Desmond Morris & the Future of the U.S.

[metis]

British anthropologist Desmond Morris, author of numerous books with one being the best seller "The Naked Ape" that was at least partially responsible for my going into anthropology, was being interviewed here in the States somewhere around 1970, and I happened to catch it on t.v. Near the end of the interview, he was asked what he felt about the future of the U.S.?

The gist of his answer was that, in the short haul, the U.S. would be OK as there was plenty of resources with a relatively low population base as compared to the available resources. For example, we had plenty of good farmland, plenty of water in many areas, lots of coal and oil, plenty of iron, copper, and most other important metals. On top of that, we had a hard-working population and a strong middle class.

However, he said that in the long haul there would be a very serious problem in all likelihood, especially if we don't correct it in time. That problem was that Americans compete too much internally, and he said that history shows us that no nation will do well with that much internal turmoil in the long run. He went on to say that as resource levels diminish, there'll be a problem because those that have the resources and the power are in a position to obtain even more, thus leaving the poor and an increasingly more and more middle-income people falling further and further behind.

However, he said the one hope he has is that the people will catch on and make the necessary changes as Americans tend to be less traditional people and had shown in the past a willingness to change once it dawns on them that they need to.

What do you think?

Here's an article about Desmond Morris: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris

 

[Sunstone]

Interesting topic. By coincidence, a friend of mine posted on another website this morning, "Ayn Rand and Edward Bernays gave it [the idea of community or shared struggle] the old Cleveland steamer. This is a nation whose highest civic virtue is selfishness. Where people regularly insult and express disdain for compassion, empathy and any intellectuals who suggest this is all a very bad idea."

I wouldn't blame Rand and Bernays for everything but I think each of them made a contribution to the sort of internal all-against-all that my friend -- and Morris -- were talking about. So far as I know, Rand in particular was a demonizer who could see no good in any group or class of people she disagreed with. But I think Bernays has had a more insidious influence than her in pitting people against each other.

As for whether the US will change in time, time will tell, but I'm increasingly pessimistic about that.

 

[Wirey]

C'mon! Hitler played his people off against each other, and look how well that went. However, FDR, bringing together an ancient empire, a commie juggernaut, and a liberal democracy couldn't do squat. Compromise is a sign of weakness! There is no weakness in this dojo!

Sorry, Cobra Kai moment there.

 

[Papoon]

As for whether the US will change in time, time will tell, but I'm increasingly pessimistic about that.

So if the trend continues, as it seems it will, where is the country heading over say the next 25 and 50 years ?
Describe your vision of the US if the elites continue to tighten the screws. How will the population react ? Or is it possibly too late for the population to react, given the new military and surveillance technology ?

I have been suggesting for about the last five years that we will see another Cold War - always handy to keep people obedient and nationalistic. And today I read this quote from Russian PM Medvedev -"We can say it even more clearly. We have slid into a new period of Cold War," he said, speaking at the Munich Security Conference. "Almost every day we are accused of making new horrible threats either against NATO as a whole, against Europe or against the US or other countries."

 

[Sunstone]

So if the trend continues, as it seems it will, where is the country heading over say the next 25 and 50 years ?
Describe your vision of the US if the elites continue to tighten the screws. How will the population react ? Or is it possibly too late for the population to react, given the new military and surveillance technology ?

I think the key driving force behind the direction the country seems to be headed in is wealth equality. As Justice Brandeis famously said, “We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” That's for the obvious reason that great wealth buys political power in a disproportionate measure to lesser wealth. Furthermore, all else being equal, wealth and power tend over time to become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. In political terms, this means there's a tendency to move from a republic, to an oligarchy, to a dictatorship.

I think that people -- even a few conservatives -- are waking up to the fact that the great disparity in wealth we see in our country today threatens representative democracy. But I'm not sure enough people are waking up fast enough. And even if vast numbers of people do become aware of the problem, they will need a leader who'll take them down the "right" path. That is, a path that will ameliorate the effects of wealth inequality while setting representative democracy on its feet. The only prominent national leader I see who is both aware of the problem and willing to do something about it is Bernie Sanders. But I don't know what he can realistically expect to do even if elected president.

Unless the problem is solved, and soon, I would expect something to happen right out of Machiavelli. Machiavelli states that the way to take over a republic is to keep the facades of the old institutions intact while gutting them behind their facades. So I would expect America to outwardly remain the America we're familiar with -- to still have, for instance, the appearance of free and fair elections, freedom of speech, a Congress, Senate, and so forth. If the appearance of those things is kept, it will most likely be enough to fool many people -- perhaps even most people.

Meanwhile, the elections will be rigged, freedom of speech will be subtly lost through various means such as marginalizing anyone who really does speak freely and accurately about what is going on, and so on and so forth.

It does not take a seer to predict these things will soon enough be happening, for they have already begun to happen.

I have been suggesting for about the last five years that we will see another Cold War - always handy to keep people obedient and nationalistic. And today I read this quote from Russian PM Medvedev -"We can say it even more clearly. We have slid into a new period of Cold War," he said, speaking at the Munich Security Conference. "Almost every day we are accused of making new horrible threats either against NATO as a whole, against Europe or against the US or other countries."

Yes, I agree with you there. Wars are even more useful than bread and circuses in creating blind loyalty to the establishment.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Sunstone]

He went on to say that as resource levels diminish, there'll be a problem because those that have the resources and the power are in a position to obtain even more, thus leaving the poor and an increasingly more and more middle-income people falling further and further behind.

The economic history of the past 30 or 40 years has certainly borne out Morris' prediction here.

 

[Papoon]

Sorry for the long post.

Not at all. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, and anyway I have a reasonable attention span

Your reply pretty much sums up how I see it. You may be more optimistic about the possibility of a coherent response from the population than I am. From the outside (Australia) looking in, my view is that the population lacks the kind of education which could inform a successful, unified grass roots response to the situation.

You quoted Machiavelli, and a very pertinent quote at that. The thing is that the general population aren't readers, apart from mostly web clickbait. And I have watched the cultural decline, precisely tracking the transmogrification of the education system. That applies equally here in Australia.

In the 70s ordinary joes like me read books like Guevara's 'Urban Guerilla', Machiavelli, Alvin Toffler (Future Shock was a big seller) and talked about it. I don't mean the bulk of the population, obviously, but there was a much higher level of public discourse generally. Over three decades I watched that dissolve. Literacy has taken a dive in that time also. There are schools here who have already decided to ditch teaching handwriting.

In a nutshell, the population has been dumbed down to the point that jingoism and cult-of-personality have replaced discourse. It is unlikely that we will see a coherent response arising from that.

 

[Ingledsva]

This was an interesting Ted Talk.


*

 

[Papoon]

This was an interesting Ted Talk.

*

"..power has migrated from the political to the economic sphere."

And there you have it. Business does not serve The People. The People serve business.

The speaker made a crucial point at around the 4 minute mark, that the piles of cash accumulated by the super wealthy are not reinvested for the sake of the collective well being, and THAT is our problem.

The implication is that the 'political sphere' - democracy, The People - must make it incumbent on the 'economic sphere' - the corporates - to do so.

Our mistake, IMHO, has been to give any credibility to the notion that the piles of accumulated cash are not part of the collective wealth. This has been programmed into the population as the notion that all the wealth generated is due to the efforts of the corporates, and therefore belongs to them.

 

[Sunstone]

Our mistake, IMHO, has been to give any credibility to the notion that the piles of accumulated cash are not part of the collective wealth. This has been programmed into the population as the notion that all the wealth generated is due to the efforts of the corporates, and therefore belongs to them.

This is a fascinating point. Could you elaborate, perhaps? For instance, what would be the grounds for asserting that the wealth was collectively owned?

 

[Sunstone]

Not at all. I appreciate your thoughts on the subject, and anyway I have a reasonable attention span

Your reply pretty much sums up how I see it. You may be more optimistic about the possibility of a coherent response from the population than I am. From the outside (Australia) looking in, my view is that the population lacks the kind of education which could inform a successful, unified grass roots response to the situation.

You quoted Machiavelli, and a very pertinent quote at that. The thing is that the general population aren't readers, apart from mostly web clickbait. And I have watched the cultural decline, precisely tracking the transmogrification of the education system. That applies equally here in Australia.

In the 70s ordinary joes like me read books like Guevara's 'Urban Guerilla', Machiavelli, Alvin Toffler (Future Shock was a big seller) and talked about it. I don't mean the bulk of the population, obviously, but there was a much higher level of public discourse generally. Over three decades I watched that dissolve. Literacy has taken a dive in that time also. There are schools here who have already decided to ditch teaching handwriting.

In a nutshell, the population has been dumbed down to the point that jingoism and cult-of-personality have replaced discourse. It is unlikely that we will see a coherent response arising from that.

We're in substantial agreement here. I believe I've seen much the same cultural decline. I suppose I am a bit more hopeful than you about turning the situation around in the sense I think there's a significant chance of that happening. But I wouldn't put the odds as solidly favorable.

 

[Papoon]

This is a fascinating point. Could you elaborate, perhaps? For instance, what would be the grounds for asserting that the wealth was collectively owned?

Perhaps the question should be " what would be the grounds for asserting that the wealth is NOT collectively owned ? "

The wealth is a product of the collective. Wealth generation requires ideas, planning, financing, management and labour. The status quo relies on the arbitrary assertion that ideas and financing make wealth generation possible, and so most profit should go to those involved in those aspects.

But without labour, there is no wealth generation.

It is like making an arbitrary assertion that the steering wheel is the most important part of a car - which is idiotic. The car is a functioning whole, requiring chassis, wheels, engine, drive train, brakes etc. It will not function without any of those parts.

It has been largely unchallenged 'holy writ' in the US that those who provide ideas and finance should receive a financial return tens or hundreds of times greater than those who actually do the labour to provide the product or service. It is a dogma which does not stand up to scrutiny.

Why should a person whose predilection and talent is invention receive vastly more per hour for their work than someone whose labour makes the idea a reality ?

Generally, the only argument offered is 'without ideas and finance, nothing happens'.

But it is just as true to say that without labour nothing happens.

Humanity is a group, akin to a hive. There are types, classes, of humans, just as there are classes of bees or ants in a hive. A beehive does not exist to support any particular class of bee. The classes of bees exist to form a hive - a collective of mutually supportive entities. And all members receive the benefit.

An ideal human society would be quite similar to any other species which existed in groups for mutual advantage - the advantage would be global within the group.

The only reason group behaviour evolved is mutual advantage for the individuals comprising the group.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps the question should be " what would be the grounds for asserting that the wealth is NOT collectively owned ? "

The wealth is a product of the collective. Wealth generation requires ideas, planning, financing, management and labour. The status quo relies on the arbitrary assertion that ideas and financing make wealth generation possible, and so most profit should go to those involved in those aspects.

But without labour, there is no wealth generation.

It is like making an arbitrary assertion that the steering wheel is the most important part of a car - which is idiotic. The car is a functioning whole, requiring chassis, wheels, engine, drive train, brakes etc. It will not function without any of those parts.

It has been largely unchallenged 'holy writ' in the US that those who provide ideas and finance should receive a financial return tens or hundreds of times greater than those who actually do the labour to provide the product or service. It is a dogma which does not stand up to scrutiny.

Why should a person whose predilection and talent is invention receive vastly more per hour for their work than someone whose labour makes the idea a reality ?

Generally, the only argument offered is 'without ideas and finance, nothing happens'.

But it is just as true to say that without labour nothing happens.

Great points! And thanks for the elaboration. I substantially agree with you.

Humanity is a group, akin to a hive. There are types, classes, of humans, just as there are classes of bees or ants in a hive. A beehive does not exist to support any particular class of bee. The classes of bees exist to form a hive - a collective of mutually supportive entities. And all members receive the benefit.

An ideal human society would be quite similar to any other species which existed in groups for mutual advantage - the advantage would be global within the group.

The only reason group behaviour evolved is mutual advantage for the individuals comprising the group.

I don't find the analogy of humanity to a hive either accurate or particularly useful. We're perhaps the most social species of mammal on earth, but I think we're different from social insects in too many key ways for the analogy to hold up in all but very narrow applications.

 

[Papoon]

I don't find the analogy of humanity to a hive either accurate or particularly useful. We're perhaps the most social species of mammal on earth, but I think we're different from social insects in too many key ways for the analogy to hold up in all but very narrow applications.

Fair point. In this case the analogy was for a narrow application. It was to make the point that human collectives are composed of classes or types, and that the effort requires all types, and could equally benefit all types.

The notion that the time and effort of one class is inherently worth a far greater reward than the time and effort of another is specious IMO.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that the time and effort of one class is inherently worth a far greater reward than the time and effort of another is specious IMO.

I agree.

 

[metis]

As a country, we have voted for and allowed our politicians to take actions that have hurt us, such as free-trade agreements and "right to work" laws, both which sound nice but have had devastating consequences. And then we get into wars-of-no-end instead of working on our problems here, including the growing disparity of wealth. We can spend trillions on these wars but then chafe over raising the minimum wage. We can drill wells in the Middle East for our friends, but we don't help the people in Flint, which is less than an hour's drive from where I am writing this. We build schools in Afghanistan, but we don't take care of our own crumbling schools, such as in Detroit.

As in the old Pogo cartoon, "We have seen the enemy, and it is us!".

 

[metis]

BTW, let me just commend most of the posts above as some very good points have been raised.