Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
The Conservatives back in 10 Downing Street.
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
ConDem (Condemn?) government is to press ahead with 6 Billion pounds worth of cuts to tackle the 164 Billion deficit including possibly raising VAT to 20%; cutting child benefit for all but the very poor, end all welfare to work programmes...
Bankers pay and bonus payments from Jan - April 2010... 20.5 Billion*
*Source - Office for National Statistics
I can only comment on communism as I have seen it in other countries, Hoose. I've never studied the theory of it.
To say that the regimes in Russia and China were/are not 'real' communism, and that it wouldn't be like that if it was done "properly" is highly optomistic.
Human nature is (in a very large proportion of people) to look after your self and your family first of all - then, if there's something to spare, share it with others (so that you might get something in return in the future if you are in need).
Those in a position to do so, will. Few people are genuinely altruistic.
Wilkie of course you can only go by what you have seen. It was not true communism ther believe me. The reason is that they came out of "ideology" prematurely. Marx did make clear that it had to evolve from an advanced state of Capitalism. He failed to see the power of the mass media and strength of capitalist ideology (largely due to that). Modern marxists realise the strength of ideology much much more. It is very very evident that a lot of our attitudes and habits stem from it. Even the view of human nature you hold seems to support the capitalist world view. Co-incidence? I do not think so.
I do not think we will have the communism of old and it wasn't that desirable. I do feel that a form of socialism will come from the failure of capitalism .
Wilkie -if human nature was to be inherently self and family orientated as you suggest, we would have no altruism would we? The self inteest and family orientation comes from culture not nature. Some cultures simply do not think, look or breathe in such terms.
MF 4% of City workers scored 87% of the total amount of bonus and pay*
*Source ONS
That's incredible.
(Have you read "Liar's Poker" ?)
Timeout.
If it was human nature it would be universal throughout all cultures and all history. Though there are problems with some anthropological works, many have demonstrated otherwise. I think it is more to do with social evolution rather than natural evolution.
This has been a big debate for yonks. It would be nice if we could resolve it here
You see it in other apes, Hoose. They take care of their own offspring first and foremost (even to the detriment of others), but will then share with those they are closely related to, then more widely.
We share most of our DNA with them. It is, as Timeout says, protecting the genes.
Humans have evolved (a bit) more, but the instinct to protect your own is still very strong. Ask anyone with kids.
Getting your children the best possible start in life is just a modern version of ensuring your offspring have as much to eat as possible when humans were evolving from apes.
2009 -10 RBS lost almost 20% of its workforce - the investment banking part of the company is still paying bonuses - Stephen Hester - head of investment banking at RBS...has lobbied the government to 'protect bonuses' as he'll not be able to attract the best staff...
What, like the geniuses who royally fucked up last time?
Read the review on Wikipedia, but the book is funnier than that
(unless it gives you apoplexy and kills you I suppose)
i think we have to be careful here wilkie ,with respect. If you look at the Kung Bushmen (defined as some as "primitive"-very loaded term), infanticide was until recently, very common. That was practiced due to lifestyle and need to ensure the group gets on with its daily life unhindered. You bushmen could carry a couple of kids around but if a woman had one moere than she could carry they would kill the child. Not nice for us westerners to hear but very true.
Group over immediate family wouldn't you say?
Even if you were to describe them as "primative" meaning closer to primates (which I find wrong and distasteful
) the theory you have does not hold, it seems.
Ahhhh - I'll have a look at that MF...
Whilst not a practice I would condone (although.....
), I can see that in times of hardship trying to feed two children would mean that neither would get enough, and maybe both would die. Removing one means the other (and it's genes) has a better chance of survival.
In our culture, people can breed more children than they can feed and then expect the rest of society to feed them.
The Kung Bushmen (presumably) don't have the same access to free contraception that we do.
I agree with the fact we breed more kids than we can feed and it s a social/societal problem. It is doubtful if the Kung would quite see things the way you do.
For years people have debated this stuff. the hard bit is stepping out of "our culture" and proving we can (attempting it was a very western anthropologist thing-lol)
Always nice to debate it though
As for the bushmen in Hoose's story - I don't see how that is a group decision over a family decision. If the mother and child can only exist within the group then the decision to kill the newborn doesn't just benefit the group, it ultimately benefits the mother and existing child as well.
I don't see how that is a good example of social gain over personal gain. - sorry.
GA -that is the argument many make. They have trid to get into the Kung world view and argue that another culture can only be see in terms of its own world view. Their world view is "group orientated" and they are not alone.
If it was human nature to put individual over group it would be universal-surely?
I am cautious Timeout about reductionism, even cultural believe it or not. What I do have a problem with is ethnocentricity when looking at society and failure to recognise that our view of nature is one of a thousand plus.
Jury will always be out for me due to this.
Sorry - have read 'the selfish gene' and was completely convinced. It would take a book of equal size and gravitas to convince me otherwise.
I guess I am also a bit swayed by our obviously opposing political views - you have made no secret of your viewpoint and it's fair to say that it is pretty different from mine
I have read clips and lots of criticism of the "Selfish Gene" GA. Anthropologists and Sociologists did give it a tough time.
ye I think we do differ but no reason why we cannot both be lovely is there?