Merv's Politically Incorrect Audio Blog

I do very much think a lot of how we choose to tackle (or not tackle) poverty is cultural and that a big cultural shift would be necessary before we make any real headway. That's an uphill battle, not an impossibility though.

I don't think human nature is immutable. This isn't the same as being blind to the current failings of humanity.

 

Excellent point. The immutability of human nature, whether in "hard" form (most of our Greco-Roman philosophical/anthropological heritage, Islam, Judaism - heck most religious/philosophical anthropology every thought of by any peoples) or "soft" form (Christianity, some but not all strains of Classical Liberal philo) is again just taken as fact - undeniable with all the overwhelming evidence.

As someone of the Progressive faith, would you not say that human nature is at least "persistent" and "stubborn"? What time period would you say that human nature changes over, and is said change always in one direction?

 

Stubborn is a good way to put it. It's hard to say what time period would be required, and change wouldn't always be in one direction, but I think whatever our evolved, biological inclinations are in terms of our nature I think it is always possible invent new ways of thinking that can override and reshape at least some aspects of our nature as a species.

I think the invention of modern science is an example of that. Our nature strongly inclines us toward magical thinking and drawing unchangeable conclusions based on first impressions. It is actually painful for our brains to admit that we're wrong about some things. This should be incompatible with a scientific method that requires that we be able to prove our ideas wrong if they are wrong, so in a way science is something humanity invented as a mechanism to override our nature.

Of course this hasn't transformed human nature as a whole, partially because our application of science is spotty and inconsistent, partially because there are probably problems with science as we invented it, but I think it is at least an indication that it is possible to address failings in human nature through the invention of new ways to think.

It's possible for me to imagine that just like we found a way to curb our nature to always fall back on magical thinking, we could find a way to more meaningfully extend our empathy beyond our in-group or address our tendency toward greed and thus better commit ourselves to doing something like ending poverty

 

Those are aspects of human nature, but there are many other aspects too. Selflessness, sharing, pro-social cooperation, etc etc are all aspects of human nature as well. Funny how when people discuss systems of human interaction, they tend to argue that the traits we view as negative are immutable and baked into the system, but the traits we view as positive are somehow not present.

The fact is that human nature is extraordinarily broad and deep, and any system of human interaction will exhibit virtually every aspect of human nature over time. However, it’s a mistake to argue that systems represent all of human nature equally in every time and place, in every circumstance, etc. American culture is largely founded on English Protestant breakaways who were too hardline for the Church of England. The idea that work and success are inherently tied to your moral worth sprung from these groups and is a foundational aspect of American culture. Much of our discussion of “handouts” comes from this idea that being poor is indicative of a moral failing, and it’s an idea the rich have been all too happy to nurture.

Systems reflect human nature but are not human nature. And just as human nature runs a gamut, so can a system. We can choose to shift the focus of the system to appeal to the better aspects of our nature instead of assuming that the most negative traits will always predominate.

 

As far as my mother country is concerned, those who are supposed to want me to think this way have given it up themselves. cv Labour Party.

I don't have any specific dogma, or pet methodology of making the world a fairer place, but I don't think it helps when the Labour party dumps its socialist principles.

Wait... I'll check today's Prime offers....<browses> Oh, right: lockdown here anyway. Only essentials can be delivered.

I think there's an understanding, if not a definition, of poor pay and conditions. A couple of hundred years ago, it gave rise to the British political party that I mock above.

 

Your post is a wonderful and honest explication of the Progressive faith @HHS ! One of (if not the) founding prophet of your faith, Francis Bacon agreed with you in part (see his New Atlantis), though he had a grasp that methodological materialism presupposes the immutability of Nature (or nature(s) plural, as in human nature). How can you observe, hypothesize, study, test, and replicate findings if there is no stable thing (nature) to interrogate in the first place? He assumed not only the immutability of nature and human nature, but he thought a technocratic progress could still be had, with the good and bad aspects of our nature "contained" as it were through the discipline of methodological materialism and the comfort/prosperity it would bring. You might say he was a realistic optimist - an optimist with a plan.

Just over three centuries later scientists such as Albert Einstein were noting that yes indeed there had been real technological progress, but it had had no real effect in the "moral" sphere, and indeed might be retrograde in that it tends to hide our failings and even empower them - nuclear bombs in the hands of a humanity (a nature) which is the same as it ever was, or at least the same for a stubbornly long time. The optimism of Bacon turned out to be naïve.

I would even say the majority opinion (i.e. all of humanities thought/tradition) - stable (human or any other) through time that has as part of its nature these failings (termed "sin" by Christians) - is less "magical" (i.e. more observationally correct) than the Progressive assertion that "thinking" proceeds Reality and the Real. This is a strongly Cartesian assertion, where psychology is privileged over the Real and nature as such, one that Einstein and others studiously avoid because everything they do hinges on the notion that nature(s) are real.

It's like @Merrick observes, humanity certainly has positive aspects (even virtue) as part of its nature, it's just that psychological "commitment" is not enough - necessary but not sufficient. There are these other aspects of our nature that just exist and are always there, and corrupt our best laid plans for technocratic, moral, or any other kind of utopia.

 

None of us should be reaching for utopia. But it’s silly to argue that this is the best we can do. Progress can and does happen but it requires people to commit, take effort, and make the choice to value it. And while some people will always find ways to take advantage of a system, they shouldn’t be made the rule as we have done with the super rich.

 

The opposite also happens as well. Relatively well off and stable societies/cultures collapse. Around the year 500 cities in southern Britain (living the legacy of Roman Britain) still had running water, working sewers, relatively long life span (50 was typical, 60-80 not unheard of). Couple hundred years later (and a military/cultural takeover by northern Europeans) lifespans were down to 30, no water or sewers, nothing but thatched huts and subsistence living as far as the eye could see.

Today, are have we made any moral progress over either versions of Britain? Are people really better people now compared to fill_in_the_blank? Part of the Progrisive Myth is claim to the ending of slavery, women's suffrage, penicillin and walking on the moon, and other "Candle in the Darkness" appropriations. That's just it, it is all appropriation. Christians whom you point to, Classical Liberals, methodological scientists who believe in Nature as such, it is these sorts of people who actually responsible for these (very real) progressions, and most of them understood how well it will (not if) all be undermined in small and big ways in the future by outside circumstances and our inner nature. Myths always have some truth in them, but it's their "magical thinking" that in part undoes them in the end.

 

Speaking as a fellow immigrant: preach on, brother. I have had approximately zero success getting this (or similar concepts) across to any of my American-born friends or family.

 

[

And what I learnt recently: cars, even with subsidies, are not the main source of the Tesla revenue. The carbon credits that Tesla sells to other car manufactures are. And, under Biden administration, it will become even more profitable for Tesla.

On slightly different subject: Elon had to show something for more subsidies: he immediately declared BTC very energy intensive. He obviously did not that before. And do not bet that he is selling his BTC, he may be buying more.

 

That what I used to hear from my fist progressive friends in Canada 30 years ago: you have big advantage, because you start from zero. I am happy they were right.

 

I hate to be that guy - but is it even a good thing to completely eliminate poverty? More over-consumption of resources, more over-population, more pollution which I think anyone can believe in regardless of belief in global warming, more diseases and sicknesses (7B+ people = 7B+ chances for something to happen instead of only 1B ~100 years ago), etc. Seems like we would just be climbing higher up the ladder to fall that much harder when we get up to the top.

Of course, I'm still very glad to be alive in this era of time where there is at least a "semi-functional" standard of living, even for most of the global poor. For example, the fact that half of people make it past 10 years old, slavery for the most part is not globally acceptable, I don't have to restart my life every 10 years b/c my house/farm/land was destroyed in a petty war between inbred cousin kings, and in most developed nations - no horrible diarrhea every time I feel thirsty, etc. Much less having resources to do relatively trivial things like nitpick about how sound waves come out of a headphone, etc.

^This

 

Suffering is part of human existence and is independent from poverty. Though extreme poverty can cause a different kid of physical suffering.

poverty as it is currently in the USA is not an inherent part of human nature. @Merrick says it well below.

Yes awesome quote

Very well put and I agree

This is sad to me. There are many reasons why one could end up on the streets. It’s not unique to America. That Sri Lankan friend is also a very lucky person despite his “rags to riches” story. A lot of things outside his control have gone his way for that story to be possible. The fact that he doesn’t see this and feel grateful and goes around pointing at American homeless people makes me feel a bit sick.

this starts coming down to a basic tenant of Liberslism. One which Obama tried to say once but expressed so poorly because he left out half of it. And then it got used against him.

“you did not build that by yourself” (the part in bold is what Obama left out and then everyone at Fox News jumped on it and were like “yes I built my business yada yada”. But not alone they didn’t. The richer you are, the more you have benefited from our country, culture, society and the general public. This is what conservatives don’t understand. And is a fundamental understanding driving liberal ideas and policy.

Similarly, homeless people did not wind up on the streets by themselves.

once again, we are interconnected and this fact is what makes conservatism dysfunctional.

There are many many legitimate reasons completely separate from “laziness” that can land someone on the street. Including mental illness. Including just bad luck. Once you are on the street is it near impossible to get back. Our system is set up to make it difficult. If you don’t understand this you need to meet more people in this position. Your Sri Lankan friend clearly has not learned valuable lessons from his past.

There’s a great book called “MAID” that an ex girlfriend of mine wrote about being poor and not being able to make ends meet despite working hard (as a maid). She lived in homeless shelters with a daughter for a time. She only got out of it by writing a book about it that became a best seller. Not everyone can do that. (FYI we were not in communication at this time [we are now] or I would have helped her. I was in college I don’t know what I would have done but something. But I didn’t know)

a very good book for your friend to read. Maybe he’d stop pointing fingers and judging.

No offense but wtf is with you constantly calling anything Liberal or Progressive “religious “. They are views. Liberalism is a way of thinking. It is more a philosophy not a religion. Your constant language like this makes you out to be very partisan and blind to your own belief system. Conservativatism (real conservatism not Trumpism or Fox Newsism or current neo conservatism) is the other side of a coin. That is all. The others in that list are much more religious as religions generally imply faith (with some exceptions that are mislabeled as religions) which is required to believe in Trumpism or Fox Newsism or current neo conservatism as they are all fabricated by Propaganda. Which is something definable and identifiable and not really up for debate. It is there. And before @purr1n asks me about “liberal propaganda” it does not exist which would take this way off topic to explain why this is true. You just have to look at style of communication with an open mind.

yes exactly.

no one here saying poverty is “just a fact we have to live with” (to be blunt) has yet written an argument addressing the fact that we give all kinds of handouts to the rich which could instead be invested in the poor. Which by the way is better for the economy because they spend all of it. Money circulating is good for the economy. The rich hoard their wealth which helps no one including themselves.

I’m not saying poverty can be eliminated and I am not arguing I’m favor of some kind of “classless” society. But we are way too rich a country to have the level of poverty we currently have. It is due to policies that actively siphon money from the poor and middle class and literally give it to the rich. These policies accomplish nothing positive and if we stopped doing this it would make a lot of lives better (not perfect or rich, but much better)

 

We are imperfect being living in an imperfect world, so an absence of suffering is highly unlikely, but you make it sound like some built-in (designed-in?) fact of life over and above that. No.

Otherwise, to almost everything else in your post: Yes!

 

Double Post