universal values?

[gorski]

first of all, there is NO requirement within a market for one to lose for another to benefit. That is absurd, in fact generally BOTH parties benefit from the activity of a 'market'.

secondly, that rather Victorian notion is still misrepresented by "social Darwinists", revealing their own ignorance and general nastiness. Avoid social Darwinists who think like that at all costs.

First, this particular view of the market is ridiculously romanticised! Otherwise we would not have had many a crisis, anti-monopoly/cartel legislation etc. etc.

You should see how Mierdoch, for instance, is running his little business... His model is just a possible business model but it sure as Hell exists and acually, for him and his ilk, at least, it's the ONLY possible, viable, "realistic" model!!! Because they do not understand any other possibility. And even if they did allow for other possibilities, they do not agree with them. For a variety of reasons, all of them to do with a [their] view of "human nature"... reduced to the lowest possible denominator, of course...

Shit - but accurate observation, on the level of description...

Especially if you understand that every law takes from some and gives to some other participants on the market. For instance, the newly introduced "green laws" in Germany, re. car manufacturing: the same device would add seriously to a price of a vehicle at a lower end of the market and be rather negligible at the higher end of the market. Hence, there was a serious negotiation between the Gov and the rest, to subsidise the manufacturers of the cheaper models...

Secondly, one can not choose to avoid the "Social Darwinists", as they are everywhere: from political to economic sphere of the society.

One can try to be a solipsist... but it doesn't do anyone any good...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

are there any built-in characteristics of Life from which a system of universal values can be based, allowing a truly scientific system of morality?

Not that we've discovered and agreed upon yet. Which is why there's so much mucking about.

 

[gnuneo]

First, this particular view of the market is ridiculously romanticised! Otherwise we would not have had many a crisis, anti-monopoly/cartel legislation etc. etc.

You should see how Mierdoch, for instance, is running his little business... His model is just a possible business model but it sure as Hell exists and acually, for him and his ilk, at least, it's the ONLY possible, viable, "realistic" model!!! Because they do not understand any other possibility. And even if they did allow for other possibilities, they do not agree with them. For a variety of reasons, all of them to do with a [their] view of "human nature"... reduced to the lowest possible denominator, of course...

Shit - but accurate observation, on the level of description...

Especially if you understand that every law takes from some and gives to some other participants on the market. For instance, the newly introduced "green laws" in Germany, re. car manufacturing: the same device would add seriously to a price of a vehicle at a lower end of the market and be rather negligible at the higher end of the market. Hence, there was a serious negotiation between the Gov and the rest, to subsidise the manufacturers of the cheaper models...

the essence of a market is that people exchange products/services. I have £8000, and want to buy a car. The car has more worth to me than £8000 (or so i perceive), and to the person selling, £8000 is worth more than the car.

we have both benefited. No-one has lost, because there is no "objective" standard of value. That's a marxist silliness. The 'cost of Labour' is merely the base cost of the item/service, - and *also* fails to take note of the costs to the environment! 'Value' is a subjective assessment, and if the exchange is 'free' (from coercion, monopolisation etc), then it is most likely that all participants will feel they have gained from the transaction.


also, you go on to give examples of *interference* in markets - from the Murdochian attempt at monopoly, to Govt intervention to promote Green products. The former should be absolutely prevented from success, just as a Monarch would distort direct democracy workings so their powers should be restricted to the same as other citizens, and the latter is an example of a proper Community concerns about pollution. Were the car company run as a full partnership, it is probable such interventions would not be necessary, as it is likely the workers themselves would be worried about their environmental quality.

the same is true of 'minimum wage', 'working conditions' legislation etc - were the companies run as full capitalist partnerships, such legislation would not be required - why would the workers need telling how much they should be paying themselves?

the fact that such legislation is required indicates that Capitalism has not yet been achieved, and that there are a few who have too much control over the system/markets.

capitalist partnerships/cooperatives for teh win!!!

Secondly, one can not choose to avoid the "Social Darwinists", as they are everywhere: from political to economic sphere of the society.

One can try to be a solipsist... but it doesn't do anyone any good...

ignore the buggers. There's always some with insecurity/bullying issues. What can you do??!?

 

[dilute micro]

christ almight, reading all that pure ego has given me a splitting head-ache.

is this summary accurate: darwin's basic theory claimed it was all gradual. But there was a lack of transitional fossils remains. So pe, a theory that comes from biological theory that shows that smaller populations (can) evolve more rapidly (due to environmental or just normal genetic drift) in smaller environs, and then spread those genes rapidly through larger, apparently static populations quickly, was introduced.

to have i just wasted a couple of hours reading willy-waving about whether or not that can still be considered "Darwinian"?!?

or did i misunderstand?

You misunderstood. Stick to philosophy.

 

[gorski]

Your nick should be ignore'emall... 'cause that is how you're dealing with other people's arguments... [not you DM!]

 

[gnuneo]

You misunderstood. Stick to philosophy.

then perhaps you'd like to explain? Instead of just flinging mud at each other?

what *exactly* was it you spent days screaming insults about?

 

[Knotted]

christ almight, reading all that pure ego has given me a splitting head-ache.

is this summary accurate: darwin's basic theory claimed it was all gradual. But there was a lack of transitional fossils remains. So pe, a theory that comes from biological theory that shows that smaller populations (can) evolve more rapidly (due to environmental or just normal genetic drift) in smaller environs, and then spread those genes rapidly through larger, apparently static populations quickly, was introduced.

to have i just wasted a couple of hours reading willy-waving about whether or not that can still be considered "Darwinian"?!?

or did i misunderstand?

The bit about the genes spreading rapidly through the aparently static population isn't right since we are talking about speciation ie. reproductive isolation. Otherwise you have more or less understood. Of course, the fossil record is far from perfect, punctuated equilibria or no.

Just so I know what we're talking about. Could you name a living social Darwinist?

 

[gnuneo]

Your nick should be ignore'emall... 'cause that is how you're dealing with other people's arguments... [not you DM!]

is that to me?

 

[Knotted]

then perhaps you'd like to explain? Instead of just flinging mud at each other?

what *exactly* was it you spent days screaming insults about?

It was about misrepresentations of the theory of punctuated equilibria designed to make it look like "Darwinism" is a theory in trouble. I thought it would be best to fix the dilute micro's anti-"darwinism" hobby horse problem for once and for all considering that it's a recurring problem round here. I thought we could look at some nice science on the way.

 

[dilute micro]

then perhaps you'd like to explain? Instead of just flinging mud at each other?

what *exactly* was it you spent days screaming insults about?

What insults? I was called all sorts of things.

Pointing out that someone doesn't know fundamental elements of biology isn't an insult. If you want to learn it you will.

 

[Knotted]

the essence of a market is that people exchange products/services. I have £8000, and want to buy a car. The car has more worth to me than £8000 (or so i perceive), and to the person selling, £8000 is worth more than the car.

we have both benefited. No-one has lost, because there is no "objective" standard of value. That's a marxist silliness. The 'cost of Labour' is merely the base cost of the item/service, - and *also* fails to take note of the costs to the environment! 'Value' is a subjective assessment, and if the exchange is 'free' (from coercion, monopolisation etc), then it is most likely that all participants will feel they have gained from the transaction.

The point you make is correct regardless of whether "value" is objective or subjective and regardless of whether the market is free (non-monopolistic). I think Fruitloop pointed this out pages back. You can't assume it's a zero sum game.

 

[gnuneo]

The bit about the genes spreading rapidly through the aparently static population isn't right since we are talking about speciation ie. reproductive isolation. Otherwise you have more or less understood. Of course, the fossil record is far from perfect, punctuated equilibria or no.

Just so I know what we're talking about. Could you name a living social Darwinist?

so speciation would be where the newer off-shoots through pe actually simply replace the older genetic lines? And/or also interbreed with the existing breeds, but become incorporated, like the Neanderthals and cro-magnons?

i've met many people who incorporate 'social darwinism' into their world-view, whether they are 'famous' is irrelevant, no?

It was about misrepresentations of the theory of punctuated equilibria designed to make it look like "Darwinism" is a theory in trouble. I thought it would be best to fix the dilute micro's anti-"darwinism" hobby horse problem for once and for all considering that it's a recurring problem round here. I thought we could look at some nice science on the way.

so you were arguing that pe is not destructive of darwinism, whereas G & dm were arguing that it is? Because i *think* that dm just said it *wasn't* that...

 

[gnuneo]

The point you make is correct regardless of whether "value" is objective or subjective and regardless of whether the market is free (non-monopolistic). I think Fruitloop pointed this out pages back. You can't assume it's a zero sum game.

pages back where? And that was a reply to Gork, i wasn't aware that i was assuming it is a zero sum game?

 

[Knotted]

so speciation would be where the newer off-shoots through pe actually simply replace the older genetic lines?

That's one possibility. Or you could simply get two different species.

And/or also interbreed with the existing breeds, but become incorporated, like the Neanderthals and cro-magnons?

I think that if we are talking about a new species we are assuming that it is not interbreeding with the existing breeds. I don't think neanderthals were incorporated by cro-magnons by the way. I think there was a thread on this somewhere.

i've met many people who incorporate 'social darwinism' into their world-view, whether they are 'famous' is irrelevant, no?

I've never met a social darwinist. It would help me if you could point one out.

so you were arguing that pe is not destructive of darwinism, whereas G & dm were arguing that it is? Because i *think* that dm just said it *wasn't* that...

I don't think pe is destructive of "darwinism" whatever "darwinism" is. I don't think any of the scientists involved argued this either. I'm pretty sure dm would disagree.

 

[Knotted]

pages back where? And that was a reply to Gork, i wasn't aware that i was assuming it is a zero sum game?

No, no. I'm not saying you are, just that your point has already been covered.

 

[gorski]

Market is not a zero-sum game only when purposefully reached into and carefully managed by political state, as the general instance, [at its best] representing the common/general interest, as oppose to the market players representing their particular interests. If left unchecked, as initially envisaged by the Liberals and allegedly advocated by "Neo-Liberals" - guess what happens...

 

[goldenecitrone]

People are sent to the gulag. Famine ensues. Anyone in glasses gets shot. Wide screen tvs take 20 years and mobile phones half a century.

 

[frogwoman]

Don't be a cunt.
That's a universal value.

 

[gorski]

Yeah, Froggy! For about a bit less than half of Humanity...

I think somebody beat you to it...

How's life? U cool?

Best!!!

 

[frogwoman]

yeah, good thanks

 

[frogwoman]

Surely survival of the fittest is pretty much a universal value as well, among animals anyway? Animals' "cruel" and "fucked up" behaviour (such as cats driving away their kittens after they've got to a certain point, torturing their food, etc) isn't immoral or anything when you look at it in the context that they're trying to perpetuate the survival of the species and can't really do that with dependent adult cats and mice that are running around as happily as anything, making it impossible to kill them

 

[Ibn Khaldoun]

Persistence.