Is social progress really just gentrification?

[dilberto]

Is social progress merely a reflection of capitalist economic development which in essence is really gentrification?

Would such a hypothesis provide a cogent analysis for the problems facing economically developed societies?

 

[bi0boy]

What do you mean by "social progress"?

 

[weepiper]

write your own essay.

 

[kained&able]

so social progress didn't happen before the advent of capitalism?

and yeah what bioboy asked. I don't exactly understand what your getting at but am fairly sure i will think you are wrong.

dave

 

[DotCommunist]

economically developed societies?

I think it's a good idea

 

[FridgeMagnet]

How many words?

 

[DotCommunist]

140

 

[kained&able]

thats charecters not words dotty, you luddite.

dave

 

[Jazzz]

Social progress would be if we stopped raping the planet, stopped paying a fortune to the banks for creating our money, etc. etc.

 

[frogwoman]

No not really because social progress would be if most of the public got any benefit from it. gentrification has the effect of pushing up prices in the area and driving poorer people out / sometimes putting stuff like greasy spoons etc out of business, so it is not real social progress. It has the effect of pushing the problems outward.

 

[frogwoman]

Is social progress merely a reflection of capitalist economic development which in essence is really gentrification?

Would such a hypothesis provide a cogent analysis for the problems facing economically developed societies?

Also what "social progress" are we discussing here, are we discussing economic or in attitudes etc?

 

[dilberto]

The nature of any society is a reflection of the innate character of the population of that society, traditional society therefore reflects the character, values and norms of a surviving population. Economic development is a progressive and accumulative process of change which alters the nature of a society so that it no longer reflects its surviving population but specialises that population by placing increasing economic demands upon the population which acts as a subtle means of population selection based on a criteria of economic utility rather than survival which naturally is reflected in the expectations, values and norms of that changed population (gentrification), the demographic trends common to all economically developed societies could be seen as evidence of that process in action.

 

[weltweit]

People who gentrify are reverting to the norm. They take up land ownership because of the riches their ordinary lives have given them, they do not remain in the camp of social progress, they revert to the previous state.

 

[dilberto]

weltweit

Surely it is survival which ultimately determines "the norm".

 

[Riklet]

No.

Remember to talk about hegemony if you want sucky sucky from your lecturer

 

[dilberto]

Riklet

I'm not a student and I'm not writing an essay, I'm just interested in hearing other people's views on this challenging idea, this is the philosophy forum isn't it?.

 

[TruXta]

The nature of any society is a reflection of the innate character of the population of that society, traditional society therefore reflects the character, values and norms of a surviving population.

I could spend hours just tearing that first sentence to bits. I can't be arsed tho.

 

[weltweit]

weltweit

Surely it is survival which ultimately determines "the norm".

Well.. I wonder is gentrification as wide spread as it would be needed to be to be described as a norm. Probably not. But as to your point, both groups survive, the social progress and gentrification groups, both survive.

I think it is interesting the number of progressive people when presented with the chance of a nice house on a bit of land and the opportunity to grow their own veg and keep their own animals, simply jump at the chance!

 

[fredfelt]

dilberto. In short no. Gentrification is a local issue - it happens to specific neighbourhoods. As areas get richer there's more disposable income. With more disposable income corporations become more interested in the area. Rents go up and the demographics of the area change.

Depending on the type of capitalism employed in the sovereign state patterns of gentrification will be different.

For example in the US which has a extreme market based capitalism you'll get very rich areas next to very poor areas. This is a characteristic of non-coherent privately led urban planning policy combined with extreme differences in earning of the richest people, the middle earners and the people who fall through the gaps.

Extreme market based capitalism also has lots of new private gated neighbourhoods. For those who can afford to live in these developments they may think of it as progress, but as the middle classes move to these monied ghettos traditional urban areas may face decline. This is not social progress.

When the sovereign state bases it's economy on a more social democratic style of capitalism you have a more a more equitable society. Where the wealth of a nation rises more equally the factors which lead to gentrification will be reduced.

Additionally a capitalist economic system does equate to social progress. Sometimes quite the reverse. The Russian anarcho-capitalist model has not supported social progress by just about any measure you could use.

 

[dilberto]

To understand the concept of gentrification in the context of this discussion I suppose it might be useful to understand what we mean by class in biological terms, I would suggest that class is a product of sexual selection based on intellectual and economic criteria rather than survival and because of the higher educational levels and living costs which are becoming increasingly prevalent in economically developed societies that process of gentrification is becoming increasingly pervasive.

 

[TruXta]

I'm sorry, but what? Class understood in biological terms? You're either deluded or having a laugh.

 

[Blagsta]

To understand the concept of gentrification in the context of this discussion I suppose it might be useful to understand what we mean by class in biological terms, I would suggest that class is a product of sexual selection based on intellectual and economic criteria rather than survival and because of the higher educational levels and living costs which are becoming increasingly prevalent in economically developed societies that process of gentrification is becoming increasingly pervasive.

The upper classes have better breeding? Fuck off.

 

[TruXta]

You been reading H.G. Wells' The Time Machine then, dilberto?

 

[dilberto]

The concept of "Better breeding" is a subjective view determined by the innate biases imbued by sexual selection itself, generally speaking the higher up the class structure the more specialised people are but it is the generalised population which is the surviving population.

 

[Blagsta]

eh?

 

[embree]

eh?

he said he's a clueless twit

 

[Riklet]

Lol, biological class. 'I would suggest' you stick to understanding ideas other people have developed first, before trying to come up with your own!

Human beings tackling malaria through draining swamps and wiping out hordes of mozzies. Is this social progress? Is this gentrification?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I'm glad I'm not an Alpha.

 

[Riklet]

LOL i got the image of Epsilons being grow in labs when I read all that ^

Alpha pluses come from good breeding stock though. Better quality test tubes eh...

 

[dilberto]

My point is that what changes the population in modern society is not evolution by natural selection but specialisation through sexual selection.

Biology is surely an influence in determining all human characteristics as is the environment so it seems reasonable to say that biology also plays a part in determining what we call "class".