Comment Re:An idea's worth (Score 1) 335
A.C. wrote:
No! That's the brilliance of it. Society can support just about anything which it deems valuable. That value drives the society to utilize whatever that thing is. The utility, at the very least, drives and motivates some sort of action, which drives and motivates some other action.
This is, of course, assuming that society at lareg makes correct assumptions of value, which it doesn't.
This incessant chain of action, is what feeds, clothes and houses most of society.
But what about the portion that isn't fed, clothed, or housed at all? The system certainly isn't perfect. It's not a cuase for overthrow, but possibly reevaluation, but the problem se4ems to be that no one is willing to question the ffectiveness of a system that works so apparently well (in first world countries)
This is not a cry for socialism in any way, nor communism because i think both of those are even more flawed.
It is certainly true that not all members of the society thrive or even survive for that matter. But its better than the alternative of the entire society failing.
Is it? I'm not so sure our obsession with spreserving the current incarnation of 'society' has done us any good. If society collapsed, it wouldn't mean the end of humanity, and just maybe we would come up with a system with fewer bugs in it by starting from the beginning again. (NO, i'm not a terrorist or anarchist either)
The fact that everyone doesn't have to farm their own food makes it possible for the diversity of things that exist in our society.
If you've been watching farm prices lately, farmers aren't doing too well (at least in the U.S) Apparently people are willing to pay very well for the luxury of this diversity. And farming (unless it's on a huge, depoleting scale is never massively profitable. My gradfather often says "It's the occupation with the highest gross income, but the lowest profit" and he's pretty accurate.
No! That's the brilliance of it. Society can support just about anything which it deems valuable. That value drives the society to utilize whatever that thing is. The utility, at the very least, drives and motivates some sort of action, which drives and motivates some other action.
This is, of course, assuming that society at lareg makes correct assumptions of value, which it doesn't.
This incessant chain of action, is what feeds, clothes and houses most of society.
But what about the portion that isn't fed, clothed, or housed at all? The system certainly isn't perfect. It's not a cuase for overthrow, but possibly reevaluation, but the problem se4ems to be that no one is willing to question the ffectiveness of a system that works so apparently well (in first world countries)
This is not a cry for socialism in any way, nor communism because i think both of those are even more flawed.
It is certainly true that not all members of the society thrive or even survive for that matter. But its better than the alternative of the entire society failing.
Is it? I'm not so sure our obsession with spreserving the current incarnation of 'society' has done us any good. If society collapsed, it wouldn't mean the end of humanity, and just maybe we would come up with a system with fewer bugs in it by starting from the beginning again. (NO, i'm not a terrorist or anarchist either)
The fact that everyone doesn't have to farm their own food makes it possible for the diversity of things that exist in our society.
If you've been watching farm prices lately, farmers aren't doing too well (at least in the U.S) Apparently people are willing to pay very well for the luxury of this diversity. And farming (unless it's on a huge, depoleting scale is never massively profitable. My gradfather often says "It's the occupation with the highest gross income, but the lowest profit" and he's pretty accurate.
