Is Capitalism the Natural Evolution of Human Society?

[octelcogopod]

Capitalism to me seems to be a natural development for humans.
It's almost the only economical system where each person has an alleged equal chance at success.
But is society built the right way?

If we look historically on the psychological side of it, capitalism was a way to let people have free competition, it was a way to let people do what they wanted.
It was a natural economical system that arose because of peoples need to have competition and to have their shot at doing what they wanted.
But things didn't end up as planned, because monopolies occured, and suddenly the rich became richer and the poor became poorer.
These days, capitalism is dead hard. You see it everywhere.
But really, will humans allow any other system unless we rebuilt society under completely different terms?

Each person when born into society, is getting pounded with the idea that you have to work to survive.
You have to do your job in society, or get out.
So then, a person doesn't have much choice, he must succeed to survive.
Then we end up with a consumer environment, where each person buys other persons products, and if they don't like the product they go somewhere else.
So obviously the one with the best product wins, and he becomes richer, while the other ones will go on to do other things.

But do you think perhaps, that this is actually a good thing, or a bad thing?
It's basically survival of the smartest, the original and the skilled ones.
In some weird way, it actually contributes and makes everyone do a good job, not always, but many times we will see great products come out, and in some ways it brings humanity forward, but in return it eliminates the weaker ones.
Is this the way we are supposed to live?
If we want to end up as an intelligent, ever evolving race, then yes it is.
If we want to focus more on humane ideas, and social issues, then it's not imo the right way to do things.
We would need an equalizing apparatus of sorts, so that everyone could live happily and equally to each other, and eliminate competition.
Though that would eliminate any progress we could've made, but I ask you, is progress more important than the well being of a person?

EDIT: I'd like to add the topics of discussion;
is capitalism destroying human rights? Is humanity living as good as it should? Is competition good or bad on a grand scale? Was this actually the only way humans could have evolved? Is this at the deepest level an after effect of biology and psychology?
What does this tell us about humans?

 

[RVBuckeye]

I certainly love being rich! That's just my opinion though.

 

[jimmie]

But is society built the right way?

Please provide your definition of "right".

 

[RVBuckeye]

Let me get serious for a bit. Right or wrong is purely subjective to your experience. Meaning, a rich person probably thinks it's a whole lot better being rich than imagining being poor. (on average, i would guess this is so).
If I think about the rise of what we call capitalism, I would start with imagining an early human discovering fire. Something that one could posess and another could want. I could also imagine how this could evolve into an early form of trade, giving rise to someone offering a carcass in trade for a glowing ember. This grows exponentially from there. We humans have since assigned a symbolic value to our tradeable goods and wha-la, Capitalisim. (An extreme over-simplification but...) It does lead me to believe that it is an innevetability of the human race. Nothing seems "wrong" with that scenario of basic capitalism. Where wrong seems to factor in is fairness. If you believe that it will ever be fair, you are probably deluding yourself. There will always be those who posess more of whatever it is that you deem valuable enough for you to want. Have we reached the point of no return? The wealthiest people in the world are now ruling the world. Do you really think there is ever going to be a way to level the playing field? Do you think they would let that happen? Only if there was a natural disaster on a cataclysmic scale. Then I won't be around to care.

 

[uranium138]

I believe progress is much more important than short term well being. that was the way evoulution meant for us to be; the strongest survive and weaker one that can't survive don't

 

[loseyourname]

Please provide your definition of "right".

I think he left it intentionally undefined so that each response would vary according to what each poster feels is "right," although he is definitely talking about moral correctness.

 

[octelcogopod]

When I said "right", I meant that each person is living equally "good" in that they have equal rights, equal amount of food, goods and so on.

If everyone dropped their selfishness for just one day, and did something selfless for someone who needs it, then the world would be a better place in just one day.

I'm just saying, why have all this poverty, war, hate, etc, when it's ruining peoples lives all around the globe every day.
So as an addendum to the OP, is all this worth the lives of those who are in pain/poverty/about to die?
Plenty of wars, poverty, and general aggressiveness comes from capitalism, but I'm also talking about the general competitiveness among people.
One person can betray, deceit and even kill for money, money is so important that everyone wants more more more.

I'm just saying..

 

[loseyourname]

When I said "right", I meant that each person is living equally "good" in that they have equal rights, equal amount of food, goods and so on.

Never mind, then. In that case, I'll have to disagree with your use of the term, as I don't feel those things are what is "right." Having equal amounts of rights and food and such does not by itself guarantee an ethical social structure. For instance, prisoners down the road at San Quentin all have equal rights and are alloted the same amount of food every day, but I wouldn't want an entire society to function in the way San Quentin does. I would hardly consider such a society to be "right."

 

[Azael]

Capitalism to me seems to be a natural development for humans.
It's almost the only economical system where each person has an alleged equal chance at success.
But is society built the right way?

If we look historically on the psychological side of it, capitalism was a way to let people have free competition, it was a way to let people do what they wanted.
It was a natural economical system that arose because of peoples need to have competition and to have their shot at doing what they wanted.
But things didn't end up as planned, because monopolies occured, and suddenly the rich became richer and the poor became poorer.
These days, capitalism is dead hard. You see it everywhere.
But really, will humans allow any other system unless we rebuilt society under completely different terms?

Each person when born into society, is getting pounded with the idea that you have to work to survive.
You have to do your job in society, or get out.
So then, a person doesn't have much choice, he must succeed to survive.
Then we end up with a consumer environment, where each person buys other persons products, and if they don't like the product they go somewhere else.
So obviously the one with the best product wins, and he becomes richer, while the other ones will go on to do other things.

But do you think perhaps, that this is actually a good thing, or a bad thing?
It's basically survival of the smartest, the original and the skilled ones.
In some weird way, it actually contributes and makes everyone do a good job, not always, but many times we will see great products come out, and in some ways it brings humanity forward, but in return it eliminates the weaker ones.
Is this the way we are supposed to live?
If we want to end up as an intelligent, ever evolving race, then yes it is.
If we want to focus more on humane ideas, and social issues, then it's not imo the right way to do things.
We would need an equalizing apparatus of sorts, so that everyone could live happily and equally to each other, and eliminate competition.
Though that would eliminate any progress we could've made, but I ask you, is progress more important than the well being of a person?

EDIT: I'd like to add the topics of discussion;
is capitalism destroying human rights? Is humanity living as good as it should? Is competition good or bad on a grand scale? Was this actually the only way humans could have evolved? Is this at the deepest level an after effect of biology and psychology?
What does this tell us about humans?

I have to say that a totaly equal society where everyone has exactly equal ammounts of everything would be so horribly boring and pointless that I would probably commit suicide.

Without competition one of the main driving forces behind mankind goes away. The human race would become apathic, useless and decadent. What point is it if you can't improve in some way

Progress imo makes life better for a lot of people but maby worse for a few if exploited. But I rather se that a lot have a good life than to se everyone have a equaly miserable life. So I guess I could say that progress is more important than the wellbeeing of any single individual or group of individuals.

 

[Rade]

So I guess I could say that progress is more important than the wellbeeing of any single individual or group of individuals.

If I build a house for myself using help from my friends, and two friends die because the roof falls on them, is the progress attained from the standing walls more important than the well being of my friends (single individuals) ? I just do not see how this holds logically.

 

[Azael]

If I build a house for myself using help from my friends, and two friends die because the roof falls on them, is the progress attained from the standing walls more important than the well being of my friends (single individuals) ? I just do not see how this holds logically.

If you take a concept and limit it to a few individuals it can seem outrageous. But if you expand it to the whole of society it seems logical.

Most of the technology we have around us have caused grief for some people. Computers/automated systems have gotten rid of many many manual labors. Medicine developemnt has caused a lot of animal and in some cases human suffering. But I think we both can agree that medicine and computers are benificial for society as a whole?

Maby the house they died when building will shelter 50 people during a vicious storm that would have killed them otherwise. Would that mean the walls where more important?

 

[Azael]

Isnt the strive to get better one of the most fundamental driving forces behind mankind? Everyone has some kind of dream that they want to make into reality and often those dreams atleast involved getting a better financial situation.

Make everyone equal(I mean truly equal, remove grades in school, everyone has exactly the same things, homes, food, salary) without oppertunity to rise above and you will kill the dreams of most people and that will be the end of them.

Just think about it, everyone has some thing(no matter if its a gadget, car, grade in school, fortune) they take pride in BECAUSE its better than what most others have. Something they have struggled to get.

What is life without a dream to chanse? Just a boring task, a meaningless void betwen beeing born and dying.

 

[russ_watters]

...and suddenly the rich became richer and the poor became poorer.

Often stated, but factually untrue. The global poverty rate - even with a scale that gets more stringent with time - is decreasing and has decreased by half in the past 20 years. The rich are getting richer - but so are the poor.

We would need an equalizing apparatus of sorts, so that everyone could live happily and equally to each other, and eliminate competition.
Though that would eliminate any progress we could've made, but I ask you, is progress more important than the well being of a person?

Tough questions - do you have an idea about how we could do things that you think would be better?

is capitalism destroying human rights?

Well, the US was basically founded on the idea that capitalism requires human rights and human rights require capitalism. So I don't think so...

Is humanity living as good as it should?

Certainly not, but it is improving - mostly due to the recent expansion of capitalism.

Is competition good or bad on a grand scale?

Depends on what you mean. I think if it results in the betterment of mankind overall, it is a good thing.

Was this actually the only way humans could have evolved?

In my opinion, yes - based on the nature of evolution. Evolution is competition - capitalism is competition.

When I said "right", I meant that each person is living equally "good" in that they have equal rights, equal amount of food, goods and so on.

What if equal results in equally bad? So far every attempt at equality of outcome has resulted in equally bad.

Isnt the strive to get better one of the most fundamental driving forces behind mankind?

Well, according to Maslow's heirachy of needs, yeah - self actualization (aka "betterment") is the ultimate goal of human accomplishment.

 

[Dayle Record]

Capitalism has nearly become a creed or religion in this nation. Capitalism is too narrow in its focus, too linear, to be the only operating mode for our planet or our species. The idea that the world is better because it has more leftovers from capitalist waste, is handy, but not factual.

Over time we developed many things to soften the desperation of hand to mouth living, agriculture, animal husbandry, fortifications, trade, specialized defensive personnel. Capitalism is profit as the end product, but it tends to lack that introspective quality, that would cause it to examine effect. There are capitalists like Bill Gates, or Jon Huntsman, who get to some very high ground, and decide that they can do for others, even on a grand scale. That is viewed as optional activity.

We all want some magic to happen in our lives, whether it is having an apple fall from a tree to us, or being engaged by what we do for a living, or whether it is having huge dreams and making them happen. Frogs, whales, dolphins, mosquitos, birds, or bodies of water, cannot participate in capitalism, yet have an important role in every life, whether capitalist, communist, or socialist. There must be a more thoughtful organizing principle for all lives lived in this non linear world. The cause and effect of Capitalism is much too simple to be the absolute ruler.

 

[loseyourname]

Capitalism has nearly become a creed or religion in this nation. Capitalism is too narrow in its focus, too linear, to be the only operating mode for our planet or our species. The idea that the world is better because it has more leftovers from capitalist waste, is handy, but not factual.

Over time we developed many things to soften the desperation of hand to mouth living, agriculture, animal husbandry, fortifications, trade, specialized defensive personnel. Capitalism is profit as the end product, but it tends to lack that introspective quality, that would cause it to examine effect. There are capitalists like Bill Gates, or Jon Huntsman, who get to some very high ground, and decide that they can do for others, even on a grand scale. That is viewed as optional activity.

We all want some magic to happen in our lives, whether it is having an apple fall from a tree to us, or being engaged by what we do for a living, or whether it is having huge dreams and making them happen. Frogs, whales, dolphins, mosquitos, birds, or bodies of water, cannot participate in capitalism, yet have an important role in every life, whether capitalist, communist, or socialist. There must be a more thoughtful organizing principle for all lives lived in this non linear world. The cause and effect of Capitalism is much too simple to be the absolute ruler.

This is exactly why I think discussions about the ethics of capitalism miss the point. Capitalism is simply a name for an economic model that maximizes economic profits, and that's all it should do. There is nothing inherent in the drive to be more efficient and productive so as to outcompete others in the same market as you that forces or even inclines one to perform either good or bad moral actions. There can be moral capitalists and there can be immoral capitalists, but capitalism itself is amoral. Striving for human rights and environmental sustainability is not an economic matter, and neither socialism or capitalism or feudalism or any other system of processing business transactions is going to force people to either treat each other decently or poorly. Treating people ethically and not destroying the planet is something that we should all strive to do regardless of how we feel about property ownership and resource allocation.

 

[octelcogopod]

This is exactly why I think discussions about the ethics of capitalism miss the point. Capitalism is simply a name for an economic model that maximizes economic profits, and that's all it should do. There is nothing inherent in the drive to be more efficient and productive so as to outcompete others in the same market as you that forces or even inclines one to perform either good or bad moral actions. There can be moral capitalists and there can be immoral capitalists, but capitalism itself is amoral. Striving for human rights and environmental sustainability is not an economic matter, and neither socialism or capitalism or feudalism or any other system of processing business transactions is going to force people to either treat each other decently or poorly. Treating people ethically and not destroying the planet is something that we should all strive to do regardless of how we feel about property ownership and resource allocation.

Ahh.. Now I understand.
i was kind of mixing everything into one grandiose idea for a moment.
The idea that everything humanity has done, is a direct result of everything man has ever done.


It sounds kind of weird, but I mean, in some ways it's true, cause such a big thing as capitalism will no doubt touch into other aspects of life, and people will get hurt as a cause of it.
For instance the clothing companies child/labor camps down in thaiwan and such, hadn't capitalism existed I don't think anyone would have set them up. (Of course they could have, it's not a /direct/ result, but it's a driving force by the need to earn money and keep profit up, like capitalism tells us to do.)

Also I think maybe money as an idea, is great, but it's too powerful.
People are sometimes blinded by the idea of money, /everyone* wants more of it.
That's because money can get you /anything/.

Also russ_waters, thanks for putting me straight on a couple issues, I haven't read much about the real effect of capitalism, I have more just philosophized on the effects such a system can have on a grander scale.

 

[Faery Cat]

I think Hesiod captured the point perfectly in his Works And Days.

(when speaking of one of the two kinds of Strife)
"The other was born first though. Ebony Night
Bore her, and Kronos' son who sits high in thin air
Set her in Earth's roots, and she's a lot better for humans.
Even shiftless folks get stirred up to work.
When a person's lazing about and sees his neighbor
Getting rich, because he hurries to plow and plant
And put his homestead in order, he tends to compete
With that neighbor in a race to get rich.

Strife like this does people good.

So potter fueds with potter
And carpenter with carpenter,
Beggar is jealous of beggar
And poet of poet."

 

[russ_watters]

The idea that the world is better because it has more leftovers from capitalist waste, is handy, but not factual.

Well, "better" and "worse" are opinions and your description of the situation is subjective as well. To me, "better" is simple math: fewer people starving to death and fewer people dying of preventable diseases is "good" in my opinion (and, I would hope, in yours as well), so in my opinion that means the world is "better".

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well, "better" and "worse" are opinions and your description of the situation is subjective as well. To me, "better" is simple math: fewer people starving to death and fewer people dying of preventable diseases is "good" in my opinion (and, I would hope, in yours as well), so in my opinion that means the world is "better".

The OP conceded the material welfare side of the issue, but suggested these topics for discussion

I'd like to add the topics of discussion;
is capitalism destroying human rights? Is humanity living as good as it should? Is competition good or bad on a grand scale? Was this actually the only way humans could have evolved? Is this at the deepest level an after effect of biology and psychology?
What does this tell us about humans?

I think the thread should stick to those, without defenses of capitalism on other fronts.

I think the first question could be answered, compared to what? What economic or social order in the presnt or in history do you suggest has BETTER human rights than the modern capitalist world?

The other questions seem to address the issue of whether capitalism is inherent in our genes. I think all societies and economies are deeply affected by the fact that humans have various talents and each talent has a bell curve of a few with high values of it, a middle with many at average values, and a few with very low values. so there are 5-sigma high individuals with persuasivenes, need for dominance, ruthlessness and so on while the bulk of the population is only so-so in these and other relevant characteristics. The 5-sigma individuals are going to try to dominate in any society; exactly how they go about it varies. But I would rather have Bill Gates or even John D. Rockefeller on top than Attila the Hun or Joseph Stalin.

 

[Dayle Record]

Humans have developed many complicated processes in the process of accumulating the necessary energy, so that our collective fire (our species) does not go out. I think of us as ambulatory chemical fires that have to be fueled in order to exist.

We learned a lot of techniques for survival, but we have not learned collectively how to get rid of the "on top" idea. As able as we are to contemplate the stars, or grow a better radish, you get my drift; we still haven't rid ourselves of the need for dominance, even giving it respectful scientific names, alpha male, or five sigma high. Capitalism is the monetary extension of that primate social structure. We are so bound by its workings, that humans actually try to make a connection to psyche, and make Capitalism an extension of western religion. Now the obvious anthropomorphism here is that since all us good folk are doing this, then, that makes it good.

This is like looking at your coffee table and there is a scientific calculator and a bag of candy, and declaring that all is right with the world. Capitalism is just a huge, ongoing equation that a lot of individuals work on constantly, that is all. Life can be very hard, if you are not a part of the equation, or if the equation suddenly needs your net worth, or land, or life, to continue. That is all Capitalism is, however, it has no spirit, life, ethic, goal, or exit plan.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We learned a lot of techniques for survival, but we have not learned collectively how to get rid of the "on top" idea. As able as we are to contemplate the stars, or grow a better radish, you get my drift; we still haven't rid ourselves of the need for dominance, even giving it respectful scientific names, alpha male, or five sigma high. Capitalism is the monetary extension of that primate social structure. We are so bound by its workings, that humans actually try to make a connection to psyche, and make Capitalism an extension of western religion. Now the obvious anthropomorphism here is that since all us good folk are doing this, then, that makes it good.

Well, yes. "We have met the enemy and he is us". We are not that far evolved from the common ancestor of chimps and us, we share 99+% of our genes with our chimp cousins, and THEY are tribal and so are we. So hierarchy is us; the trick is so build a polity that respects that constraint but allows individual justice (which is also in our genes, I believe). It seems to me the framers of the US Constitution did a respectable, clear-eyed job of achieving that.

 

[quantumcarl]

EDIT: I'd like to add the topics of discussion;
is capitalism destroying human rights?

No, unethical capatalism is destroying human rights. If someone takes on the responsibility to produce a product and make money at it and they don't live up to the responsibilities entailed, this is unethical and can infringe on human rights.

Is humanity living as good as it should?

As part of humanity, are you living as good as you should? If you are "living good" you might start a trend!

Is competition good or bad on a grand scale?

If everyone offered the same quality of service and product there would be no competition and globalization would not occur. Companies that grew in Paraguay and companies that grew in Mexico would corner those markets and no one would look any further because they had the same quality as anyone else. This would lead to regionalist factionism and inbreeding, if not of families then of company ethics and policy. This often leads to mutation, malfunction and malfunctory policy.

Was this actually the only way humans could have evolved?

You mean is this the only way an economic system can evolve. Apparently. Even the devote communists of China have adopted Capitalism.

Is this at the deepest level an after effect of biology and psychology?

The after effect of biology is that we are alive. The after effect of psychology is our personal and social behaviour.

What does this tell us about humans?

What does what tell us about humans? If you mean what does human behaviour tell us about humans it tells us what humans will do to survive.

Ethical Capitalism is the best course for human activity on the planet.

Ethical Capitalism is the wholistic approach to the effects of industry, whatever kind of industry, on its consumer, environment and economy. It requires continuous research and introspection and safe guards against damaging societies and the environment... including those populations of animals and plants therein.

Ethical Capitalism means making the largest amount of money and making the least amount of impact on society and on the environment. It can work... but it takes a large amount of care and consideration.

Ethical Capitalism is the next plateau in the evolution of economics.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Never mind, then. In that case, I'll have to disagree with your use of the term, as I don't feel those things are what is "right." Having equal amounts of rights and food and such does not by itself guarantee an ethical social structure. For instance, prisoners down the road at San Quentin all have equal rights and are alloted the same amount of food every day, but I wouldn't want an entire society to function in the way San Quentin does. I would hardly consider such a society to be "right."

. . . or economically feasible.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

In this realm of survival of the fittest, being 'nice, kind, fair' etc., is a luxury. Capitalism contributes much to the availability of this luxury but it is still up to the individual to be 'nice'. I find it rewarding and I appreciate it when people are nice to me. If being nice is a gene than I hope it will eventually dominate our species. In the mean time capitalism does not excuse anyone from personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Capitalism and Ethics are both a requirement for a rational and healthy human species.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Ethical Capitalism is the best course for human activity on the planet.

Ethical Capitalism is the wholistic approach to the effects of industry, whatever kind of industry, on its consumer, environment and economy. It requires continuous research and introspection and safe guards against damaging societies and the environment... including those populations of animals and plants therein.

Ethical Capitalism means making the largest amount of money and making the least amount of impact on society and on the environment. It can work... but it takes a large amount of care and consideration.

Ethical Capitalism is the next plateau in the evolution of economics.

I agree whole-heartedly with most of your post but I have one problem with the "ethical capitalism". It's a good ideal to be stived for, but it is counter-productive if you have just one unethical person not playing by the rules. Capitalism mirrors humanity in the way it is survival of the fittest. All it takes is one company to exploit a business practice that all others might feel unethical, thus don't get invovlved with. (such as using sweat shops versus production in which employees are offered fair wages, insurance, etc.) The expense that the unethical company saves by not treating employees fairly could, in theory, help gain that competitive edge needed to corner a market. Certainly it is up the consumer not to buy those products until the unethical practices are stopped. But sometimes a consumers purchasing decisions are based on what they can afford, rather than lack of ethics. (I still shop at Wal-Mart occasionaly).

 

[quantumcarl]

I agree whole-heartedly with most of your post but I have one problem with the "ethical capitalism". It's a good ideal to be stived for, but it is counter-productive if you have just one unethical person not playing by the rules. Capitalism mirrors humanity in the way it is survival of the fittest. All it takes is one company to exploit a business practice that all others might feel unethical, thus don't get invovlved with. (such as using sweat shops versus production in which employees are offered fair wages, insurance, etc.) The expense that the unethical company saves by not treating employees fairly could, in theory, help gain that competitive edge needed to corner a market. Certainly it is up the consumer not to buy those products until the unethical practices are stopped. But sometimes a consumers purchasing decisions are based on what they can afford, rather than lack of ethics. (I still shop at Wal-Mart occasionaly).

Sure it is the consumer that decides if a comany "survives" or not. The quality of the company's product decides the fate of the company when matched or not with those tastes, practises and expectations of the consumer. But it is ultimately the responsibility of the company to provide a quality product. This ensures the maintainence of a large consumer base... along with equitable pricing.

If the employees of a company are unhappy, their work is less than quality. If the employees are under-educated and under-trained and have cultural values that do not match those of the target market of the company's market, then the company begins to slip on the stock exchange because of poor sales performance. If the consumer is rallying against overseas employees the company slips even more.

Quality of product is a major point. It is plain to see with the slow failure of McDonalds Restaurants that even the most uneducated market knows bad food when then eat it. Why else would Ronald try to save his market with 'healthy choice' sandwiches... that really taste bad too? Its failure all around for this practise. Good food cannot be mass produced. But McD illustrates my point that a poor product will, eventually, crash a company.

If the company only sees the consumer as its "environment" where it needs to survive as the fittest... it's not seeing the whole picture. The health and welfare of its employees is just as important in wooing the consumer as its flashy ad campaign or its change of label. If the company is decimating the countryside and the people of some "far away" nation to feed the demands of consumers at home... how long before news of what the company is doing to the people, their families and their land gets back home and there is a sharp decline in sales. Then another company does it better with quality and ethics. A company may even find an alternative product that blows the other company's methodology right out of the water.

Take Toyota or Honda for example. They marketed the hybrid system heavily (as opposed to Ford and GM etc...) they got the jump on ethical vehicles. Ford is hurting and so are its employees. The US car makers are hurting because of a blind spot they seem to have when it comes to quality and ethics. Its like they don't get the financial news when it comes to oil prices and production. Ford bought rights to Hydrogen Fuel cell production but, they didn't push it.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Take Toyota or Honda for example. They marketed the hybrid system heavily (as opposed to Ford and GM etc...) they got the jump on ethical vehicles. Ford is hurting and so are its employees. The US car makers are hurting because of a blind spot they seem to have when it comes to quality and ethics. Its like they don't get the financial news when it comes to oil prices and production. Ford bought rights to Hydrogen Fuel cell production but, they didn't push it.

Now you're speaking my language. It so happens I work for Ford and GMC. And have in the past handled Honda's as well. Years ago the reason imports got the jump on american cars was due to quality, no question. But american cars have come along way but still need to get better to compete. I think you are straying when you factor in ethics. I don't think ethics were the major factor in introducing clean-cars. The financial news is that we are in bed with the saudi's and will go to war in an attempt to keep oil prices cheap for americans. Japanese manufacturers didn't have this luxury, thus devoted more resources to this clean technology. It wasn't ethics to save the earth, it was lack of natural resources. So true they got the jump. Ford and Gm have been producing hybrid cars for years, the reason they didn't produce many is because they were dramaticlly more expensive. The reason they didn't research it as much as the japanese, is because americans weren't buying them. (cause gas is cheap). The reason why it is an issue today is not in an effort to save the Earth (ethics), it's because gas prices are expected to raise dramatically. (lack of money) I'll tell you this, if China can produce a hybrid car, americans will buy them too. Because far few people have the luxury of spending the extra money on the added cost of producing an ethically manufactured anything.

 

[quantumcarl]

Now you're speaking my language. It so happens I work for Ford and GMC. And have in the past handled Honda's as well. Years ago the reason imports got the jump on american cars was due to quality, no question. But american cars have come along way but still need to get better to compete. I think you are straying when you factor in ethics. I don't think ethics were the major factor in introducing clean-cars. The financial news is that we are in bed with the saudi's and will go to war in an attempt to keep oil prices cheap for americans. Japanese manufacturers didn't have this luxury, thus devoted more resources to this clean technology. It wasn't ethics to save the earth, it was lack of natural resources. So true they got the jump. Ford and Gm have been producing hybrid cars for years, the reason they didn't produce many is because they were dramaticlly more expensive. The reason they didn't research it as much as the japanese, is because americans weren't buying them. (cause gas is cheap). The reason why it is an issue today is not in an effort to save the Earth (ethics), it's because gas prices are expected to raise dramatically. (lack of money) I'll tell you this, if China can produce a hybrid car, americans will buy them too. Because far few people have the luxury of spending the extra money on the added cost of producing an ethically manufactured anything.

The physics of the whole energy swicheroo away from oil demands that it actually happen regardless of the reasons. That what makes it ethical. The physics. The reasons for the appearance of the Hybrid system and the Fuel Cell powered vehicle may not seem like they are meant to save the Kangaroos and children's brains and lungs. But, that's where the physics demands we go and conservation of clean air, water and health will be some of many results.

That's what ethics produces, the fabled "win win" situation. In fact ethics is best described in this manner. Ethics = Win win.

If a company is not generating a win/win relationship with everyone from employees to the community to the environment then the company is not going to survive very long. There are many examples of this.

In the end, a company is its product. If it doesn't balance itself off with all the other factors in its environment then it is unfit and won't survive long. This is where "survival of the fittest" really refers to the (long term) survival of the most ethically efficient.

 

[RVBuckeye]

The physics of the whole energy swicheroo away from oil demands that it actually happen regardless of the reasons. That what makes it ethical. The physics. The reasons for the appearance of the Hybrid system and the Fuel Cell powered vehicle may not seem like they are meant to save the Kangaroos and children's brains and lungs. But, that's where the physics demands we go and conservation of clean air, water and health will be some of many results.

This is an example of coincidence, not ethics. Just because the by-product of of these cleaner running vehicles happens to improve the environment is not the reason why the development of the technology is starting to catch on. Purchasing a hybrid might be an ethical decision for you personally, but that can't be applied to the whole of society. Its often their financial situation which governs what they spend their money on. If the cost of oil wasn't rising, the American car manufacturers wouldn't even be thinking of mass producing these vehicles.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of companies trying to be ethical. I'm just saying that in a capitalist society, sometimes it boils down to cost-vs-ethics (from a consumer prospective). Where a lower price wins out over a usually higher priced, ethically produced product.
(I can save $5 and by a shirt produced in a sweatshop and feed my child, or pay $10 and my child goes hungry). (spur of the moment example, sorry)

Therein lies the problem. As long as decisions are made like this by the consumer, decisions will likewise be made like this by a company. "Ethical Capitalism" is an oxymoron. It's a good ideal to strive for, but highly unrealistic. Sad to say but unethical business practices can often be overcome by good advertising.

 

[quantumcarl]

This is an example of coincidence, not ethics.

When oil runs out, something takes its place... that is a physical inevitibility and a basic principal of ethics - ie: replenishment and balance.

Ethics is simply the study of physics and how humans and other elements interact with nature and the nature of physics.

When you pit something non-renewable against something renewable... guess which is the only physically efficient choice... to support long term survival.

Long term survival is another physical attribute supported by ethics.

Capitalism without ethics only sees the quick profit as the best preservative of the company. Capitalism does not see the immediate danger caused by ••••ing in its own backyard. Nor does capitalism see how it is increasingly evident that the whole planet is everyone's backyard and no one wants a bunch of no-neck, unethical CEO's pooping in it.

Edit: If "results" like the production of renewable energy resources to offset a diminishing non-renewable energy resource are a "coincidence", then, apparently, it is an ethical "coincidence" brought about by the physics of a situation created by an unethical situation that was either wittingly or unwittingly created by a long precession of previous capitalists.

 

[quantumcarl]

sidebar

People seem to think ethics are a principal that can either be used or ignored. The truth is, ethics is a practise that strives to create a harmony and balance between the individual and the community, the community and the environment. When the cause of humanity (economics and lifestyles) and its effect on the environment and other communities create a balance that sustains both the community and the environment it is called ethics which is a manifestation of the physics of sustainability.

If the sustainable physics of ethics are not practised, the community, over various lengths of time and depending on the size of the population - fails. (See the history of the USSR)

The practise of ethics and sustainable physics also includes those interactions between the individuals, groups, companies and the nations of humanity. When the physics of these interactions are unbalanced, the culture of humanity falters. But the size of the population offers a second and third chance at getting it right. (See India/China)

I always like to use the rules of Driving as an analogy. When the physics that govern a vehicle do not ethically interact with the other vehicles, that vehicle fails to continue in its progress and slows other vehicle's progress. Its obvious.

So, to conclude my sidebar discourse, ethics may be a choice but it is ultimately a choice between the survival of an individual, group, company or nation
and the inablility for these entities to survive.

 

[RVBuckeye]

People seem to think ethics are a principal that can either be used or ignored. The truth is, ethics is a practise that strives to create a harmony and balance between the individual and the community, the community and the environment. When the cause of humanity (economics and lifestyles) and its effect on the environment and other communities create a balance that sustains both the community and the environment it is called ethics which is a manifestation of the physics of sustainability.

Since when did "ethics" turn into "Ethics"? Like now it is some sort of idealistic lifestyle. Ethics means your morals. Simple and that. Not some "Jesus-like" lifestyle, where every tiny descision is scrutinized by whether or not it meets the bar of ethics. That's just not realistic. It's not what Capitalism was designed for either.

You are never going to weed out every morally questionable decision an individual has to make, or a business CEO. The morality bar can be either raised or lowered when the overall scope of the decision is based on survival. (personal, financial, survival of your group, survival of your business, survival of your country, survival of you corporate conglomerate). breaking a moral rule that falls in some proverbial "grey area" is an unnacoutable offense, thus no one can enforce adherence to the rules. (Unless ...you are able to convince every person on the face of the Earth that there is some sort of person watching your every move and you better do the ethical thing or punishment will ensue...). Since that is physically impossible and there is no proof that that is true, we have to put our lot in with government. And use that as a tool of enforcement of mutually agreed upon set of ethical values. And since it is physically impossible to enforce every rule, in the world as we know it, "ethical capitalism" is neither completely possible or feasible. (you can't spend more on enforcement than you earn).

Capitalism's only purpose is a means to an end. Means- an economic strucure of trade, end- allows you to eat, feed you family, have shelter, and sometimes buy yourself a boat or something? Not enforcement of ethical values.

What you are proposing as inevitable is some capitalistic, democratic, religious conglomerate. But is that really better? I don't want big brother watching my every move either. What would you make you think human beings would willingly allow themselves to be controlled to that extent.

Maybe it will be as great as you predict it will be. But that ideal is like infinity- understood, but impossible to physically realize.

So, to conclude my sidebar discourse, ethics may be a choice but it is ultimately a choice between the survival of an individual, group, company or nation
and the inablility for these entities to survive

See, you can't even agree on your own 2 definitions of ethics. How can humanity agree on what actually is ethical?

 

[machapungo]

Capitalism as it is currently practiced will ultimately fail.
It is sucking up the planets resources at an unsustainable rate.
It polutes and therby destroys our health and the planet.
It is a product of our culture of greed and domination that breeds violence.
If human violence doesn't wipe us out mother nature will unless we wake up.
Besides, money itself is boring. Discovery and creativity are interesting.

 

[quantumcarl]

How can humanity agree on what actually is ethical?

Humanity doesn't have a say in what is ethical and it isn't big brother that will take you down if you don't practise ethics.

What will take you down and what "has a say" is whether or not the physics of whatever an individual/community/company does is sustainable and in accordance with the laws of the physics of sustainability.

In effect, the physics of sustainability are either adhered to by an individual/community/company or else the individual, community or company fails... sooner or later.

If this is upsetting to a person then they are the type of person who is upset by the laws of gravity... etc... .

 

[russ_watters]

Capitalism as it is currently practiced will ultimately fail.
It is sucking up the planets resources at an unsustainable rate.
It polutes and therby destroys our health and the planet.
It is a product of our culture of greed and domination that breeds violence.
If human violence doesn't wipe us out mother nature will unless we wake up.
Besides, money itself is boring. Discovery and creativity are interesting.

Didn't those things exist before capitalism? Did efforts to stop such abuses (as are now developing) exist before capitalism?