Psychology - issues and concerns...

Byron · 2002-11-26 17:26:50

In light of Adrian's comments concerning psychology, I thought it might be a good time to start a new thread on this topic...

The subject of psychology is a difficult one for many people to get a grasp upon, because of its subjectivity and ambiguity, not to mention the fear many people seem to have of this subject..lol.

But when it comes to things like space missions and enclosed enviroments, psychology is possibly one of the most important things that must be taken into consideration..after all, "sanity" is the most important quality in an enclosed environment...as the folks that "winterover" at Pole Station in Antarctica can readily attest!

If we're going to have people living in enclosed environments for long periods of time, with absolutely no means of escape whatsoever, there is no getting away from the risk that someone(s) might go "wacko" and endanger the rest of the crew.

So...how do we screen for this type of thing? Anybody who's read KSR's Red Mars probably remembers the "double binds" the candidates were faced with in the selection process to set up camp on Mars...it seems there's always a way to "beat the test" so to speak..after all, we're talking about some very smart people here. Also, how do the rest of you feel about the use of mind-altering drugs to control so-called "negative" urges and the like...if we had a "niceness pill" for example that everyone could take...might that be a sensible thing to do in light of the grave risk of someone losing their temper, even for a second? On a mission to Mars, there can be no "power plays", no feelings of jealously, retribution, grudges, etc...all of which could spell doom for everyone.

Also, should the idea of having a "hierarchy" on a Mars mission be questioned? Why should be there a previously designated person in "charge?" What if that person has his/her own ideas that could place everyone else in danger...should the others obey without question?

I could go on all night here..but I think you get the idea here. I'd love to hear your ideas, opinions, etc on this *very important* topic, one that we know so little about even in this age of technological prowess and knowledge.

B

AltToWar · 2002-11-27 15:47:43

On a mission to Mars, there can be no "power plays", no feelings of jealously, retribution, grudges, etc...all of which could spell doom for everyone.

If you had a mission to mars that did not have any jealousy, retribution, grudges, or power plays, you certianly did not send humans to mars.

People have trouble and difficulties in life. Sometimes caused by others. This is part of being human.

I personally think some of the people on this board are wacko(myself included), but everyone here is devoted to go to mars . I think even the nut-jobs here could put their differences aside in order to make that happen.

Sometimes it takes a nut to get things done right.

Psychology is a mushy side of science. I am very dissapointed in how we are now turning to drugs so often to treat mood problems.

Sorrow, anger, and depression are just as much a part of the human experience as joy, love, and passion.

clark · 2002-11-29 10:13:41

The psychology piece may be a bit of a red herring. We have decades of experience with people living in enclosed environments with no escape- submariners. All of that power play stuff tends to be aspects of psychosis which can be dealt with or screened for. Of course a little bit of the dark side can never be avoided, and is one of the reasons I have the views that I do.

Following a leader who may be taking us down the wrong path is an age old dilema that we will never escape- look around and you will see it manifesting itself everywhere, everyday. Especialy as of late...

Otherwise, dealing with the enclosed environment itself shouldn't be to much for the human mind- it is a remarkably resilient piece of hardware designed to cope with just about anything. You can loose large portions of it and still have very little ill effects from the loss of gray matter- functions can be taken over by other areas when the primary fails- and when confronted with unimaginable stress or danger, it usually finds a way to cope that allows the body to survive.

Our bodies usually fail long before our minds do.

Palomar · 2002-11-29 10:52:19

Following a leader who may be taking us down the wrong path is an age old dilema that we will never escape- look around and you will see it manifesting itself everywhere, everyday. Especialy as of late...
Our bodies usually fail long before our minds do.

*My, my...aren't we feeling pessimistic today?

Chances are humans in general will always follow a leader; most people are like sheep [and don't jump me for referring to people as sheep, like you have in the past; I've seen you refer to people as sheep more than once here, *after* complaining about my having done it...and now you'll probably ask, "Where did I ever get on your case about your referring to people as sheep?" Well, I'm not inclined to wade through over 7000 posts to find it; however, I do recall your criticizing me for referring to most people as sheep during a discussion centered on ethics, in the "Marsian Dead" thread, I'm pretty sure]...however, that's no excuse for fatalism. There's always room for improvement, both individually and in the collective human species. I'm going to hold onto a bit of optimism that eventually our species will evolve to shake off the need for flocks and shepherds.

Not interested in getting into a debate on this, just stating my views.

--Cindy

Nida · 2002-11-29 11:08:24

I like your response Cindy. Trust old Clarkie The Snarling Misanthrope to DEMAND you wade through 7,000 posts to prove he jumped you on calling people sheep. I've seen him call people sheep. Maybe its the old double standard, you know, just wrong when women do it, ok when men do it. Ol Clarkie thought I wouldn't know who Jimmy Carter is, I proved him wrong, and then he comes up with this attitude like I'm supposed to write a 5 page fricking report on Carter or something. {{snark}}

clark · 2002-11-29 11:14:49

lol.

ba ba black sheep.

debate is an exchange of views from two differing perspectives on the same issue. No exchange, no debate. It's usually just called, "making a statement".

I'm going to hold on that evolution occurs at an exceedingly slow pace, and that social evolution of our species will only achieve dramatic and meaningful change with the advent of new stressors that encourage the development of social strategies that can cope in a more productive manner than our current ones.

But hey, that's just a statement.

And Nida, would you habor such sentiments if I was really a girl? Your feminist rants are understandable (at your age), but I hardly feel they apply to me. Yes, you knew that Carter built homes for the less fortunate, I was simply disappointed that you didn't know about Carter in the sense of that discussion- it was regarding the draft (Carter was the one that reinstated the draft). So you knew who Carter was (sort of) but without understanding how my refrence to him applied to that particular discussion. Perhaps your father (that male) could enlighten you.

Nida · 2002-11-29 11:27:56

So your a woman going by a pseudonym of Clark? Are you a woman? Sounds like your saying you are.

clark · 2002-11-29 11:33:04

Does it matter?

Here you are, going on about gender equality, and here we are, in a situation where gender is made irrelevant.

Would a gender neutral name be more to your liking? I have often wondered why people seem bothered by a name that "could" be a name versus someone who chooses an outright psuedonym.

You seem to be caught up by defining people based on how they look, it is an unwise policy, I assure you.

I am what you think I am. In deed, we all are. Just remember, that dosen't neccessarily make it so.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 13:02:39

I think I've said it before Byron, but these strict ?selection? processes are only done to ?prove? to taxpayers that the people going on whatever missions are ?qualified.? They're hardly based on anything remotely necessary. They're ?insurance.?

Screening may be considered necessary to some, but I think that it's a non-issue, really. As AltToWar points out, wittily might I add, people going to Mars are going to be ?nuts? in their own right. I think the rule is; if you have the resources (ie, cash), you can go to Mars. This is regardless of your physical or mental status.

I'm glad you mention hierarchy, though. I am not such a fan of hierarchy, and I don't think that there's really any basis for it. Indeed, I think missions to Mars would best be suited by a direct democratic process- indeed, I don't see a ship having more than a few hundred people at most. The main problem with people being in charge, is, as you astutely point out; people will take issues with one another (whether this is natural or not, I won't argue- but disagreement comes with individuality, and humans tend to be quite individualistic in current societies). The best way, I think, to alleviate this, is to have those aboard a ship elect those who are to be ?in charge.? Of course, you wouldn't have to accept such a position, but you probably would since being in charge just means delegating simple duties to the rest of the crew. Since this would be a direct democracy, these duties would be delegated quite easily (not to mention, that we would have already set out which person does what before we even left the planet- by direct democracy).

I like a common theme of labor parties. ORGANIZE OR DIE. I think it works well in space, don't you?

AltToWar, heh, I agree with you that, well, medicine is overused in society. I've had my share of medicine, believe me (can't you tell?). I think there are cases where it really is necessary, where imbalences are totally obvious. Should we ?make? people all the ?same,? neurologically? I don't know. I think maybe that need be the case when such people leave harm in their path (be it to themselves or others), but otherwise, like in my case (hey! I'm harmless), people ought to be able to handle themselves without drugs.

You said, ?Sorrow, anger, and depression are just as much a part of the human experience as joy, love, and passion,? and I can only agree, 100%.

Cindy, though I agree that people will follow a leader (see Eric Fromm's Escape from Freedom); it is, after all, the easiest path. I disagree that it need be necessary. Not to say that you think it is, I'm just sharing my own commentary on your slight ramble.

And clark, it's entirely possible that, ?[major] social evolution of our species will only [occur] with the advent of new stressors that encourage the development of [more efficient] social strategies.? Just wait until fossil fuels run out!

Also, I don't see where gender is made irrelevent, here. I just don't think it's been mentioned. I remember this thing about the early years of NASA, how females totally blew males out of the water with regard to endurance. There was a major double standard there, though. The women were only allowed to take the tests mainly out of scientific curiousity; when it came to real stuff (ie, going into space), women weren't even considered.

I hope we can get back on subject, though. And perhaps get over simple grudges we have against one another. Kind of ironic this comes up in a very thread discussing what should be done to this very thing!

clark · 2002-11-29 13:25:12

Let me clarify, gender is made irrelevant on the internet.

As for running out of fossil fuels and what wil happen to society, I'm thinking that not much is going to change. But perhaps that is best left for another thread.

I however will have to disagree with you on the issue of screening Josh. Some people should not be allowed into certain environmental conditions if they are unstable. This falls into the area of individual behavior affecting others, which means we as a group NEED to regulate the manner in which we accept the risk.

Just cause you have the cash dosen't make it wise.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 14:05:55

Let me clarify, gender is made irrelevant on the internet.

Hmm... well, I won't start another discussion about gender. But I would say that some people find it relevant. Ones motivations are always relevant; if someone is motivated in one way by gender, then obviously it is relevant.

As for running out of fossil fuels and what wil happen to society, I'm thinking that not much is going to change. But perhaps that is best left for another thread.

Oh well, I agree with you there if the current time frame is accurate. The key is; when it happens. If tomorrow oil wells start drying up, we'll have to swtich to coal- ironically ships would have to be fueled by coal, like the Titanic was. If all fossil fuels just dry up unexpectedly some day soon, billions would simply... die. The world is currently too globalized to exist without foreign trade for long. Especially starved nations which need subsidies from larger nations. But yeah, we're getting off topic now.

And the point I was making about screening, is that if you have the money, you can bypass any processes that may be in place. I think you agreed with me, generally, that overall people are sane, though. Seems like you're suggesting that in this very thread.

AltToWar · 2002-11-29 14:18:16

What can realisticly be regulated? Can a society truely control it's individual members through laws and regulations? Are societies that heavily restrict the life of individuals through various laws and regulations really better societies?

Lets look at America's war on drugs. America has spent more on the war on drugs each year then it spends on education k-12. We have minimun sentences, seisure of property, and in some states certian drug offenses can lead to life in prison.

Dispite all this, drug use has been on a steady rise.

Have heavy handed drug laws done anything to help matters? No. Many do argue that draconian drug laws do much more harm to society than good. Prisons are overcrowded, courts are jammed packed, more familys rely on welfare, children lose parents, black markets are well funded.

Lets look at population control matters. Nations with serious population growth problems have enacted serious population control laws. Dispite china's draconian population control measures, china continues to have a dangerous population growth level. India has similar laws, but india still has not come close to solving it's population growth problem.

Has heavy handed govenrment regulation of population done anything to help matters? India and china's population grown have been curbed somewhat, but not anywhere close to their intended goals.

In fact in both cases, the laws put into place have further devalued women within society. Infant girls in china are left out into the cold to die. A news article came out yesterday on how indian scientists are using genetic techniqes to insure couples bear boys, as baby girls are less favorable to familys.

You can go on through history and site many cases where government repression of natural human desires have done little more than terrorise their population.

Nearly all of india has a reletively high populaton growth rate. There is an exception. There is a small county in india that has a reletively unique culture. All the land is owned by the women, and the men must court the women to have land to work. The women there are relatively well educated and run the family businesses. Population growth in this county is actually on the decline.

In fact there are a plethora of studies that show that if women are on equal or greater social footing with men, are allowed education, and have career opportunities, population growth quickly melts away into the negative.

Many people believe that if you took the money spent on the drug war, and focused it instead on education and therapy, instead of heavy handed law and order, the drug problem would receed as well.

My point is, Heavy handed government regulations do not work in every case. If you want to make people change their behavior, you need to look at the root of the matter.

If a "group" sees a behavior of its citizens as having a risk towards society, sometimes placing laws to jail and punish those behaviors just criminalizes your population. And more horribly, your punishing the population while doing nothing to solve the problem.

I think it is foolish and unenlightened to believe that to solve any problem within society, you simply need to make it illegal.

Josh Cryer · 2002-11-29 19:09:16

Ahh, we agree on so many issues AltToWar. Now if only I could convince you of a technoautarkic future! We'd be set. Hehe.

I've read of that place where the women are essentially in charge! It's brilliant! But I also read that that place is getting many tourists. And that their whole economy is switching from a self sufficient culture to a ?pretend? one which caters to tourists. The whole structure of their society is simply breaking down.

Palomar · 2002-11-30 12:48:53

In fact in both cases, the laws put into place have further devalued women within society. Infant girls in china are left out into the cold to die. A news article came out yesterday on how indian scientists are using genetic techniqes to insure couples bear boys, as baby girls are less favorable to familys.

*Speaking of this issue, I saw a news program [perhaps on "60 Minutes"] about it recently; it was tied into the one-child-only rule [which apparently is being relaxed somewhat]. Sociologists are projecting what will become of Chinese culture, now that some entire villages of "displaced men" are being created...no women are there, because there are so few of them. These men have no living relatives whatsoever, because they are only children. They are generally restless, drink and fight a lot, etc.

What a mess. It's amazing how stupid and selfish some of these policies are. You'd think even the most profoundly stupid of people could recognize that without females and the ova we produce, there will be no babies. Duh.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-12-02 10:20:20

It's called the Travesty of the Commons.

It is not a matter of society devaluing women,it is each individual devauling women, and then multiplying that effect throughout society. We as individuals do not see how our individual choices can have repercussions- ie I choose to have a son, so who is it hurting. 1 billion other people choose the same thing, after all, who is it hurting.

Surprisingly, the travesty of the commons is the one good reason to have state interference in the choices we make for ourselves.

Just something to think about- all those men, so few women- kind of limits the number of "couples" that can form... which means even fewer births.

It would seem that their population problem will correct itself in two or three generations Alt.

And as for couples who choose the sex of their baby... so what? We all choose how our babies will look (in some way) by the partners we choose. Or is mate selection akin to playing god?

Society cannot control people with laws or regulations, it may only influence. We all have a choice to obey or not to obey.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-12-03 20:03:34

clark;

Surprisingly, the travesty of the commons is the one good reason to have state interference in the choices we make for ourselves.

1) It's tragedy of the commons.

2) It's a damn good reason to avoid state interference, and collectivism in general. In the case of China, people wouldn't be choosing one son instead of one daughter if they weren't limited to one child.

In the original example of the tragedy of the commons, common grazing areas for livestock, the best answer is dividing the grazing area into private pastures. If you keep it common and limit how much each common owner can use, you need rules, regulations, and meddlesome officials to enforce it. If you divide it up into private plots, it will be in each user's interest to avoid overgrazing.

Finally, government itself is a common resource. If I use government to provide pork for me and to get rid of my competitors, the benefit is direct and the harm is spread out over the whole polity. If I cut back, it won't help me much, and not at all if somebody else just increases their own abuse. This can only be kept to tolerable levels when the government has little or no say in the economy.

clark · 2002-12-03 21:11:29

Well, thank you for that clarification. You have a very good eye.

2) It's a damn good reason to avoid state interference, and collectivism in general. In the case of China, people wouldn't be choosing one son instead of one daughter if they weren't limited to one child.

Interesting take. So, in order to avoid over population and mass starvation, China should allow everyone to have as many children as they want? Lets be straight here A.J., the one child policy was a decision to stave off mass starvation, to establish social stability. Are you suggesting that this is counter the interests of Society? Is this really counter to the welfare of the individual?

It seems you are playing games based on theoritcal ideology- privatation is the answer. In my humble opinion, you are missing the point of the lessons we gain by understanding the Tragedy of the Commons, that being that sometimes individuals cannot see how their best choices are actually detremental in the long run.

I understand what you are getting at with your example, but it avoids the direct issue- how would privatizing the plots help if individuals are sharing common resources? How about water rights? Air? Things that don't lend themselves to "privatization" is the whole point of the tragedy of the commons. Lets look at the real world example of privatizinf grazing land- perhaps South America might be a place to start. here we have all these individuals, with their nice neat plots, all to themselves- yet their individual choices, while best for themselves, is actually detrimental to us, and them in the long run.

Having a catalytic convertor in your car reduces toxic emmisions- yet it increases the cost of the car. Most people opt out of the extra cost- even though they realize that by doing so, they add to poullition- it's issues like these that your gods cannot answer AJ. It's real world stuff...

And I think the answer to abuse by a minority, or even a majority, of government power lies in the judicial system.

I don't think the government should dictate everything about the economy, but I certainly do not believe that it should be left unregulated... that would be incredibly stupid.

AltToWar · 2002-12-04 04:05:31

Interesting take. So, in order to avoid over population and mass starvation, China should allow everyone to have as many children as they want? Lets be straight here A.J., the one child policy was a decision to stave off mass starvation, to establish social stability. Are you suggesting that this is counter the interests of Society? Is this really counter to the welfare of the individual?

So far the law has proven to be only marginally effectual at lowering population growth rates, and not come close to the 0% population growth rate desired.

On the other hand it does take a toll on human dignity, especially towards women.

you have argued:

Society cannot control people with laws or regulations, it may only influence. We all have a choice to obey or not to obey.

Yet you support the enforcement of laws that try to control the bahavior of individuals.

When they dont work, or have a negative effect, you don't blame the law as being ineffectual, you instead blame the people for their individual reactions to the laws.

Doing the same thing over and over and each time expecting different results is insanity.

If we have a law in place that simply does not work, We must change the law. Take a new direction. To blame the people is totally ineffectual, and only criminalizes your society.

The root of the problem in this case is mysogenistic culture. It's symptoms are women with low self respect and little opportunities outside of motherhood within their society. The end result is a hight fertility rate leading to overpopulation.

We can choose to only address the end result, Overpopulation. We can make it illegal to have many children. The laws are very difficult to enforce, and sometimes require violations of human rights. A side effect of this is the affirmation of the cultural mysogeny.

In the end, your solution to a problem only adds to it's root cause. You might initially make some headway towards lessoning the end results, but only to a certian extent. After which you will find deminishing returns on your efforts. The harder you squeese, the more resistance to the problem you will find.

This is a very inefficient way to solve a problem.

I know it does not seem very intuitive at first glance, but if you educate and provide career opportunities towards women in countries with population issues, their fertility rate will melt away.

A counter argument to your 'Tragedy of the Commons' is the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

http://brembs.net/ipd/ipd.html

In these simulations, dispite it being counterintuitive, "Friendly" or "Cooperative" behaviors in the long run win out over "Greedy" or "Predatory" behaviors.

clark · 2002-12-04 09:38:28

It has been effective, even if 0% population growth is never achieved.

ALL laws are designed to influence or control human behavior. Please explain how I am mistaken.

You are throwing up your hands and saying "look it dosen't work" if all the objectives of the law are not reached- many times these laws are instutited as a hypothesis- we think it will have X effect- but the true effect is an unknown because we are dealing with people. It is not a failure of the law itself, just in application.

I agree that educating people is usually the best way to improve the situation, however, even education has it's limits.

We educate our society to the dangers of illegal drug use, yet it is ineffective by itself. We educate people that smoking kills them, and those around them, but people still smoke.

We can educate people that having several childern will lead to overpopulation- but the farmer in agririan china needs more hands to raise more food to improve his standard of living, not education.

You seem to think that the Chinese just stopped with this law, and are doen with it- that is hardly the case.

And just becuase a law is difficult to enforce is no excuse or reason to not do it. It is difficult to prevent murders, should we do away with those laws becuase we can't be hassled?

As for providing career opportunities for women, I agree, however, China also has to create job opportunities for all those billions- now all of this takes time- is it the wiser course to simply allow population go unchecked, and face social collapse as a result while they go about working our these new opportunites?

The problem isn't the law, but with the people who devalue women.

AltToWar · 2002-12-04 10:27:15

It has been effective, even if 0% population growth is never achieved.

Dropping a few points in the fertility rate only delays the problem, it does not solve them.

You are throwing up your hands and saying "look it dosen't work" if all the objectives of the law are not reached- many times these laws are instutited as a hypothesis- we think it will have X effect- but the true effect is an unknown because we are dealing with people. It is not a failure of the law itself, just in application.

If a current policy fails to work, you cannot just assume that one day it magicly will.

If you have a failing policy, you should look for alternatives.

And just becuase a law is difficult to enforce is no excuse or reason to not do it. It is difficult to prevent murders, should we do away with those laws becuase we can't be hassled?

When a law takes a very high toll and produces little results, it should be re-evaluated.

The problem isn't the law, but with the people who devalue women.

The law reinfoces the devalument of women. When the solution adds to the problem, it's not the correct solution.

We educate our society to the dangers of illegal drug use, yet it is ineffective by itself. We educate people that smoking kills them, and those around them, but people still smoke.

A majority of the risks involved with drug use are a direct result of the laws reguarding them.

Overdoses are often caused by inconsistancy of black market drugs.
Black markets are funded because legitimate sale or clinical release are impossible.
Marijuana is a gateway drug because of underworld connections required to access marijuana.
Diseases are passed because of unsanitary conditions.
Violence is caused by desperate addicts with no legitimate source or reasonable therapy options.
Minoritys and the poor are disproportionally punished.
Familys are broken up by harsh drug laws.
Judges cannot make sentences match crimes commited because of manditory sentencing.

No matter how much money is poured into the current drug policy, drug use is still on the rise. No matter how stiff the sentences are for drug crimes, drug use still increases.

If a set of laws dont work. they dont work. Pouring more money into a flawed policy does not make a flawed policy work. Stiffening punishment for a inneffectual laws not work does not make a law magicly work.

clark · 2002-12-05 09:14:35

Dropping a few points in the fertility rate only delays the problem, it does not solve them.

No, but it does help to solve the problem by allowing for more time to implement other solutions, such as educational programs. Success does not happen oevr night, and decryign a policy as worthless or the wrong direction becuase it does not provide immediate results is rather short sighted and counter productive.

If a current policy fails to work, you cannot just assume that one day it magicly will. If you have a failing policy, you should look for alternatives.

All true, however one should not preclude altering the policies as you go- tweaking them as circumstances dictate. Flexibility is the best option, not being closed minded and fatalistic.

When a law takes a very high toll and produces little results, it should be re-evaluated.

I agree, and in the context of population control in China, the effects of NOT continuing or implementing some type of population management should be evaluated as well- what is the cost to Society by NOT doing this? Massive overpopulation that destablizie society is the result- that seems to be a rather high toll to pay.

The law reinfoces the devalument of women.

Hardly. The culture and basic ignorance is the culprit. A simple solution is to allow for more female births- if a female is born, then allow for another child to be born. Problem solved. Males in China, and in most countries, are valued for traditional reasons as well as economic- is it a surprise that the history of most countries allow for property transfer to sons, not daughters? Thousands of years of THAT social policy as led to the devaluation of women.

Bill White · 2002-12-05 11:13:09

Once again I find myself in agreement with BOTH clark and A.J. - at least part way in both instances. Maybe I need a therapist. Anyway - here is my middle of the road take on the recent discussion, all premised on this guiding principle:

IMHO experience plainly shows pure socialism doesn't work yet mercantilism isn't capitalism and may well be worse than socialism.

The tragedy/travesty of the commons can be avoided *IF* sensible privatization occurs - however *IF* in a rush to avoid "socialism" a society grants exclusive economic rights to a few favored corporations then you end up with the monopoly/oligopoly situation so despised by Adam Smith.

IMHO - A.J. rightfully fears an all powerful centrally planned economy and government and clark rightfully fears unrestrained private corporations seizing monopoly / oligopoly economic powers. Personally, I fear both.

Too far to the right and 97% of us work for McDonalds earning $6.15 per hour without health insurance while 3% live in multi-million dollar mansions. Too far to the left and the economy suffers a Soviet style collapse.

Charbydis & Scylla (spelling?)

Interesting take. So, in order to avoid over population and mass starvation, China should allow everyone to have as many children as they want? Lets be straight here A.J., the one child policy was a decision to stave off mass starvation, to establish social stability. Are you suggesting that this is counter the interests of Society? Is this really counter to the welfare of the individual?

IMHO - China's one child policy was to stave off mass starvation in lieu of adopting western culture as an alternate solution to staving off mass starvation. Middle class women choose to have fewer children in exchange for other lifestyle benefits. that cultural change, however, would work contray to the interests of the powers that rule China.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-12-06 05:46:12

Bill White

IMHO - China's one child policy was to stave off mass starvation in lieu of adopting western culture as an alternate solution to staving off mass starvation. Middle class women choose to have fewer children in exchange for other lifestyle benefits. that cultural change, however, would work contray to the interests of the powers that rule China.

Ding ding ding we have a winner.

Were it not for the still-uncapitalist (although somewhat improved) Chinese economy, the choice wouldn't even be in the terms clark suggests, both for the reason you point out and because with a stronger economy, China could import food. And, BTW, the most protected part of the US economy is agriculture, because otherwise our farmers would be put out of business by lower-cost third world providers. With no foreign market to sell to, they're stuck at subsistence level, and when something goes wrong they get food aid which further undermines the local agriculture. More victims of mercantilism. My point in the above is, China having to import food would do Africa and other parts of the world no end of good.

Statism sucks all around. That's the real world.

clark · 2002-12-06 10:19:44

Were it not for the still-uncapitalist (although somewhat improved) Chinese economy, the choice wouldn't even be in the terms clark suggests, both for the reason you point out and because with a stronger economy, China could import food.

Unchecked population growth puts pressure on the society for more than food.

Opportunities must be available, or a means to relieve the pressure of too much population on the society. Mexico hasn't enough opportunity for its peoples, thus though flow of their people into the US looking for opportunity. A crack down on illegal immigration actualy is a cause for great concern in Mexico becuase it leads to social unrest.

And most countries protect their agricultural buisness- like many other parts of our economy, we MUST protect them.

Why? National security.

If a nation must rely on other nations to feed it's peoples, it is in a precarious position at best. It creates a situation whereby we must always produce something of value to our trading partner- food is one of those basic neccessities.

Bill White · 2002-12-06 11:23:12

Unchecked population growth puts pressure on the society for more than food.

An undeniable fact. Educated middle class people, however, do not commit unchecked population growth. Europe, for example, is facing a too rapid decline in birth rates.

China can choose - a free and open culture to reduce birth rates or coerced abortions and prison for two children households.

Opportunities must be available, or a means to relieve the pressure of too much population on the society. Mexico hasn't enough opportunity for its peoples, thus though flow of their people into the US looking for opportunity. A crack down on illegal immigration actualy is a cause for great concern in Mexico becuase it leads to social unrest.

Again agreed. George Bush's Mexico policy swings are fascinating and show to me real ambiguity and uncertainty in knowing where he wants US-Mexican relations to go. Mexico's recent - albeit temporary - reluctance to support the U.N. resolution on Iraq is a signal of some very real unresolved issues with that country.

More generally, IMHO, America's political and corporate elites are not interested in actually implementing the theories of Adam Smith on a global level. Why? Because they are mercantilists at heart and do not want open and fair competition.

ConAgra or Archer Daniels Midland dumping "free food" on the 3rd World is actually very good for their busines models - as A.J. also noted. Tax write offs for "charitable giving" combine with inflated valuations for the food given away combine with storage cost savings that exceed the true market value of the surplus food combine with devastation of the local farm economies of the countries being helped all of which asssures greater future profits.

And most countries protect their agricultural buisness- like many other parts of our economy, we MUST protect them.
Why? National security.
If a nation must rely on other nations to feed it's peoples, it is in a precarious position at best. It creates a situation whereby we must always produce something of value to our trading partner- food is one of those basic neccessities.

Again agreed - but this also reveals that American political and corporate elites do not actually practice the Adam Smith theories they so often praise. The interests of specific nations, or business groups, are being advanced at the expense of the common interests of all humanity.

However, this will not change until/unless a unified world culture develops and right now "Pax Americana" is the best bet for accomplishing that objective.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-11-26 17:26:50

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#2 2002-11-27 15:47:43

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#3 2002-11-29 10:13:41

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#4 2002-11-29 10:52:19

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#5 2002-11-29 11:08:24

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#6 2002-11-29 11:14:49

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#7 2002-11-29 11:27:56

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#8 2002-11-29 11:33:04

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#9 2002-11-29 13:02:39

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#10 2002-11-29 13:25:12

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#11 2002-11-29 14:05:55

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#12 2002-11-29 14:18:16

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#13 2002-11-29 19:09:16

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#14 2002-11-30 12:48:53

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#15 2002-12-02 10:20:20

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#16 2002-12-03 20:03:34

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#17 2002-12-03 21:11:29

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#18 2002-12-04 04:05:31

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#19 2002-12-04 09:38:28

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#20 2002-12-04 10:27:15

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#21 2002-12-05 09:14:35

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#22 2002-12-05 11:13:09

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#23 2002-12-06 05:46:12

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#24 2002-12-06 10:19:44

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

#25 2002-12-06 11:23:12

Re: Psychology - issues and concerns...

Board footer