ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
LG4NB, OK, I don't see anything in what you say that I disagree with, but I guess I'm having trouble seeing where it leads...
I see our society (and ourselves as a part of that) as a kind of Ying-Yang balance between the sharing and hoarding you mention. Now my explanation will move from supply/demand to natural selection and evolution. As a developed society, on average we each share enough to assure our society survives, and we hoard enough to make sure we survive as individuals. It is in the DNA that we inherited.
It's a balance, I suspect that most of the ills in this world are due to slight variations in how each of us deal with that balance point.
I think you are saying that you would like to see us be a more sharing society? Maybe so. Would there be negative consequences? Maybe.
One example I can think of, is if pharmaceutical companies were not 'greedy' enough, they wouldn't be able to hoard the resources needed to invest millions to make a new and important drug. There's a downside of course, those companies make several competing versions of similar drugs because that's where the money is, rather than making different drugs to help more people. It's far from perfect, but I'm not convinced alternates would be better, but they might.
If I think about 'sharing' societies, it brings to mind the 'hippie' communes of the 60's. Are any of those still around? Maybe the Amish come close to this way of life?
Or maybe I typed a bunch of nonsense because I didn't understand your comments
-ERD50
I see our society (and ourselves as a part of that) as a kind of Ying-Yang balance between the sharing and hoarding you mention. Now my explanation will move from supply/demand to natural selection and evolution. As a developed society, on average we each share enough to assure our society survives, and we hoard enough to make sure we survive as individuals. It is in the DNA that we inherited.
It's a balance, I suspect that most of the ills in this world are due to slight variations in how each of us deal with that balance point.
I think you are saying that you would like to see us be a more sharing society? Maybe so. Would there be negative consequences? Maybe.
One example I can think of, is if pharmaceutical companies were not 'greedy' enough, they wouldn't be able to hoard the resources needed to invest millions to make a new and important drug. There's a downside of course, those companies make several competing versions of similar drugs because that's where the money is, rather than making different drugs to help more people. It's far from perfect, but I'm not convinced alternates would be better, but they might.
If I think about 'sharing' societies, it brings to mind the 'hippie' communes of the 60's. Are any of those still around? Maybe the Amish come close to this way of life?
Or maybe I typed a bunch of nonsense because I didn't understand your comments
-ERD50