How mind acquired knowledge? (Nov. 25, 2009)

Berkeley, the British philosopher of the 19^th century, insists that we cannot directly comprehend objects with just our senses: our senses are causally linked to phenomena that are affected by the objects. In this case, the “existence of objects” becomes problematic if we try to insert a third transmission factor between the subject and the object to account for our comprehension. The traditional reflection that we need a speculative concept-based system of thinking to mediate between object and subject has been disrupted by physical sciences.

By the by, the conviction that transformations of our senses lead to comprehending brute matters relied on a double proof: first, the impossibility of acquiring knowledge by the sole speculative thinking and second, empirical research enhanced our knowledge base.

Hume, another British philosopher, claimed that causal relations, among other concepts considered essential, cannot be understood from matters that are offered to our senses.  According to Hume, the sensed brute matter is our only source of knowledge and thus, it modifies our understanding but never leads us to formulating laws: “empirical knowledge is never certain”. Hume warned against indulging into metaphysical concept (as the true opposite to objectivity); this word “metaphysic” aroused this erroneous fear that got the subsequent contemporary philosophers rattled and wrote thousand of obscure pages just to sounding objective. This anxious fear of extending metaphysical notions prompted philosophers into describing objects as equivalent to their qualities or characteristics, thus, evaluating relations is equivalent to evaluating qualities.

Consequently, contemporary philosophers reached this understanding that sure and stable knowledge has to be founded on reasoning such as it is done in geometry and the principle of causality. The paradox, said Einstein, is that we learned that most reasoning systems do not necessarily generate certainty in any field of science or that are intimately necessary for our knowledge development.

Bertrand Russell in his “Inquiry into meaning and truth” stated: “We all start with the realism that objects are what they appear: grass is green, snow is cold, and stone is hard. Then physics teaches us that color, heat, or hardness are different in quality or characteristics of what we might have experienced. The observer is in fact registering the impressions of the grass, snow, or stone. When science attempts to be objective it sinks, against its will, into subjectivity. Thus, naïf realism leads to physics, physics then demonstrates that realism is false. Logically false, and thus false.”

To avoid their concepts being labeled “metaphysical” then Scientists have been formulating boundaries or axioms to their concepts; for example, in order for a concept not to degenerate into metaphysic then first, enough numbers of propositions must be linked to the sensed world and second, the conceptual system must have essential functions of re-arranging, organizing, and synthesizing the sensed “reality”. A system expresses a game of logical symbols ruled by logical arbitrary given propositions.

Einstein is not bothered at all by the term metaphysic; he does not mind accepting an object as an independent concept in spatial-temporal structures. As he views it, it is unavoidable bypassing metaphysical concepts and thus, there should be no need to be apprehensive of a concept being considered metaphysical. Einstein thinks that concepts are logically creations of the mind, that it cannot be due to inductive reasoning from the sensed experiences. For example, prime numbers are considered invention of the mind. Yes, that concepts are extracted from the sensed brute matters is a reasonable contention, what is wrong is to exclude all concepts not considered to be related to the sensed world as metaphysical concepts.

What is so fishy about contemporary philosophy is that they avoid dwelling on the processes of hundreds of thousands of years that was necessary for human brain to acquire the necessary associations and images of objects and expressions, of metaphors, and then abstract analogies. It is my contention that reasoning methods of induction, deduction, and logical systems of rules are but organizations and descriptions of mental processes of the brain and memories for retrieving and recalling stored information. I believe that the neo-cortex has been undergoing specialized connected areas for expert specialized and restricted disciplines for work or labor divisions. General knowledge is going down the drain that will result in man destruction and moral oblivion.

This is a burning question inside every average human being – “Do I join the crowd and toil hard for that extra comfort/luxury etc.?” or “Do I quench my thirst for doing something extra/make a difference in my/other’s  life?”…This thought pre – occupied my being since I have graduated…However, I was disillusioned enough and I kept flowing with the tide and chasing the “better life” dream ever since…but, time and again, I have done introspection and found that I don’t want to do what I am doing, not because I don’t like it or I am not good at it….rather I will do something else, something creative which will give me a greater satisfaction and hence, happiness and peace (The two most elusive commodities these days)….However, I went on, disillusioned…still..:(

Upon reading Bertrand Russell, I have some consolation/ support to my philosophy on how to lead my rest of the life. (Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) was a British philosopher, logician, mathematician, historian, socialist, pacifist and social theorist).

Now, the background - As per Russell, humans have two impulses – Possessive (to acquire something material like property, gold etc.) and Creative (to acquire something for which there is no privacy and which can’t be possessed, like invention, poetry, writings etc.)…Russell asserts that ideally, a man should have more of creative impulses than possessive impulses…he also talks about a socialist society where people who want to have more creative influence and want to get out of the race of acquiring assets, can do so…with society helping them along by letting him work less (and get paid accordingly)…

However, the creative impulses come for a price… The individual following creative pursuits should be strong enough to forego a life of luxury and do only that amount of work which is necessary for his existence.

Now, this was written at the time of World War – I (1917)…the society/government around us has changed to a great extent…We live in a federal democracy with Capitalism just around the corner…The underlying meaning of what he said still remains current…

This actually forced me to think…Will the race of  ”better life” ever stop?…. Would I continue to suppress my innermost desires of doing something which I like (Change/take your own path) or  continue doing what I am doing currently (my comfort zone/follow the herd)?…

Think about it…We always have a target in mind about our material possession…we are earning X amount right now, we think of earning 2X amount…we have a small car (which like totally fulfils our needs), but our heart is on that luxury sedan…Cellphones, clothes, shoes, jewellery, music players, laptops…hmm…the list can take a lot of space if I go on…and problem occurs, when we do not have enough means to acquire this ‘wishlist’….that’s when we see people who have all this, compare them with us…and feel sad/motivated to reach/exceed their levels….Here’s the catch…this is a recurring cycle which repeats itself once you have acquired your desired levels….There is no dearth of people with riches…lifelong it goes on…keeping us on toes to acquire….(For people who like having possessive impulses – great! keep it up… at least you know what you want out of your life…!!!)

Well … much to my dismay, I still could not find the ‘right’  or ‘one’ definite answer…but, I certainly know for sure, that this is time I nurtured my creative impulses… I see myself  devoting time on things which I really want to do…(one of them is writing, and this blog is the medium)…Slowly and gradually, the transition has to happen…Its not easy…but, who said following your own path is easy….What makes it complicated is your role in various relationships you have…I get reminded of the The Matrix Series here…What is truth and what is reality, only someone like Neo can crack the code….and good news is, we have many Neo’s around the world coming to terms with the Matrix and following their own path…

Decide for yourself…What’s your path going to be…

The reforming government of Clement Attlee scrapped the University seats, making the by-election in 1946 the last one ever

One of the lesser-known aspects of British democracy was the status of the ‘University seats’, which ceased to exist in 1950. Arguably an electoral anachronism the University seats were abolished by the Attlee government, so that they ceased to exist, on mainland Britain, at the 1950 General Election.

So, the by-election for the Combined Scottish Universities, on 27^th November 1946, was the last ever election in any of the University seats.  It saw a genuine clash of political giants, present and future, in Scottish, and UK, politics.

The winner, by a massive margin, was the former Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, Walter Elliot, who won with 68%. C.E.M. Joad, a philosopher of the same rank, and fame, as Bertrand Russell and George Bernard Shaw, was the Labour candidate, who increased the Labour vote and John Bannerman, was the Liberal candidate.

In many ways the contest was very clear-cut, but the characters involved would have a clash of political titans that we just do not see these days.

John Bannerman, a former Scottish rugby international, later Lord Bannerman, father of former Lib Dem MP, Ray Michie, became a leading light in Scottish Liberalism and arguably began one of the major turning points for the Liberal Party at the Inverness by-election in 1954.

But, for one, I slightly lament the loss of the University seats. Although they were not based on the premise of universal suffrage, and gave the Universities a special, heightened status, they would have been centres of incredible political debate and a battle, more based on political ideas than local agendas.

Perhaps, in the future, when looking at creative ways of electing the upper house, rather than another direct set of elections to a fully elected second chamber some thought might be given to more employment and institutional representation. Geography does not have to be the only measure of delivering universal suffrage.

Zou onze koning dat ook grappig vinden?

P.S. I love his smile.

advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim:  the fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate. – bertrand russell

not exactly born into poverty, but at least he's got the right idea

Viernes/ “The autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872-1914”

 “Bertrand Russell was born in 1872 and died in 1970. One of the most influential figures of the 20th century, he transformed philosophy and can lay claim to being one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He was a Nobel Prize winner for Literature and was imprisoned several times as a result of his pacifism. His views on religion, education, sex, politics and many other topics made him one of the most read and revered writers of the age. He also wrote this book, one of the most compelling and vivid autobiographies ever written.”

Extraído de Barnes and Noble.

Ver además:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1950/russell-bio.html

http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/brussell.htm

Los títulos seleccionados  son una muestra de los materiales actualmente en préstamo de los fondos de la Biblioteca del Instituto Internacional.

Si te interesa ver o leer ésta recomendación puedes consultar su disponibilidad en el catálogo la biblioteca del IIE.

The autobiography of Bertrand Russell: 1872-1914. — Boston [etc.] : Little, Brown and Company, 1967. — 355 p. ; 24 cm.

B 1649 .R94 A3 1967

Als ons wordt gevraagd wie in de (recente) geschiedenis belangrijke wetenschappers waren, zal bijna iedereen zich Einstein, Louis Pasteur , (wellicht) madame Curi en Tinbergen herinneren. Dit zijn allemaal Nobelprijswinnaars.
Ik denk dat weinigen Bertrand Russell zullen noemen. Ongelooflijk eigenlijk hoe snel mensen die echt iets aan de geschiedenis hebben bijgedragen zo slecht herinnerd worden.
Bertrand Russell was een van die (weinige) multitalenten. Hij ontving de Nobelprijs in 1950 voor de Literatuur, maar was naast schrijver, filosoof, historicus, logicus, wiskundige.
Als schrijver heeft hij de filosofie gepopulariseerd en commentaren geschreven over vele onderwerpen. Hij vervolgde een familietraditie van politiek activisme, was een prominent anti-oorlog activist en propageerde de vrije handel met anti-imperialistische naties.
Als politiek activist was Russell een fervent voorstander van kernwapenontmanteling en een uitgesproken criticus van de Vietnamoorlog.

Ondanks een christelijke opvoeding was hij een uitgesproken agnost. Hij zei wel dat de meeste mensen hem waarschijnlijk als atheïst zouden beschouwen, omdat hij op dezelfde manier evenmin in de christelijke God als in de Homerische goden geloofde.

Ook over zijn redenen om agnost te zijn schreef hij boeken. In zijn betoog Why I Am Not a Christian (vertaald als Waarom ik geen christen ben) valt hij de belangrijkste argumenten voor het bestaan van een god aan en komt tot de conclusie dat er geen enkele noodzaak is om aan te nemen dat er een god bestaat. Ook betoogt hij dat religie meer kwalijke dan goede gevolgen heeft. Hij beschouwde zichzelf als vrijdenker, en was van mening dat mensen zich niet moeten laten leiden door traditie of heilige werken maar dat zij met hun eigen verstand tot kennis moeten komen.

Ook op het gebied van seksualiteit had hij een voor die tijd zeer onconventionele opvatting. Zo zag hij geen enkele reden om bijvoorbeeld seks buiten het huwelijk immoreel te vinden. Iets kon volgens Russell alleen immoreel zijn wanneer het anderen schaadt, en dat was volgens hem bij seks buiten het huwelijk niet het geval. Hoewel zulke opvattingen tegenwoordig vrij normaal gevonden worden, kwam Russell er regelmatig door in de problemen.

Russell werd in 1872 in een adellijk Brits geslacht geboren en overleed in 1970.
Relatief nog maar kort dood en al bij het grote publiek of onbekend of al bijna vergeten.

“Si yo sugiriera que entre la Tierra y Marte hay una tetera de porcelana que gira alrededor del Sol en una órbita elíptica, nadie podría refutar mi aseveración, siempre que me cuidara de añadir que la tetera es demasiado pequeña como para ser vista aún por los telescopios más potentes. Pero si yo dijera que, puesto que mi aseveración no puede ser refutada, dudar de ella es de una presuntuosidad intolerable por parte de la razón humana, se pensaría con toda razón que estoy diciendo tonterías. Sin embargo, si la existencia de tal tetera se afirmara en libros antiguos, si se enseñara cada domingo como verdad sagrada, si se instalara en la mente de los niños en la escuela, la vacilación para creer en su existencia sería un signo de excentricidad, y quien dudara merecería la atención de un psiquiatra en un tiempo iluminado, o la del inquisidor en tiempos anteriores.”

- Bertrand Russell

I bambini e gli economisti credono che gli uomini che dirigono le nostre grandi aziende passino il loro tempo a cercare nuovi modi di soddisfare i clienti o di migliorare l’efficienza degli uffici e delle fabbriche.

Quello che fanno in realtà è assicurarsi l’appoggio dei governi per tutelare i loro interessi.

Robert Lekachman

Riteniamo che tutte le tendenze associate al comprare o vendere siano antisociali.

Educano a promuovere i propri interessi a danno di altri e nessuna società i cui cittadini siano educati in una scuola del genere potrà mai innalzarsi al di sopra di un bassissimo grado di civilizzazione.

Edward Bellamy

Chi non è pazzo concorda su alcuni punti.

Che è meglio essere vivi che morti, meglio essere ben nutriti che morire di fame, meglio essere liberi che schiavi.

Alcuni desiderano tutte queste cose per se stessi e per i loro amici; sono perfettamente contenti se i loro nemici soffrono.

L’atteggiamento di costoro può essere confutato dalla scienza: l’umanità è diventata a tal punto un’unica famiglia, che non possiamo garantire la nostra prosperità se non garantendo quella di tutti.

Se desideri essere felice da solo, devi rassegnarti a vedere felici anche gli altri.

Bertrand Russell

vignetta di Ignazio Piscitelli

When I suggest that working hours should be reduced to four, I am not meaning to imply that all the remaining time should necessarily be spent in pure frivolity. I mean that four hours’ work a day should entitle a man to the necessities and elementary comforts of life, and that the rest of his time should be his to use as he might see fit. It is an essential part of any such social system that education should be carried further than it usually is at present, and should aim, in part, at providing tastes which would enable a man to use leisure intelligently. I am not thinking mainly of the sort of things that would be considered ‘highbrow’. Peasant dances have died out except in remote rural areas, but the impulses which caused them to be cultivated must still exist in human nature. The pleasures of urban populations have become mainly passive: seeing cinemas, watching football matches, listening to the radio, and so on. This results from the fact that their active energies are fully taken up with work; if they had more leisure, they would again enjoy pleasures in which they took an active part.

In the past, there was a small leisure class and a larger working class. The leisure class enjoyed advantages for which there was no basis in social justice; this necessarily made it oppressive, limited its sympathies, and caused it to invent theories by which to justify its privileges. These facts greatly diminished its excellence, but in spite of this drawback it contributed nearly the whole of what we call civilization. It cultivated the arts and discovered the sciences; it wrote the books, invented the philosophies, and refined social relations. Even the liberation of the oppressed has usually been inaugurated from above. Without the leisure class, mankind would never have emerged from barbarism.

The method of a leisure class without duties was, however, extraordinarily wasteful. None of the members of the class had to be taught to be industrious, and the class as a whole was not exceptionally intelligent. The class might produce one Darwin, but against him had to be set tens of thousands of country gentlemen who never thought of anything more intelligent than fox-hunting and punishing poachers. At present, the universities are supposed to provide, in a more systematic way, what the leisure class provided accidentally and as a by-product. This is a great improvement, but it has certain drawbacks. University life is so different from life in the world at large that men who live in academic milieu tend to be unaware of the preoccupations and problems of ordinary men and women; moreover their ways of expressing themselves are usually such as to rob their opinions of the influence that they ought to have upon the general public. Another disadvantage is that in universities studies are organized, and the man who thinks of some original line of research is likely to be discouraged. Academic institutions, therefore, useful as they are, are not adequate guardians of the interests of civilization in a world where everyone outside their walls is too busy for unutilitarian pursuits.

In a world where no one is compelled to work more than four hours a day, every person possessed of scientific curiosity will be able to indulge it, and every painter will be able to paint without starving, however excellent his pictures may be. Young writers will not be obliged to draw attention to themselves by sensational pot-boilers, with a view to acquiring the economic independence needed for monumental works, for which, when the time at last comes, they will have lost the taste and capacity. Men who, in their professional work, have become interested in some phase of economics or government, will be able to develop their ideas without the academic detachment that makes the work of university economists often seem lacking in reality. Medical men will have the time to learn about the progress of medicine, teachers will not be exasperatedly struggling to teach by routine methods things which they learnt in their youth, which may, in the interval, have been proved to be untrue.

Source: In Praise of Idleness

First image above found via MartinKlasch. All other images found via the always-inspiring WeLoveTypography.com.

The collage maker on Picasa has quickly become my new best friend.

“No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness. The hypothesis that we are nothing more than cosmic accidents has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Figures as diverse as Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so. It is an article of their faith, one advanced with the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them to face realities the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate. There is not the slightest reason to think this so.”

– David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, xvi

proves a rule is proved by its most fundamental exception

I lost interest in arguing with Bertrand Russell over Christianity. I do however have the energy to add that using the crusades and the Spanish Inquisition to argue against joining the church really doesn’t wash.

No sensible Christian would ever claim that the church was perfect or that everything that happened in its history was perfect. The church is made of human beings who come together for different reasons. In an ideal world they all come together to follow Christ’s teachings. In a non-ideal world (in other words the one we live in) quite a few come together in churches because it is politically or culturally sensible to do so. They fear exclusion if they do not join in. They become hostile to those outside their group because they threaten the status quo.

I don’t think anyone with a genuine interest in Christ’s teachings would ever want a situation where people feel forced to go to church. In Britain people often claim that the church is dying on its feet. But perhaps we are healthier than we’ve ever been. People come because they want to, not out of a sense of social conformity.

I’m rambling about all over the place. What I’m trying to say is that the crusaders and the inquisitors were human beings. They made human mistakes in the name of an ideology. That is something all human beings do. Christianity is an extremely old and complex tradition. It is quite possible to choose the bits of it you want and turn it into quite a disgusting ideology. But that’s no reason to reject the church wholesale.

Does that make sense? I need to fine tune my philosophical muscles, I feel as if I’m a bit all over the place this morning.

Brev till Felix Frankfurter, 23 augusti 1937. Isaiah Berlin beskriver oenigheterna inom hans college angående förslaget att bjuda in Bertrand Russell till Oxford under en termin. Det fanns många som var ytterst fientliga till detta förslag, framförallt med tanke på Russells radikalism och okristliga moral. . .

My conversation with the Warden [of All Souls college] I cannot reproduce, it was absolutely wonderful: he plainly hates Russell & all connected with him, but finally said ‘I suppose, at bottom, he is a very lovable kind of man?’ really I didn’t know what to say. I might have said, I suppose, ‘Many women appear to have found him so, sir’ but didn’t, only just though.

Isaiah Berlin, Flourishing. Letters 1928—1946, Chatto & Windus, London, 2004, s. 250.

La más completa que he encontrado, en tres partes, corresponde al año 1959, algunos años antes de su muerte, y completamente comprometido con la causa contra las armas nucleares.

Hippocrates:

“Everything in excess is opposed to nature.”

Aristotle:
“True happiness flows from the possession of wisdom and virtue and not from the possession of external goods.”

Adam Smith:
“Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production; and the interest of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.”

Alexis de Tocqueville:
” Materialism, among all nations, is a dangerous disease of the human mind; but it is more especially to be dreaded among a democratic people because it readily amalgamates with that vice which is the most familiar to the heart under such circumstances. Democracy encourages a taste for physical gratification; this taste, if it becomes excessive, soon disposes men to believe that all is matter only; and materialism, in its turn, hurries them on with mad impatience to these same delights; such is the fatal circle within which democratic nations are driven round. It were well that they should see the danger and hold back.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt:
“The hopes of the Republic cannot forever tolerate either undeserved poverty or self-serving wealth.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson:
“Every man is a consumer and ought to be a producer.”

Bertrand Russell:
“It is preoccupation with possession, more than anything else, that prevents men from living freely and nobly.”

In the previous two posts I have explored global government spending, with specific emphasis on military, education and healthcare as well as the size of corporations and their relation to the size of national government. In this post I will present some interesting information with respect to consumerism.

What we are seeking is a little perspective as relates to understanding the problems and challenges (or opportunities depending on your point of view) that are facing all of humanity.

According to the World Bank Development Indicators released in 2008 based on data from 2005:

• The World’s richest 20% consume 76.6% of private consumption
• The World’s middle 60% consume 21.9% of private consumption
• The World’s poorest 20% consume 1.5% of private consumption

According to the Human Development Report 1998 Overview (data used from 1995):

• The top 20% consume 45% of global animal protein produced while the poorest 20% only 5%
• Top 20% use 58% of total energy while the poorest 20% use less than 4%

According to The World Fact Book estimates from July of 2009 the following population figures will be used for deeper analysis:

• United States of America             307,212,123
• Russia                                               140,041,247
• Japan                                                1277,212,123
• Germany                                            82,329,758
• France                                                64,057,792
• United Kingdom                              61,113,205
• Italy                                                     58,126,212
• Canada                                               33,487,208
• Total                                                873,446,224

Let’s explore consumer spending in the G8 nations. This will be done using data from Euromonitor International from 2007.

Clothing and Footwear – First number is total spent while the second is per capita:

• United States of America                  429.8B                 $1,399
• Russia                                                    55.9B                   $399
• Japan                                                     75.1B                   $599
• Germany                                               85.7B                   $1,045
• France                                                    61.6B                   $962
• United Kingdom                                 87.7B                   $1,437
• Italy                                                        84.5B                   $1,456
• Canada                                                   31.3B                   $937
• Total                                                  911.6B                 $1044

Electronics – First number is total spent while the second is per capita:

• United States of America                 162.0B                 $1,399
• Russia                                                    24.5B                   $175
• Japan                                                     17.7B                   $139
• Germany                                               30.0B                   $364
• France                                                    27.1B                   $423
• United Kingdom                                 44.3B                   $725
• Italy                                                        10.8B                   $186
• Canada                                                  12.0B                   $358
• Total                                                  328.4B                 $362

Vices (Alcohol and Smoking) – First number is total spent while the second is per capita:

• United States of America               205B                     $667
• Russia                                                  14.5B                   $103
• Japan                                                   77.5B                   $609
• Germany                                              64.0B                  $777
• France                                                  43.3B                  $675
• United Kingdom                                59.8B                 $978
• Italy                                                       34.6B                  $595
• Canada                                                 30.2B                  $901
• Total                                                  528.9B               $664

Household Goods (furniture, appliances, carpets, cleaning products and services) – First number is total spent while the second is per capita:

• United States of America               456.9B                 $1,399
• Russia                                                  51.0B                   $175
• Japan                                                   86.2B                   $139
• Germany                                               121.7B                 $364
• France                                                   43.3B                   $423
• United Kingdom                                 59.8B                   $725
• Italy                                                        34.6B                   $186
• Canada                                                   67.1B                   $358
• Total                                                  1054.2B               $362

Recreation (discretionary spending) – First number is total spent while the second is per capita:

• United States of America               881.0B                 $2868
• Russia                                                     44.9B                   $321
• Japan                                                   275.8B                 $2170
• Germany                                              170.0B                 $2064
• France                                                  130.0B                 $2029
• United Kingdom                                210.0B                 $3436
• Italy                                                       88.5B                   $1523
• Canada                                                 74.8B                   $2234
• Total                                                  1,875B                 $2,081

Just in these 5 consumer spending data points almost $4.37 Trillion USD is spent. As of today the United States Census Bureau estimates that the world population is 6,793,000,000 which means that the G8 represent only 12% of the global population. Moreover, the total consumer spend on these 5 areas could pay for the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals more than 29 times.

Advertisers will spend almost $500B on all mediums this year to get your attention and drive your desire to consume. Due to this reach is it any wonder that global spend on the following is estimated to be:

$1,000,000,000,000 on tourism
$100,000,000,000 on bottled water
$90,000,000,000 on chocolate
$18,000,000,000 on cosmetics

It is estimated that 58,000,000 cars will be made this year. Bringing the total number of passenger vehicles on the Earth to approximately 620,000,000. It takes approximately 20 – 30 hours to make the average American car. Meaning the labour cost is approximately $2,100 or roughly the equivalent of the consumer price for a Tata Nano.

I am not advocating a position that is anticonsumerism. However, I am clearly advocating that the hyperconsumerism as brought on by hyperindividuality and a clear lessening of community that we as a society, a global society, have lost sight of those things that are most important. I believe firmly in the principles as set forth in the Preamble to the United Nations Charter:

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.”

With this preamble in mind I am going to speak about wages around the world and the Gross National Happiness or GNH.

Thich Nhat Tran
“Do not accumulate wealth while millions are hungry. Do not take as the aim of you life fame, profit, wealth, or sensual pleasure. Live simply and share time, energy, and material resources with those who are in need.”

Be Inspired Today!

The New Currency
SDM

Why boys are turning into girls
Gender-bending chemicals are largely exempt from new EU regulations, warns Geoffrey Lean.

Now the Danish government is planning to lobby to have the rules toughened up. It is particularly concerned by other studies which show that gender-bending chemicals acting together have far worse effects than the expected sum of their individual impacts. It wants this to be reflected in the regulations, citing its discovery of the many sources to which the two-year-olds are exposed – modern slings and arrows, as it were, of outrageous fortune.

Eugenics Society is turning humans into sub-species

I told you Jennifer Hecht has good breaking stuff. The curveball she hurls in today’s reading is wicked, especially coming right on the heels of Brandon’s report on our cultural “happy pill” addiction the other afternoon:

“It is a modern myth that some mood drugs are good and some are bad… our public rhetoric is mythically against drugs, and yet our individual lives include all sorts of intoxicants, stimulants, antidepressants, and other happiness drugs.”

Sounds like maybe she’s going to defend a libertarian loosening of attitudes and statutes on this hot-button issue, maybe even defend the idea that psycho-pharmacology promises a royal road to happiness? But then the pitch veers sharply through the zone and it’s past you. Before the final pitch of this inning (“Drugs”) she “would not counsel the use of illegal drugs for happiness… if you get caught, you won’t be happy.”

Alright, I’ll drop the baseball metaphor. World Series doesn’t start ’til Wednesday. (I’m picking the Yanks in six.) But Hecht’s approach to drugs is not easy to score. I think the best angle on it is from William James’s famous, notorious remarks on alcohol:

And:

“The sway of alcohol over mankind is unquestionably due to its power to stimulate the mystical faculties of human nature, usually crushed to earth by the cold facts and dry criticisms of the sober hour. Sobriety diminishes, discriminates, and says no; drunkenness expands, unites, and says yes. It is in fact the great exciter of the Yes function. . . . Not through mere perversity do men run after it. “

Some might call alcohol and other intoxicants “artificial,” but James is not pointing to the genesis of an episode of imaginative flight but, rather, emphasizing the resultant expansiveness, the sense of cosmic unity and affirmation, and the general feeling of existential reconciliation. These are not artificial, no matter the instigating agency. They are vehicles of transcendence. But subjectivity and transcendence are not unqualified goods; they are rimmed by relations of consequence that must figure prominently in our final evaluations.

I think that’s Hecht’s approximate position, too. We’re “trapped in our era’s assumptions and anxieties” about chemicals, legal and otherwise, and she wants to snap us out of our trance so we can think more clearly about the admissible limits of self-medication and its possible contributions to our happiness.

James again: “How at the mercy of bodily happenings our spirit is… [A] cup of strong coffee at the proper moment will entirely overturn for the time a man’s view of life. Our moods and resolutions are more determined by the condition of our circulation than by our logical grounds.”

(Nice pun, Willy. As one who begins every day with strong coffee and thrives under its influence, I take particular interest in this passage. I remain confident that my better early-morning moments are mine and not Starbucks’.)

Hecht: “You were happy today. Does the fact that you had two cups of strong coffee and a dose of over-the-counter painkiller have anything to do with our assessment of this happiness?”

Could be. “Imagine that coffee beans could be cultivated so that they packed more of a euphoric punch.” Yeah!

And what if it wasn’t coffee, but something flatly illegal?

How about it, John Prine?

Or Bertie Russell? “I am not prepared to say that drugs can play no good part in life whatsoever.” Moments when a wise physician will prescribe opiates are “more frequent than prohibitionists suppose.”

Hecht: “We have drugs that can help make people happy– short-term bliss, long-term grins.” We should think about it. And we should think about all the money we’re wasting on all the wrong wars.

All that said, I confess that I’m no Tim Leary or Albert Hofmann (his obit) or Aldous Huxley. I don’t even like nitrous oxide. Coffee, beer, and whisky are my drugs of choice. I don’t believe I abuse them, though I’m not going to ask my GP to review my position on that.

I do agree with Huxley, though: “I cannot discover that I was any stupider (under the influence) than I am at ordinary times.” I have occasionally experienced “that state of uninhibited and belligerent euphoria which follows the ingestion of the third cocktail.” And you know what? I liked it.

Hecht: “When we drink alcohol we can think about it as a possibility for minor metaphysical events, not only as a technique to numb ourselves. We can see it as a different kind of intelligence rather than as stupidity.”

But be VERY careful, don’t overestimate your intelligence, and don’t drive. (Dr. Hofmann was very lucky, on his bicycle. And for the record, he made it to 102 but his son, an alcoholic, died at 53.)

And if you’re ingesting something of more ramifying impact, don’t skip class , don’t neglect your children or other relationships or your health and mental stability. ”Here are some of the things long-term happiness requires in the short term: studying for exams; caring for children… being responsible at work; forgiving friends and spouses who have hurt you terribly; keeping the promises of marriage… taking a walk…” There’s more, but I have to go walking now.

See you in class.

P.S. Happy birthday, Older Daughter! (Don’t read this post ’til you’re 21.)