Mother Africa is crying.....

[Kangirl]

I actually agree that subsistence farming for many in Africa's current state is one brought on by their state of poverty and other envt factors like drought, but, that was the first example to come to my head - in general, I'm talking of the many examples of self-sufficiency survival, and people who were ignorantly happy to keep living that way (e.g., isolated indigenous tribes), for themselves, by themselves....until they got introduced to the extra variable called: the outside world.

What do you say to these people?

This is what I'm asking, who determines what is the 'best possible outcome' when globalization occurs? Is it not through inherent hegemonic pressures?(say, of the developed nations to pull those 'lagging' behind by the metric system/measurement scale of success they've developed, used, utilized, and now propagated and promoted?)

In answer to "what do I say" - well, probably not much. Being introduced to 'the outside world' has happened to all populations on earth, it's not something I view as morally right or wrong (not saying you do) - it's an inevitability. If I did say something I might say "here, have at it".

Capitalism/the market system was not imposed from above on, for example, European peoples. It naturally grew (partly - there were other factors) out of the ability to farm for profit - people now had the money and leisure time to explore other interests (profit making, formally education their children etc.).

When you talk of 'ignorantly happy' - I mean, again, do you really think significant numbers of people would choose to subsistence farm over profit farm? How do you know they were ignorantly *happy*? Always worrying about starvation and having a life expectancy of about 40 doesn't sound too happy to me, and I don't think that's cultural.

I don't really understand the point you're making. Are you conceding that most/all would choose for-profit farming? Or arguing it? Or is it a different point?

[professor goodstain]

We have (in America) well thought out ideas. The castle doctrine for example. Who takes a shit on it?.......socialists. Why were people from Africa enslaved and left in the dark during modernization? Guns didn't reach'em yet. Why are local farmers litteraly enslaved and left in the dark during modernization? Guns havn't reached'em yet.
So now we know our next charity. Getting guns and training to those who are productive. So that economics is no longer a "philosophy". Never happen though. Why? The in the box Cliquish thinking of who??????
Socialism n. 2 A social system or theory in which the political power possess producers and the means of producing and distributing goods.

[miked277]

Originally Posted by Qre:us

How do we create motivation for these people to enter a competitive market, 'for their own good', when their own good has worked well enough for centuries, until outsiders decided to uncover their little nook in the world?

the motivation to participate in the market is that if they don't, someone else will and then that someone else will buy/takeover the land or property. so, either adapt or get overcome.

if you take it as a given that the power of global commerce is more powerful and successful than local commerce than the overall effect of this is eliminating the less successful elements of the market and replacing them with more adaptable and succuessful ones.

if this seems cruel or inhumane to some then, think of what happens when the reverse principle is applied. also, don't think soley of just the one entity that is not adapting. think of the many others that benefit when a more adaptable entity replaces a current one and is then able to reap the benefits of modern technology and in turn pass on the results of the increase in efficiency and productiveness. a few might get hurt but the overall effect is positive.

[professor goodstain]

Originally Posted by miked277

the motivation to participate in the market is that if they don't, someone else will and then that someone else will buy/takeover the land or property. so, either adapt or get overcome.

if you take it as a given that the power of global commerce is more powerful and successful than local commerce than the overall effect of this is eliminating the less successful elements of the market and replacing them with more adaptable and succuessful ones.

if this seems cruel or inhumane to some then, think of what happens when the reverse principle is applied. also, don't think soley of just the one entity that is not adapting. think of the many others that benefit when a more adaptable entity replaces a current one and is then able to reap the benefits of modern technology and in turn pass on the results of the increase in efficiency and productiveness. a few might get hurt but the overall effect is positive.

Over all a whole lot less would get hurt than if otherwise.

[Qre:us]

Originally Posted by professor goodstain

The rest of us did. So what are your solutions/ideas to promote their way? Didn't see any

I don't really have a definitive stance on what the solution is to this crisis. If I did, I'm sure I can get quite famous, beyond an internet forum. Just as each of us would.

So, if you're asking for my personal stance, I've said already what it is:

Originally Posted by Qre:us

What motivation I give them - I can't think of any, except to find solutions/ideas to promote a way for them to totally not let go of their way of living, and work WITHIN their age-old frameworks, in a paradoxically increasingly global world...hence, why I draw a blank, and ask others.

Seriously dude, if you engage in a debate, you should read the other side; otherwise, the conversation doesn't flow.

I gave my answer the first time you asked. Yes, it is an answer: I can't think of any ONE solution that is THE answer. I think the issue is much more complex than on an economic front - anything is, when you add the human factor.

Hence, we get into ethics/morality, philosophy, theory. So, whatever answer you give, I do not have to merely and say, 'yes, that WILL work', I can add a "but...." at the end. That of the human factor, that at the individual level. (I also mentioned this in my OP and in the above-mentioned quote, when I talk of allowing them to maintain their ways of living/tradition, their 'ownness' of ways, individual group remain their identity, give individual level/group a worth, not just a mass assimilation on a global scale)

You do the same, with whatever you agree with in regards to other posters theories. And, my stand is that if we are to go to this level of the issue, it will turn philosophical, which gets circular cuz we can debate day and night, if it enters the realm of purely theoretical/philosopical/ideological. I.e., it can still be called upon by an ethical/theoretical debate, so I can turn these words of yours below on yourself, and see how you justify (is that not how a debate goes?)

Originally Posted by professor goodstain

Is that to be placed in history as fact? Or is that your philosophy?
We all know in the back of our minds what it's gonna take to allow those friends to maintain their old ways while developing bridges to a modern world. Socialism is the ideology of death. Who are the local farmers oppressors? Socialist small mobs with guns. They take from the producer because they have guns. From those with the ability-to those without. Now evolve that over time. Then add the un-educated factor. Then add guns. Not rocket science Q.

You look down on socialism, and say not socialism will work. However what you 'theorize' (well, borrow from other theories of ethical thought) smells awful like...*sniff* *sniff*... utilitarianism. Who's philosophizing now?

You and another poster.

Originally Posted by professor goodstain

Over all a whole lot less would get hurt than if otherwise.

Originally Posted by miked277

if this seems cruel or inhumane to some then, think of what happens when the reverse principle is applied. also, don't think soley of just the one entity that is not adapting. think of the many others that benefit when a more adaptable entity replaces a current one and is then able to reap the benefits of modern technology and in turn pass on the results of the increase in efficiency and productiveness. a few might get hurt but the overall effect is positive.

Shall we now allow this thread to dissolve into a philosophical justification of socialism versus utilitarianism?

Again, I ask, without your philosophies, can you *as well* give THE solution? I will call your bluff, as I don't think there's any one solution, which I've stated as my side from the beginning. Hence, I started my OP saying, this issue cannot be tackled by any one solution before we decide to help, so, do, act. Even if through awareness. But, just not philosophize.

Hear about the issues, or not. I just wanted to engage in awareness of the many health issues at the international level. Do you wanna start philosophizing?

*puffs on cigar and gets ready for a long sit of *blah, blah, blah* "talk"*

[ajblaise]

Originally Posted by Qre:us

I don't really have a definitive stance on what the solution is to this crisis. If I did, I'm sure I can get quite famous, beyond an internet forum. Just as each of us would.

Looks like somebody beat ya to it:
Microcredit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Micro Lending and the Decline of Poverty

[Qre:us]

Originally Posted by ajblaise

Looks like somebody beat ya to it:
Microcredit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Micro Lending and the Decline of Poverty

We've discussed microlending already on the thread, but, thanks again. Merit-worthy thing, that, and I agreed, but, I believe a lot of the poorest of the poor will be left behind.

And, some others said: well greater good for the most at the expense then maybe of a 'few'.

I.e., kinda like utilitarianism. While they said my side is socialism.

So we're now philosophizing about utilitarianism or socialism, and other 'philosophical' thoughts we can add. U know, to talk and talk.
Or, you can actually post on a topic of international health to raise awareness.

See? Now, you're all caught up with this thread.

[lowtech redneck]

Qre:us, I would reccommend that you read this Working Paper by William Easterly:

http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri...20Easterly.pdf

[ajblaise]

Originally Posted by Qre:us

We've discussed microlending already on the thread, but, thanks again. Merit-worthy thing, that, and I agreed, but, I believe a lot of the poorest of the poor will be left behind.

And, some others said: well greater good for the most at the expense then maybe of a 'few'.

I.e., kinda like utilitarianism. While they said my side is socialism.

So we're now philosophizing about utilitarianism or socialism, and other 'philosophical' thoughts we can add. U know, to talk and talk.
Or, you can actually post on a topic of international health to raise awareness.

See? Now, you're all caught up with this thread.

Hmm I think it's mostly inaccurate to call what you're talking about socialism, if what you're talking about - the cause of the greater good at the expense of a few - lines up with Social Democracy or center-leftism, which I think it might.

Technically, Soc Dem/center-leftism can be considered within the large spectrum of ideologies represented by 'socialism' by some, but on the very very lite side. Not what people think about when they hear the word socialism.

I personally don't mind the word being thrown around. It still has relatively negative connotations, but I think if it can be more associated with the less extreme side of spectrum, it's image will improve, and it won't be used as a fighting word as much.

[miked277]

Originally Posted by Qre:us

can you *as well* give THE solution?

sure... let africa sort itself out. i'm sure they'll figure their shit out in a few centuries.