anchor* when all else fails me. Yes the 50's were a time of innocence by today's standards granted if you younger generation want to see with your own eyes, just go to your nearest library where they keep chronicle archives and follow the progression from what we didn,t have and were niave to by the electronic age at the click or press of a button the world becomes a stage where everyone has to put on an act to outdo the other no matter material or spiritual. It also seems that nobody has the nerve to speak out for fear of losing their standing ;ostracized by their peers who cater to their Corporation, life must be lived with comforts as we are accustomed to now at the expense of labor who cares as long as its not us.We have become more insensitive or is it human nature to avoid hardships predestined in wired in us? It becomes more sought after to climb to the top and do everything to remain there that the bible was another era and doesn,t fit anymore. So why do we cling to our life with the dogma that something even more awaits us if we live within the teachings of a religion or as matter science itself wants to reach that zenith of immortality in some form of perpetuating our present condition to ongoing perfection? it too coverts whats on the other side...or is it the mind that never gives in the death?

LucyJane

[Adam]

Hi Michael

I agree with you over the loss of values, but we're also talking about the change in the means of social enforcement. Small communities where everyone knew everyone and privacy beyond your gate was impossible don't give a lot of opportunity to people "cheating" on the social system. The demographic transition from countryside to city & the 'burbs has changed that. We no longer "keep watch" over each other's behaviour because now that's actually seen as anti-social.