Big Think

Robbie Schingler on January 29, 2008, 6:32 PM

I agree that people should be thinking about what would be useful to work on. To be honest, you have to be interested in what you are about to take on, but when you decide which project to do (or book to write) you have to take a look at the long-term effect it will have. How does this contribute to your long-term goals? Will it get worked on without you? What is the probability you will be successful?

But Disaster Capitalism is a great book, albeit bloody scary.

Robbie Schingler on January 29, 2008, 11:32 PM

I agree that people should be thinking about what would be useful to work on. To be honest, you have to be interested in what you are about to take on, but when you decide which project to do (or book to write) you have to take a look at the long-term effect it will have. How does this contribute to your long-term goals? Will it get worked on without you? What is the probability you will be successful?

But Disaster Capitalism is a great book, albeit bloody scary.

Lev!n on January 30, 2008, 9:14 AM

You have to know what it is that you are fighting for. Klein has a great point when she talks about how bluntly racist the notion is that we don't take body counts. We should be concerned, as well we should be concerned about all the major events taking place in our world on a day-to-day basis. This stuff is affecting us rather we know it or not, and we need to change. We need to all be on the band wagon for major social change.

Henrik Petaisto on January 30, 2008, 12:53 PM

Klein brings up a good point and that is that if we don't recognize that the other member is equal to us that is the problem alone.

Lev!n on January 30, 2008, 2:14 PM

You have to know what it is that you are fighting for. Klein has a great point when she talks about how bluntly racist the notion is that we don’t take body counts. We should be concerned, as well we should be concerned about all the major events taking place in our world on a day-to-day basis. This stuff is affecting us rather we know it or not, and we need to change. We need to all be on the band wagon for major social change.

Henrik Petaisto on January 30, 2008, 5:53 PM

Klein brings up a good point and that is that if we don’t recognize that the other member is equal to us that is the problem alone.

Trevor Jones on January 31, 2008, 3:59 PM

We need more thinkers like Naomi Klein defining policy and influencing public debate.

I can only hope the Internet fulfills its promise of providing a platform for real communication and social change: unlike television, which has aided the erosion of democracy around the world, to the benefit of corporate America.

Trevor Jones on January 31, 2008, 8:59 PM

We need more thinkers like Naomi Klein defining policy and influencing public debate.

I can only hope the Internet fulfills its promise of providing a platform for real communication and social change: unlike television, which has aided the erosion of democracy around the world, to the benefit of corporate America.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 1, 2008, 11:12 AM

I don't think all lives are of equal importance. I think all viable lives of consequence to the future of the world are important. A single farm animal is probably not as important as a flock of birds or a hive of bees, even though biomass alone would suggest otherwise. Ignorant people are also less valuable than people who actually know what is going on, even though they seem to hold more positions of power. The question is not, as Jeremy Bentham phrased it, "Can they suffer?" nor the alternative he rejected, "Can they reason?" but "If organisms like them were to take over the world, would the world be better for it?" That's why I'm such a fan of birds and bees.

Trevor Jones on February 1, 2008, 2:31 PM

That's a rather interesting view, Gowans. So logically speaking then, a chief executive's life must be more "valuable" than say, a young Iraqi orphan, or a Mexican immigrant, or a person caught in Hurricane Katrina's destructive wake.

These people have no idea "what is going on", but the chief executive probably does. Therefore, in your estimation:

Power triumphs over all; might makes right; lives are expendable if they are not productive.

Too bad for you we have things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, war crimes tribunals, and the United
Nations International human rights law.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 1, 2008, 4:12 PM

I don’t think all lives are of equal importance. I think all viable lives of consequence to the future of the world are important. A single farm animal is probably not as important as a flock of birds or a hive of bees, even though biomass alone would suggest otherwise. Ignorant people are also less valuable than people who actually know what is going on, even though they seem to hold more positions of power. The question is not, as Jeremy Bentham phrased it, “Can they suffer?” nor the alternative he rejected, “Can they reason?” but “If organisms like them were to take over the world, would the world be better for it?” That’s why I’m such a fan of birds and bees.

Trevor Jones on February 1, 2008, 7:31 PM

That’s a rather interesting view, Gowans. So logically speaking then, a chief executive’s life must be more “valuable” than say, a young Iraqi orphan, or a Mexican immigrant, or a person caught in Hurricane Katrina’s destructive wake.

These people have no idea “what is going on”, but the chief executive probably does. Therefore, in your estimation:

Power triumphs over all; might makes right; lives are expendable if they are not productive.

Too bad for you we have things like the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Geneva Convention, war crimes tribunals, and the United
Nations International human rights law.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 9:13 AM

Actually Trevor, I never said that chief executives were more important than poor people. Maybe read other people's work more carefully before you attack them. Here is a step-by-step explanation of what I already wrote, just for you:

1) I said birds and bees were more important than such animals as cows and pigs. Birds and bees have high spatial and social intelligence. Cows and pigs may have higher IQs, but that is irrelevant to their ultimate importance.

2) I noted how ignorant people seem to hold most positions of power. Ignorant people are useless to Earth's future even if they are powerful and wealthy and "educated."

3) If corporate leaders and managers took over the world, it would be extremely unfortunate. Check out the documentary "The Corporation" to understand how corporate ethics are actually the ethical codes of psychopaths. Psychopaths require prey, and would ultimately create universal war if they were the only type of people alive.

4) Power is a word which implies winning. Might makes right though? How stale a pigeonhole. As far as lives being expendable if they are not productive, how do you define "productive"? Would that include me working for 8 months in a slaughterhouse and helping to process 900,000 pigs? Or would that include my intellectual discourses?

I think you are really underestimating how much I care for other people. However, 6 billion is too many. I don't really think they are all equally great.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 9:24 AM

In any case Foucault thinks law is not how power operates. Law, according to Foucault, is only the repressive side of power. The real power is in what authority encourages. And what authority encourages these days is the exploitation of the voiceless. Perhaps Foucault is wrong, but I don't think the institutions you mentioned trump Wal-Mart.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 10:50 AM

I am extremely disadvantaged but I still manage to contribute some of my limited funds to various beneficial organizations. The real challenge is getting the governments of Canada and the U.S. to contribute $400 per capita annually towards ending African poverty.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 2:13 PM

Actually Trevor, I never said that chief executives were more important than poor people. Maybe read other people’s work more carefully before you attack them. Here is a step-by-step explanation of what I already wrote, just for you:

1) I said birds and bees were more important than such animals as cows and pigs. Birds and bees have high spatial and social intelligence. Cows and pigs may have higher IQs, but that is irrelevant to their ultimate importance.

2) I noted how ignorant people seem to hold most positions of power. Ignorant people are useless to Earth’s future even if they are powerful and wealthy and “educated.”

3) If corporate leaders and managers took over the world, it would be extremely unfortunate. Check out the documentary “The Corporation” to understand how corporate ethics are actually the ethical codes of psychopaths. Psychopaths require prey, and would ultimately create universal war if they were the only type of people alive.

4) Power is a word which implies winning. Might makes right though? How stale a pigeonhole. As far as lives being expendable if they are not productive, how do you define “productive”? Would that include me working for 8 months in a slaughterhouse and helping to process 900,000 pigs? Or would that include my intellectual discourses?

I think you are really underestimating how much I care for other people. However, 6 billion is too many. I don’t really think they are all equally great.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 2:24 PM

In any case Foucault thinks law is not how power operates. Law, according to Foucault, is only the repressive side of power. The real power is in what authority encourages. And what authority encourages these days is the exploitation of the voiceless. Perhaps Foucault is wrong, but I don’t think the institutions you mentioned trump Wal-Mart.

Jordon Roy Gowans on February 3, 2008, 3:50 PM

I am extremely disadvantaged but I still manage to contribute some of my limited funds to various beneficial organizations. The real challenge is getting the governments of Canada and the U.S. to contribute $400 per capita annually towards ending African poverty.

Jamie Tyroler on March 22, 2008, 10:52 AM

Although I hadn't thought of the lack of Iraqi and Afghani body counts as a racist issue, it definitely is. I have, however, considered that the lack of a body count in Iraq is that it could very well show that "The Coalition of the Willing (to pay)" has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did. If that is the case, then that ruins one more of the excuses we gave for invading Iraq in the first place.

Perhaps Iraq war excuses could be printed up like a menu from a Chinese restaurant – "I'll debunk the #5." We've probably created enough.

Jamie Tyroler on March 22, 2008, 2:52 PM

Although I hadn’t thought of the lack of Iraqi and Afghani body counts as a racist issue, it definitely is. I have, however, considered that the lack of a body count in Iraq is that it could very well show that “The Coalition of the Willing (to pay)” has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein did. If that is the case, then that ruins one more of the excuses we gave for invading Iraq in the first place.

Perhaps Iraq war excuses could be printed up like a menu from a Chinese restaurant – “I’ll debunk the #5.” We’ve probably created enough.