Re: Off Topic: Basic Assumptions

["Laura Walker" <LJW6626@worldnet.att.net>]

Margaret, Greg, Lynn, et al --

Sorry I haven't been posting.  Just too busy right now.  But I have been
following the discussion and wanted to make a couple of observations and
comments.

Greg,

Thanks for your comments re: the welfare to work problem and the woman in
Chicago who is helping individuals get their self esteem back -- among many
other good things!  There is an organization in Washington, Wider
Opportunities for Women (WOW for short) that does precisely these kinds of
things and more.  They actually have local (state and cities) training
programs for economically disadvantaged women to learn basic job skills;
social skills; AND they also work with a number of large, medium and small
companies -- from AT&T to the local cable companies -- to establish
apprenticeship programs and pre-apprenticeship programs.  These women are
TRULY CHANGED people once they complete the WOW program; most of them go on
into tech/trades careers and the difference in the self-worth is just
incredible.  I interviewed a group of these women about 1 year ago.  Their
stories just made me want to cry; yet, even with all the struggles they had
been through, they kept on trying, fighting -- determined to get "off the
dole" and into the mainstream.  Thanks to WOW's efforts (they are a
30-year-old non-profit organization), women like this are achieving success.
But WOW's programs are also multi-pronged, to get at some of the systemic
problems of poverty, discrimination and disparity.  Anyway, there are also
women in Washington who have a small company, who do much the same thing as
the woman from Chicago.  I knew a woman who worked with her, and who,
herself, was attempting to get back on her feet after suffering for years
with manic-depression, but not being diagnosed until about 5 years ago.

RE:  The comments on "selfishness" and Social Darwinism, I'd like to point
out, from Richard Dawkins' book, "The Selfish Gene", human beings have a
genetic disposition toward being selfish -- selfish here meaning the ability
to survive and carry on the species.  He argues that, as societies changed
from hunter/gatherer cultures to agrarian, and then again to
manufacturing/urban, the genes also adapt to these changes.  My point here
is this: we do have, within our genetic 'coding', a "savagery" from our
earliest evolution; however -- and this is Dawkins' most intriguing point --
we also have evolved our definition of "survival".  Whereas survival once
meant killing predators (human and other), today survival means something
entirely different,  primarily because we no longer have to hunt and kill
for our meals, our clothing, or to beat off some larger males for our
spouses/children.
Survival and "selfishness" today might readily be defined by how well we
resolve conflict; cooperation with other human beings; nurturance; sharing,
etc.  I hope you get the point.  Human beings will do whatever is necessary
for our survival as a species.

I think (don't have any facts or factoids to back this up...just a thought)
that we are and have been in the midst of not only a great social upheaval,
probably since the early 40's, but perhaps also in the midst of a great
genetic/evolutionary upheaval in HOW we survive as a species.  I think this
'evolutionary', genetic upheaval is being most manifested in the
interconnectedness of male-female (yin/yang, anima/animus) we are witnessing
in both men and women.  This may sound somewhat corny, but men are shifting
into recognizing and expressing the feminine/female side of themselves (note
that we seem to have gone beyond the "male" mentality of long-term warfare
to resolve our conflicts and are developing "peacekeeping" strategies/plans,
and that men are taking more and more responsibility for "nurturing"); women
are recognizing and accepting their male/masculine sides -- by wanting and
having careers; by becoming elected/appointed leaders (witness Madeline
Albright's appointment as Secretary of State).  We seem to be shifting
gears, out of necessity, I think, to survive as a species, perhaps by this
very act of integrating male/female more comfortably and smoothly into our
psyches and behaviors.  My theory is that this is, in part, a genetic shift,
and one that IS helping us evolve to our next stage of what we need to
define as "selfishness" for our survival.

BTW:  Thanks, Margaret, for your excellent and well-thought-out points and
references.  As always, your contributions zero in directly on the issues.

I'll post more as I have more time.

This is an intriguing discussion (albeit not entirely on-topic...) and does
raise the level of debate higher.

Laura

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Tarbet <tarbet@swaa.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list NOPRIVACY <noprivacy@essential.org>
Date: Saturday, February 20, 1999 8:09 AM
Subject: Re: Off Topic: Basic Assumptions


>Greg wrote:
>
>>  You, on the other hand, see things differently. You seem to be calling
>>people to a higher, more evolved state; one where people will not try to
>>seek only what they perceive to be their own best interest at the moment,
>>but will keep in mind the larger picture of society and even the global
>>community. You seem to believe that such an evolved state is a possibility
>>for humanity; that is may be achievable.
>
>You're close, Greg.  What i believe -- and i hope i can speak for
>Laura, Lynn, and even Ed, here, too (i hope they'll correct me if
>not!!) -- is that such an 'evolved state' doesn't require darwinian
>evolution, but rather only a different sort of socialisation.   All
>we have to do is decide to honor different values, and stick to that
>decision.
>
>I have no reason to believe that our 'human nature' is as one-sided
>as it seems to you (or many others - of course you're not alone), or
>that we are constrained by our genetic inheritance to behave badly.
>_All_ the evidence is on the side of our being _immensely_ adaptable
>creatures, able to conform our behavior to a very wide variety of
>social demands.   We can see that in the anthropological record if
>not in our personal experience.  Yes, in every society there are
>some people who seem naturally selfish, brutal, and uncaring, and
>who are perfectly willing to destroy others to gain and retain
>power.   But most people aren't that way.   There are also people
>who are especially selfless in their behavior.   Most people aren't
>that way, either.  The vast majority only want to live and let live.
>To be let alone, really.   Most people live rather blameless lives,
>on the whole.  And they do so in spite of the deck being stacked
>against them.
>
>
>>  If my assumption about the fundamentally un-evolved, savage nature of
>>humans is by and large correct, it does not bode well for our survival as
a
>>species. Our paranoia, savagery, and our refusal to act in our own long
>>term best interest will very likely lead to our own self-destruction.
>
>I believe this is true, not because we are all terrible, but because
>too many of the folk in power are terrible, short-sighted, selfish
>thinkers.   I think we can see plenty evidence on a small scale now.
>I'll offer an anecdote from my personal experience.
>
>In the mid-80s, i was an engineering manager at Digital, in the pc
>group.  This was when Microsoft was trying to build Windows 1.0, and
>the Unix folk were scrambling to do X and Motif.   To make the
>budget for the pc we were working on, we needed a substitute for the
>paper docs set, so we did a hypertext online info system that we
>called OUI (Online User Information).   One of the first practical
>hypertext systems anywhere, and certainly the first at Digital.  It
>was very nice!  (Its underlying language was equal in power to html,
>interestingly enough).   My group had our proto up and running in 3
>months' time.   Platform independent, networked, small, ran fast
>even on a 286 box...blew the socks off of everything else around.
>Beautiful wee thing.
>
>Now the plot thickens.
>
>We were the pc group, definitely a pariah organisation within
>Digital.    The VAX organisation was beavering away at doing
>DECwindows, and one of the products in that suite was to be,
>mirabile dictu, an online info system.  The central docs group had
>been working on the general problem for 18 months at that time and
>had got essentially nowhere apart from a wishlist.  We created OUI
>without reference to their wishlist, but it turned out that we had
>all but one of the features they wanted.  For a giggle, we did a
>weekend hack that demonstrated how our little system could be ported
>to DECwindows without agony, and that a filter could be written to
>slurp up the VAX docset.  No worries.  So, gee, since we've already
>got the product all but built, and we've shown you how versatile a
>design it is, how about we get assigned that piece of the DW action?
>
>
>Instant immune response!!   The entire VAX org mobilised to shut us
>out.  It was _their_ turf.   It didn't matter that their version
>would ship a year late (2 years, as it actually turned out), or that
>we could have been on v3 by then.   Nope.  Turf was sacred.
>Individual careers depended on it.    So Digital shipped an inferior
>product late while OUI languished (i heard we eventually gave or
>bartered it to Microsoft and it became the seed for Windows Help
>1.0, but i'd moved on by then).
>
>Digital made a lot of mistakes like that -- Capitalist-type
>mistakes.  Competition rather than cooperation.  Taking care of the
>part at the expense of the whole.   Exactly what Drucker has
>repeatedly warned against.
>
>And now Digital is gone.   I have to think the two things aren't
>unrelated.
>
>We can take the AA sickout as another example.  The company claimed
>it would cost too much - $50M - to honor the contract that says
>there's to be only one payscale.   Now the company is claiming that
>they lost $150M from the sickout -- three times what they would have
>spent playing fair.   So who won?   Only the roach...er, lawyers, it
>seems to me.   Will the person(s) responsible for the decision to
>play 'chicken' with the pilots lose anything?  Probably not,
>Capitalism doesn't work that way, at least not in the US.
>
>We can see this at work in Northern Ireland and in the Lebanon and
>in the Balkans.  One group -- the proddy majority in NI, the
>Christian/RC minority in the Lebanon, the Serbs in the Balkans  --
>reckoned they could continue to hog everything.   The result?
>Bloodbath.   Beirut went from being the jewel of the Mediterranian
>to a bombed-out ruin reminiscent of postwar Berlin.    Bosnia has
>been destroyed and the lives of many innocent people ended or
>ruined.    Northern Ireland's a terrible place to live.
>
>We can see the same thing in the Israeli right wing's relationship
>to the Palestinians.   They reckon that because they have the power,
>they can hog everything.
>
>We can see it in Clinton and the right-wingers.  He willing to risk
>everything for a blow job, they willing to risk everything for more
>power.   Tons of public money and time were wasted.  Sick stuff.
>
>
>>  If I understand what you are saying, Margaret, you are fighting for an
>>evolution in our nature...that we as a species, as a rare and fragile
race,
>>rise above our paranoia, our petty selfishness, our blind savagery and our
>>short-sighted, myopic "me-first" thinking. You see evidence of the
savagery
>>all around you, and you see Capitalism, as well as other forms of
>>government, as perpetrators of that savagery. You see Capitalism perhaps
as
>>the most insidious danger of all, because it thrives on and reinforces the
>>very evolutionary traits in human nature that may well be instrumental in
>>our own destruction. We annihilate ourselves while the gold coins are
>>spilling out of our pockets.
>
>Not a darwinian evolution, Greg, just a shared determination to
>honor different values.
>
>How do our leaders get us to kill other people in war?  By
>de-humanising them.   Why don't we kill one another in peacetime?
>Because there is a vast web of social pressure, applied from the
>cradle:  'don't hit, play nice, share your toys'.   No darwinian
>evolution involved -- just different social rules.
>
>Greg, let's say you were faced with _permanently_ losing either your
>family and your wealth.  Which would you choose?  I'm sure you
>wouldn't hesitate a moment.   But some people would have to think
>hard about it.
>
>It's mostly down to socialisation --- the Kwakiutl in the Pacific NW
>gained social status from how much wealth they could gave away at
>potlatches.  But a man in NYC who underwent a religious conversion
>and decided to give his life savings away in the street was locked
>up as daft.
>
>When do some people exhibit hoarding behavior (e.g., going to the
>grocery and buying up a ton of toilet paper or canned goods)?   When
>they reckon there'll be a scarcity.   No threat of scarcity, no
>hoarding.  And not everyone hoards -- some folk feel confident
>enough about the future that they feel no need.   But a very few
>hoard all the time -- we generally think of them as being at least a
>little off-balance, no?
>
>I've argued that folk who compulsively seek wealth or power at the
>expense of others are just as goofed up psychologically as, and a
>good deal more harmful than, folk who compulsively eat, compulsively
>look for The Perfect Orgasm, or compulsively wash their hands.   The
>dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) thought the same thing:
>'In truth, however, avarice, lust, etc. are a kind of madness,
>although they are not reckoned amongst diseases'  (Ethics, IV, 44).
>
>Because nutty behavior is just normal behavior 'writ large', so to
>speak, disordered people typically don't have insight into their
>condition.  Psychopaths are particularly good at rationalising their
>own behavior and claiming that they're no different to anyone else,
>apart from braver and more honest.   They simply don't get it.
>Their own desires are the only things that matter to them, no matter
>how they dissemble or blow smoke.  They can see that they're causing
>harm to others -- and they simply don't care!  They're a danger to
>everyone who comes near.
>
>Naturally someone who has good practical intelligence and no
>scruples has a good chance of gaining a lot of power.   And once
>such a person gains power, they can declare themselves not only
>normal, but _better_ than normal..._ideal_, in fact.  And that's
>exactly what they do, albeit mostly in a more subtle way than, e.g.,
>Idi Amin did.   As long as they're a little bit cautious, they can
>enjoy their sickness for a long time, while harming plenty others
>meanwhile in small ways and large.
>
>And that's what we have now -- pathologically-greedy people have
>declared themselves to be not only normal but _ideal_.   Anyone who
>isn't pathologically greedy is a loser.   'Greed is good, greed
>works'.
>
>So i think you're right, and that your quote from von Horner is
>right on.   I don't think we have your 100-500 years, though -- like
>Herb Grosch, i think we in the US are going to go past the point of
>no simple return in fewer than 10 years.   If we don't take matters
>in hand, we'll find ourselves living in a third-world, fascist
>police state, the Constitution of no more effect than cosmetics on a
>corpse.
>
>As Margaret Mead pointed out, our ability to destroy ourselves isn't
>only local anymore.  The same psychopath who could destroy a few
>villages in a pre-tech environment can now do in the whole world.
>The bankers whose money allowed petty despots in the 14th c. to ruin
>the lives of thousands over years can now directly ruin the lives of
>tens of millions in a few seconds.
>
>We continue to teeter on the edge of the abyss.   There are plenty
>signs that the edge is crumbling, but psychopaths are quite
>literally fearless, and are ready to push all of us over to save
>themselves.
>
>Will we have the sense to say 'this is nuts!' and walk away before
>we're thrown over the edge?