About today’s editorial by a professor Binder at UC San Diego regarding a compromise on teaching evolution,  suggesting that science teachers stress that evolution based on survival of the fittest needs to be supplemented with some moral caveats:

1)    My students here in Japan are mostly shocked to hear that evolution is controversial. Like most Europeans as well, they learn Darwin and don’t feel any conflict between social morality (rooted in Buddhist and neo-Confucian ideology) and biology theories about our origins. America has become a bit of laughing stock on this as well as other issues…but especially on this one.

 

2)    I don’t think there is any evidence that the teaching of evolution or a naturalistic explanation of human behavior leads to immorality or moral relativism (is moral relativism so horrible???).

 I grew up in New Jersey and had the usual course in evolution and the Christians and Jews around me (about 40% Jews actually) never felt any threat to their moral system or moral compass in thinking we are animals. Nor did it ever occur to our rabbi’s or teachers that this information might in anyway steer us away from moral development. The notion that biological theories might be a threat to either Christian or Jewish morality would have seemed absurd. And I think it still is that way in New Jersey; it is my understanding that the American science educators association gave NJ one of the highest ratings for the adequate teaching of evolution. [I think Texas is at the low end of the scale]. I don’t believe many people in NJ see any peril for moral development is learning that we are animals with animalistic impulses.

 

3)    The state of Texas has been funneling millions of dollars into abstinence education even though the research shows it is not effective and indeed Texas has one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and STD’s. This may seem like a different issue and it is…the point is that Texas seems to pursue educational policies which don’t feel the need to conform with rational thinking as we understand it since the 18^th century Enlightenment which lies behind all European education. To put it rather pejoratively (OK I’m an elite east coast intellectual snob if you want), why compromise with such a whacky state? That’s sort of what you are asking it seems…

 

The humanist appreciates universal moral values which are articulated in the multiple religions and cultures around the world. The totalitarian believes that their moral code is the only correct one and requires that everyone must follow it.  I think your compromise will lead us down a very dangerous path…compromising with moral totalitarians.

I imagine a lot of scientists and others will be making the same point in e-mails to you.

            I do believe that the burden you suggest placing on the biology teacher will be excessive and unreasonable and certainly impractical.  Is a high school biology teacher capable of teaching some sort of moral caveat to counter biology’s scientific interpretation of  human nature? Are they then to teach that moral relativism is wrong? Is moral relativism wrong? Does it really lead to immorality? Is there such a real and present danger in Darwin. I doubt it. 

This is the worst sentence of your editorial: “But it’s understandable that parents could be concerned that evolution entices their children to think unconsciously of themselves as creatures with animalistic impulses, to lose faith in their religious traditions” But we are creatures with animalistic impulses! Does that in anyway constitute a threat to morality? No—it is in fact the whole reason for human moral systems, that we do have these impulses [in my own case, learning that these impulses were normal and natural was a kind of release]….Of course evangelicals do tend to believe that animalistic impulses are immoral (see comments on abstinence only above)…..and their political positions viz gay rights, abortion and birth control indeed seem to reflect a fear our animalistic desires.

You can see what a thorny road we are going down if we take your compromise seriously.

            I think you are making a problem moral complicated then it need be with your compromise. The simple solution is simply to teach biology in biology class and teach morality at home and in church. Keep morality out of science class. Separation of Church and state

 

 

 

 

Roger Lowenstein in a recent Wash Post editorial suggested that GM’s financial woes are largely the fault of labor unions……for asking for generous pension and healthcare packages. Apparently GM did not correctly calculate the rising costs of health care and are now overburdened with a huge pension liability. But how is that the fault of the unions? Should the unions have anticipated higher costs and then ask for less? “Well, future payouts will probably increase, so let’s not ask for generous pensions because it might hurt GM.” Absurd.

GM is entirely responsible for the pickle it’s in now. The reason GM market share has dropped is because other car companies make better products, not because of the UAW. If GM made a better more fuel efficient car then the increased market share from sales would carry them through the rough times ahead until we get universal healthcare.

 

 

          Assuming that corporate capitalism is inherently destructive—exploitative of people and nature and a threat to democracy through its hegemonic power— then what is left to do? Is there a better alternative, or is it as Keynes said that capitalism is a horrible system but it’s the best thing we’ve got?

          Well, if all the corporations were like Southwest Airlines (the founder and CEO said that love and fun were the most important values) or like the Body Shop (which was started specifically as an alternative to exploitative capitalism), then we could all go home and not worry much about the future of the world system under corporate capitalism. However, it’s not likely that anytime soon that oil cartels will premise their operations on love and fun, nor will Monsanto or Citibank commit themselves to people over profits anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

          Modern business and economics is based on the gospel of growth.

 

But what if I said that the solution to our problems might be to become like the Amish! (Voluntarily, that is… in the worst case futuristic scenarios we may all be forced to use candles at night and drive around in horse drawn buggies).  

But seriously folks, what if smaller is better and we opted instead for low tech, low growth negative environmental footprint lifestyles. What would be so horrible about milking your own cow, trading eggs for someone’s home made shoes? Trading in your Versace suit for overalls? We could still have our internet and high speed telecommunications, but, at the same time actualize a sort of Jeffersonian vision of America in which the term “sustainable development” is more than such an advertising slogan but the basis of all social and economic life.

 

          What would happen to the big multinationals and their economies of scale? Big business often does things better (whatever that means), cheaper and more efficiently……I guess it would be the end of large scale inhuman/dehumanizing corporations (the top 100 Fortune 500 for sure). That wouldn’t be so bad, would it?

 

 

 

 

 

JAPANESE CAPITALISM

 

            What kind of capitalism is practiced in Japan? Is it a more humanistic version than the U.S.? Or more totalitarian?  The notion of capitalism is itself quite and abstraction, but we will go with a working definition that capitalism is an economic system based on the rational pursuit of profit by individuals for that individual.  

Though capitalists can be altruistic, it is not their primary motivation. The pursuit of one’s individual profit is a priori, essential, and all-pervading. Only after one takes care of one’s primary needs and wants can one then go on to choose altruism. In this sense, for the true capitalist, capitalism is not a choice, but a fundamental fact of life, the organizing principle behind all endeavor. Classical economic theory (as well as social Darwinism) indeed is based on this assumption that all social action is founded on the individual profit motivation.

            Japanese cultural ideology does not highlight the notion of the individual working for himself for his own aggrandizement, but rather one works for one’s family and for society/the nation. It’s considered in rather bad taste to be explicitly working only for one’s own benefit and pleasure. Of course people do, but the ideology reiterated  again and again is that one works for one’s family, one’s company (an extension of the family), and for society (a further extension of that).

            Is this a more humanistic version of capitalism? Or not? ……

….Not, I think….. I would argue that it is a more totalitarian version of capitalism.

In Japan there is a moral imperative to work for the group—to sacrifice oneself for the greater good. The problem is that this a false consciousness— a lie one force to articulate and believe in but obviously serves the interests of the powerful more than anything else. Though on the face of it this might appear to be a better, more humanistic approach than Western dog-eat-dog capitalism, it is really just capitalism with a totalitarian face. However it has enabled the nation to mobilize its “human resources” (don’t you just hate that term) to make it one of the richest nations in the world in terms of GDP.

 

 

Post editorial today— Michael Gerson criticizes environmentalists…….those getting overly excited about polar bears dying……

….this is an old argument which I’ve heard  from NY to Washington State…….environmentalists are a bunch of tree huggers want to save owls  and in the process make America lose out in global competitiveness to other nations who are presumably less squeemish about decimating natural wildlife habitats (including human habitats). ….we nature lovers are too emotional— not practical— will shackle economic growth if they had their way…..

This reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of ecological consciousness. Especially if we look a little deeper in such perspectives such as the deep ecology movement or eco-feminism …..what is being articulated is a fundamentally new vision of the place of humans in their natural environment…..a kind of nondualism where we properly see ourselves as embedded in or growing out of nature, in which the commodification of nature is replaced with a realization of a sacred and poetic connection (are my neoshamanistic roots starting to show?).

We commonly use the term “natural resources” which is really a dualistic term which implies exploitation, does it not?

Were we to adopt a truly ecological/nondualistic consciousnes with regard to our “relationship to nature,” we would not despoil the planet in the first place…..we would see ourselves as one with nature, and bulldozing a forest to put up a Wal-Mart would be like bulldozing a part  of ourselves.

Here’s the key: it’s not so much that we literally pave paradise and put up a parking lot, but rather mentally/cognitively or in our imaginations we have already rejected paradise in favor of an econometric and utilitarian (exploitative) understanding of nature and ourselves. Mentally we have seen both our natural bodies and the contiguous natural world as worthy of control and manipulation for the satisfaction of individual desires for more pleasure.

More cars, more toys, exessive food leading to obesity (Americans use a very dispraportionate percentage of the worlds “resources” because we see the world as our oyster).

 

In the usual econometric calculus of everyday life, it’s natural to do a cost benefit analysis.

Yes, some land is despoiled, but jobs are created, shopping malls, factories, ….resources mined for production. …..but can a cost benefit analysis really  be applied?

How can you make a balance sheet in which on one side you calculate the jobs and income benefits to a community and on the other, the cost of losing a spotted owl or even rising water levels…..it can’t be done (though that’s what policy makers are trying to do everyday!)

Our leaders, dominated by economic market consciousness have difficulty seeing the obvious……that we are nature, and to destroy it is to destroy ourselves.

No one will convince me that the benefits of having more cars to go to work in to companies making more stuff we don’t need which will poison our water and air and soil will ever outweight the value of  the smell of the crisp cold air and the smoke from the wood stove on a  Vermont autumn evening in late September when the leaves are rich in color peace pervades the land.

What’s the difference between Enron and the subprime mortgage meltdown?…..not much….corporate capitalism run amok…..or more precisely we should call it predatory capitalism.
Though the particulars differ, the same principle applies…..do what you can for quick returns on capital, commit fraud if you can get away with it,
and the customer be damned.

Enron went so far beyond pale most of the perps ended up in jail….in the case of Bear Stearns, Fannie May, et.al, the government (meaning the taxpayer)
will bail them out.

But some of the subprime loan sharks will indeed be looking at incarceration for a time..

However, for the most part, the rich get a safety net, and the rest of us poor schlubs….well, you know the rest..but the main point of the story–

Deregulation is a great thing for companies, for corporate profits, but encourages predatory capitalism.

Phil Gramm suggests that Americans should stop whining about the recession which is mostly in their heads. Even though McCain has repudiated this, the truth is that he spoke what many in the “investor class” truly believe….if GDP growth is respectable, then there’s nothing really to worry about……as if GDP figures really reflected an nation’s economic health. If corporate profits are up…….well then what’s all the fuss…

 

….but as it happens, Gramm must be on Pluto (see previous post, “What planet are they from?”)…..GM, once the show piece  of American corporate capitalism has less shareholder value than Starbucks or Hershey’s….and the “b” word (bankrupcty) is being floated.

…and speaking about GM…… a recent Washington Post editorial suggests that the root of GM’s problems is their lavish pension committments, foolishly made when GM was flush with cash in the early 70’s…..when half the cars on the road in America were GM made…

….though the article hints that GM is guilty of poor planning, poor quality and poor management, …..it lays the blame at the feet of the workers and their union (UAW) for demanding such high pension.

No doubt there is some truth to the notion that government, not companies should be providing health plans and pensions, still, it seems clear that if GM had greater market share they would not be laying off workers and talking about stopping production of great brands like Buick and Pontiac.

And why don’t they have more market share (2 out 10 cars in the U.S. is GM)?   Quality.  Fuel efficiency. Lack of foresight…….

….just look at what Carlos did for Nissan…..quality, streamlining, cost cutting, marketing strategy has made a that company highly profitable.

I’m no fan of the way Toyota treats it’s workers, but boy do they make a damn good car….

 

 

…..so once again …let blame the workers! because they want a decent pension?…….We should assign blame where blame is due. Some companies make money even in hard times (S.W. Airlines)….because they seem to know what really counts— customer satisfation, service, quality…….

The G8 summit starts tomorrow in Hokkaido and already the TV is full of spots emphasizing Japan’s key role in helping to save the planet. Never mind the fact that business interests (through Keidanren) have influenced the government to avoid clear CO2 targets, to pull back from any meaningful short-term action on emissions– the mood here is one of celebration.

 

One propaganda which seems to be part of Japanese consensus now is that conservation at home— in particular, separating trash into burnable and non-burnable bins, will go a long way in solving the global warming problem. Nothing is mentioned about emissions. Japanese have no idea about the role of auto and factory emissions in climate change, and no idea about the degree to which Japan is contributing to greenhouse gases. The information is not readily available…..but the government lacks transparency, so we shouldn’t hold our breath in waiting for such data. Any opinions that might call into question the ligitimacy of the current corporate industrial system will not be heard…..rather, greenwashing has become part of the new propaganda campaign

Protecting the environment and feeding the poor is not rocket science. The technology or technical know-how already exits for clean cars, clean energy for housing and industry. We know how to clean up the environment….it’s much simpler than landing a spacecraft on Mars or mapping the human genome. It’s a matter of political will….or more precisely, in our system industrial corporate capitalism, it’s a matter of return on capital.

Right now there is no adequate return on spending money to build clean factories, electric cars, solar houses, wind power generators, etc. There is no real immediate return on feeding the hungry, either….in fact, it might encourage them to have large families thus increasing their numbers. So from the the point of view of cold economic calculus, or more precisely, fromt the point of view of return on equity, as an investment, …helping to poor and cleaning the environment has poor or even negative returns.

Simply put– the reason we don’t clean up the environment nor raise most of the starving world out of poverty is not because we lack the technical means to do it, but because the capitalist system doesn’t see any pay-off. On the other hand, attacking Iraq has good returns. Even though the war is not cheap, it’s a small part of the U.S. national budget, and, more important, many private companies/contractors are finding it to be a real windfall for them. (Soon, no-bid contracts will give energy giants privileged access to Iraq’s oil reserves).

Perhaps then, the reason we don’t take military action against a country like Myanmar is because there is not return on it. No capital gains.

Though governments and NGO’s often try to mitigate the effects of naked capitalism, the fact remains that capital rules our world.

Not only in America but in France as well, it seems that CEO compensation is beyond scandalous. Some even in the business world have warned against excessive salaries for executive officers, but their worries reflect a real ignorance of the root problem.

For example, Peter Montagnon, director of investment affairs at the Association of British Insurers said, “If we go into a major recession with job losses, but top executives are still being paid huges sums, that’s bad for the reputation of capitalism.” [The Economist, June 12th, 2008].

Thats not the issue!…it’s not about the reputation of capitalism…– this is a grand case of totally missing the point, ….but reveals how out of touch, how inhumane is the business world (and much  mainstream economics)…

 IT’S NOT THE REPUTATION OF CAPITALISM WHICH IS THE ISSUE, BUT RATHER THE HUMAN SUFFERING CAUSED BY RECESSION AND JOB LOSS, which is directly or indirectly related to this maldistribution of wealth to the top……

It indeed seems that economist and business people have removed the human element behind the statistics.