I think it's at the root of most, if not all, of our society's ills.

quote:

---

Looking a little further, you'll see greed and self-centredness

---

I guess I see these as synonymous or concomitant with the profit-motive.

We say so freely and so resignedly (is that a word?) that greed and self-centredness are just natural, human instincts, but I don't really feel comfortable just accepting that. I believe that they're learned in much the same way as sexism or aggression are learned--by myriad influences on our conscious and unconscious development throughout life.

One thing this reminds me of is the "clean plate club" - an idea that comes up in a lot of weight loss programs. Left to themselves, children will eat when they're hungry and stop when they're full. Parents train them to eat what's on the plate, however much or little it is, and in some restaurants, what's on the plate is a whole day's worth of food. And the result is weight gain.

quote:

---

We only think that we're naturally greedy because everyone around us is steeped in greed so that it can be perpetuated, so that the most greedy of us all can continue to profit in the utmost

---

Actually, to whatver degree we regard greed or the desire for profit as natural probably comes from nature.

Give an animal a choice between a big, ripe, low-hanging fruit or a small meagre fruit at the top of the tree, and naturally they'll go for the option that gives them the most fruit for the least investment.

Likewise, give animals the choice to either expend their own efforts to hunt (or locate) food or simply take what another animal has killed or found, and most will take the second option if they can.

Give a hamster an unlimited supply of grain and it will hoard as much as it can in its cheeks, hide it, and come back for more. If it can, it will hoard more food than it can even eat, and if the hamster two cages down doesn't have enough... well, it's not gonna lose sleep over that because that's not what nature programmed it to do. It's acting in its own best interest because that's what nature demands of it.

Even what passes for altruism in animals (prarie dogs helping other prairie dogs raise their young, for example) has been shown to be self-interested activity - typically not done for some kind of "greater good", but to increase the chances of one's own genes making it into the next generation.

quote:

---

it's worth noting that greed, self-interest and the idea of getting out more than you put in aren't evil human corruptions - they're part of nature.

---

I do think that greed for money and wealth and status and prestige are definitely human perversions of a natural instinct. I think I have to agree with you that it's a survival instinct, and that we're naturally inclined to provide for ourselves in the best way we know how. It makes sense to build reserves and have a bank of food/money/whatever to draw on in hard times.

quote:

---

I do think that greed for money and wealth and status and prestige are definitely human perversions of a natural instinct.

---

Yes, probably the sex instinct. That is, after all, at the root of any desire for the fanciest jewelry or the most pretigious car.

quote:

---

But, as with the examples given above, soiling oneself and masturbating in public could also be considered natural, and perhaps instinctive...

---

Many animals will make certain that these functions are private - not out of modesty, but rather because it benefits them (and others at the same time). Cats, for example, won't leave their droppings around, but only because they might attract other predators.

quote:

---

I think that rather than greed, co-operation is actually our most natural human instinct.

---

This is what I think too, and that it's been squelched by so many years of brainwashing. It makes sense that the Industrial Revolution would bring with it a new set of survival instincts, or simply a need to make us want for more material things, and then of course, more wealth to be able to dispense in the acquisition of these new material things.

A thought on instinct...

I saw a really good film the other day, called Who's Counting?, made by the National Film Board in '95 (and probably available at the library). It's about Marilyn Waring, a New Zealander, ex MP and economist. She illustrates the nonsensical language of economics and uses wonderful comparisons between productive, useful work that doesn't count in the GDP because it is unpaid (has no $ value) and activities that are unproductive or destructive, which are counted as a value, because people get paid for it.
I understand she's also written a book that would help people understand this. I'm looking for it now. ("Counting for Nothing: What Men Value and What Women Are Worth").

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: nonesuch ]

quote:

---

If you look at any of the really early societies, they were nomadic communities that travelled together and depended on one another to survive. Co-operation was an absolute necessity.Individualism and greed would not have got you very far.

---

Then along came pluralism. It's a lot easier to have a more communal way of life when everyone is of the same mind. You can contribute to communal resources, knowing that they'll be used in a way that will benefit you.

Today we have too many opinions, traditions and cultures for this to work the same way. If we have a finite amount of money to be used to educate the next generation about sex, for example, should it be used to a) discuss and provide condoms, b) promote and enforce abstinence, or c) deny that sex even exists? Should our children be taught about God? Which God? Should school cafeterias serve pork? Why or why not?

Right now, there is an absolute dire mess in the United States in the form of for-proft Health Care. Massive strikes are taking place across the country right now, with employees fighting to maintain their health benefits. Even major corporations are speaking up for Nationalized medicare to avoid the ever increasing premiums they must pay. There is an absolute groundswell of support right now for the idea of Public Health Care, so much so that it is becoming a major 2004 election issue.

People in the U.S are demanding that the profit motive be taken out of healthcare, in favour of a more caring and humane public one, like the rest of the Western world enjoys.

quote:

---

Sometimes individualism is the only way you can protect those things that are important to you. If anyone has any ideas as to how we can all return to one mind, I'm all ears, but I think the pee is in the pool, as far as individualism and cooperation are concerned.

---

When I said in the first post that the profit motive is insidious, I was thinking mostly of how it's crept into every aspect of our lives. Now we can't get food without someone making a profit. We can't even wash our hands without someone demanding a profit for the water, the building and all the pipes and ceramic involved.

I don't think that science counts either selfishness or altruism as "essentially human" characteristics. They are both behavioural strategies that are more or less successful in particular circumstances. Game theorists, who Joseph Heath cites at length in The Efficient Society, have shown that an imbalance of selfishness or altruism leads to severe instability in populations and that stable populations always display a balance.

The problem, then, is not that the profit motive is inherently evil, but that it can only produce beneficial results in societies where it is applied only in those domains where it works.
Clearly, health care, education, criminal justice and poverty eradication are areas where profit is a ridiculous objective

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: Sisyphus ]

Greed, as I see it, is not a natural human instinct. What is natural is a related instinct, which is laziness. Nobody wants to do more than the absolute bare minimum required if they can avoid doing so.

Getting other people to do the work for you, in effect, validates your laziness as "good business sense", and along with it comes a sense of entitlement to the excess of reward you gain by paying people less than the value they add to your company (take a microeconomics course; a firm will only hire up until the last worker hired exactly outputs the marginal product of labor, meaning that the last worker hired exactly adds just enough value to justify the wage, but the next worker hired will not) - as explained parenthetically, this is acknowledged in classical economics and is not strictly Marxist.

Today, the divorce rate rises and falls with the unemployment rate; relationships - which require a certain degree of altruism - break down under material pressure.