Cultural knowledge dictates a need for money. We are told to go to school, to get a job for the purpose of making money. We are told we need to get married, live in a house and raise children to do the same things and thus we need to make money to pay for it all, to pay for our ticket to play this game refereed by some invisible force. There is no logic, no critical thought required in following this path laid out before us. Convenience and entertainment satiate and compensate for real living, real experiences of human connection and exploration.
So if consumerist culture is based in convenience and so called "progress" is only directed towards making things ever more convenient there is no need for adaptation, which if I am not mistaken is at the heart of evolution. Consumers of capitalism have stagnated and remain distracted, Black Friday for example: people are enticed to get out of their beds at 4:30 in the morning to buy cheap products from Walmart, Macys, etc. This is where consumerist values lie. Politics, Civil Rights, International Trade, Genocide, Sharing and Preservation of Global Resources, Sustainability, etc. - none of these things resonate on the same level as a holiday sale to a consumer. And it happens every year. There is no point where the consumerism plateaus, there is always something new to buy, there is never enough, there is no satisfaction and the cycle, as I said before perpetuates itself.
So by breaking out of the cycle or even examining its nature while still technically being involved in it is the first step towards adaptation. And a friend of mine was arguing that the inclination towards revolution is a human desire to speed evolution, but really this is us trying to control nature. This is what he said:
"Humans try to speed up evolution with revolution. it may work but its a heavy burden...evolution is dirty and violent, survival of the fittest. but we can't blame nature. with revolution we put blame on human shoulders. we claim to be able to control our own destinies. even though they are way bigger than we can ever comprehend. i'm not saying its bad, just that we are doing natures blind work with half an eye open."
I'm late for greek phil. class. I hope this was a complete enough analysis for group commentary - thoughts?
This a good summary of about a hundred conversations we've all shared. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteEverything until the quotation is truth in which I have no need to clarify or debate. Its correct.
To consider about the quotation
1. Is there actually a difference between evolution and revolution. Or is revolution just evolution of human society.
2. If survival of the fittest is the true way of nature, should we really surpress such inclinations? Or is it different because we can hear those who are not the fittest complain. Or we might just not be the fittest and want to look out for our own wellbeing.
After reading over my second consideration, I realize that this is an extremely ACADEMIC or THEORETICAL capitalist point of view. The idea that because I am the best or strongest I will win. My product is the best, therefore people will buy it.
And after reading over the beginning of my post I noticed it comes off slightly condescending. Unintentional, what I mean is that this an eloquent summary of alot of ideas and its really nice to see them all written out in logical succession.
much thanks, it seems i have successfully used the blog to record a philosophical rant that has manifested itself into a logically sound being. so the comments here i expect will be lacking as you say in clarification or debate because i was writing more for myself.
ReplyDeletethe external argument from my co-discusser Jeff however i hope we can all aid in clarifying and debating. my initial response to his proposed argument was first, "isn't the stagnation of our species an much heavier burden than the physical burdens of revolution (bloodshed, etc.)?" (this could be a post unto itself) and something along the lines of your question ben "what is the difference, if any, between revolution and evolution? if so what is it?" - i think perhaps it may have something to do with revolution being a more self-aware process whereas evolution may be more subconscious. or revolution may be a self-aware process that enables a subconscious evolution to take place so therefore the two would both have to be present for evolutionary growth to occur.
i think survival of the fittest is really hard to contextualize when talking about a modern revolution. modern medicine has allowed gene pools to swell with many individuals who would have usually died and fail to procreate under natural selection. so because technology has leveled the playing field, so to speak, a biological survival of the fittest no longer exists. we have hindered natures ability to ensure the survival and development of our species, perhaps this is even relative to evolution?
i think the fittest minds would have to be considered in revolution, a group or a class that can logically unite and effect change in the current system therefore working against a whole other class of people (minds). the fittest prevails.
i'm not really sure what the Jeffs point was, to be fair our discussion was via text message and was cut short after this segment.
apologies on title spelling errors, corrected here for the record: Thoughts on Evolution
ReplyDelete---There is no point where the consumerism plateaus, there is always something new to buy, there is never enough, there is no satisfaction and the cycle, as I said before perpetuates itself.---
ReplyDeleteto add detail/another cog of the machine/and reasons why it occurs.
first off: i would say that it has more to do with efficiency than convenience-- efficiency being easier to measure. convenience being relative to perception.
\\technology advances to open up capital and further heighten efficiency.
*say that we have a woman who makes shoes by hand. she produces three pairs of shoes a day. each pair is sold for seventy dollars. shoe production technology advances and all of a sudden shoes are being produced at a faster pace: three hundred a day and they are sold at twenty five dollars per pair. that technological advancement puts that women out a job; at first glance this seems wrong and that is why we had the Luddites destroying shit. paramountly though such technological advancements free capital: instead of the consumer paying seventy dollars they now pay twenty, leaving them with forty five dollars to spend on other goods or services. because the shoes are cheaper and more are available the demand for shoes increases/ more people consume shoes. because the consumers are able to save money when buying shoes they spend that money on other goods and services which in turns develops those markets. with the development of those markets comes the demand for jobs to fill those positions. say the consumer who now has the extra forty five dollars spends their money on jeans. the market for jeans now begins to expand and the woman who lost her job to shoe technological advancements retrains her self to make jeans and thus is absorbed into that market.
and the story is told over and over again ...
so we can see that it is crucial for active participants of capitalist cultures to become consumers in fact: thomas edison-electricity-lightbulbs-outlet-radio-TV-computer-internet-blog-philosofuck-raven's rant
*if it wasn't for our consumeristic tendencies this blog wouldn't exist.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOur consumeristic tendencies employs our nation--advances our technologies--heightens our efficiencies--makes us smarter--and sits at the foundation of our current existence
ReplyDelete~sorry had to correct a typo
in terms of evolution--and dense populations survival of the fittest would be stupid --in fact oxymoronic--having large populations concedes that some and maybe more will not be the fittest--in fact civilizations are structures that permit those within the civilization to thrive--the mechanism of choice being: CONSUMERISM. survival of the fittest is a one-on-one interaction and still does exist but not within the civilization it self but civilization versus civilization and what happens when the existences of all civilizations are interwoven and symbiotically joined through globalization and economic policy--EVEN GREATER CONSUMERISM
ReplyDeleteconsumerism is a new form of evolution transcending survival of the fittest --a new paradox
ReplyDeleteSo you guys brought up a lot of shit. I tried reading this last night before bed after smoking and it didn't work and I felt like I was crazy because I didn't know what was going on. But after re-reading it I feel better. To start:
ReplyDeleteIn response to the question "what is the difference between evolution and revolution?" I think Ben framed it really, really well. Revolution is evolution of society. Robert Pirsig in the Metaphysics of Quality, to beat a dying horse, lays out a framework for evolution based on static patterns of value (or Quality, if you like). They are, in order: inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual. He says that everything moves "forward" in pursuit of Dynamic quality; it's the mechanism for evolution. Once "progress" has been made Dynamically, static patterns of value "latch" it into place. So an evolution from an inorganic (think molecular) pattern to a biological pattern is possible through pursuing dynamism. This new pattern ensures the "survival" of the previous one; molecules become cells (the short story), cells become organisms, and organisms, under environmental stimulus, develop into species (think any kind of herd or social animal behavior) which develop social patterns of behavior and value (humanity is, of course, the best example of this, but there are social patterns in many herd species).
The last step is evolution into intellectual patterns of value, which can be reinforced socially (women's suffrage is an example of a socially supported intellectual evolution). This set up lays out a framework for morality, but that's outside the point. Revolution, in the sense of overthrowing tyranny or maybe the oncoming green technological revolution, is inspired by intellectual value patterns but is ultimately enforced socially. How do you get people to recycle or stay not-fat? You put them in a group where those behaviors are the norm. So revolution is a social revolution because the changes are socially enforced; not everybody in a movement fully believes or understands the intellectual reasons behind it.
"Humans try to speed up evolution with revolution. it may work but its a heavy burden...evolution is dirty and violent, survival of the fittest. but we can't blame nature. with revolution we put blame on human shoulders." I agree! We do try to speed up evolution with revolution, but they happen to be the same thing. Evolution can be dirty and violent, but it can also be graceful and awe-inspiring; the elegance of biology and life is agreed upon by most people, and the whole field is a study of evolution. I think the "fittest" part could be reframed in terms of Quality: survival of the "highest"-quality biochemical structure, organism, society, or idea. I'm not sure I understand where blame comes into play in the whole scenario, though.
In response to the first part of the original post: does the idea of the catalysis of human to consumer assume a dehumanizing effect of consumerism? Are consumers no longer human? Maybe "consumer" is a subset of "human." And are we moving away from a natural state? I would argue that the natural state is one of perpetual evolution, and that consumerism is only a step in the continuum. Is culture the expression of its values? That is, do the values create the culture, implying that they came first? I would say that they're inextricably linked. There's a problem in anthropology and moral philosophy in defining what exactly is meant by "culture," but the best definition I could come up with was that a culture is defined by a group of people with similar or identical values.
ReplyDeleteTo elaborate: so a bunch of people have a set of socially enforced values; we can call them a culture. Then, out of the blue, one person has a vision that maybe they shouldn't kill cows anymore, that it's immoral and against a divine imperative. So he talks to his friend about it, who believes him after a long discussion, and he talks to his friend and on and on until everyone starts to take it for granted. But now there's a surplus of cows and they just keep coming; soon a whole new industry develops around taking care of the cows and managing their grazing land and well-being. But now the people taking care of the cows aren't at home as much as they used to be, and they have to hire people to take care of their kids. And outside of not being able to personally care for their children, they can't farm all of the food they need to feed their family, so they start buying food from their next-door neighbor, who expands his production to meet the growing demand for food. So this goes on for a while, the economy expands into all sorts of service sectors, and all of a sudden: BAM. Consumer culture. Some old people might still remember what it was like when people generally grew their own food and even ate cows, but its so archaic now that everyone takes the present situation for granted. So now everyone wants money and saves cows.
That situation might be a little absurd, but it's no more absurd than practices cultures adopt all the time in the constant ebb and flow of evolution. The people didn't start out as money-hungry, brain-dead assholes; it just kinda happened. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that culture and values are inseparable, and to blame one on the other can be a little confusing.
shit, as I was writing dante posted. so it might seem a little disjointed. i'll read your stuff now dante...
ReplyDeletehahaha
ReplyDeletei like your new pattern of evolution !
ReplyDeletedante-
ReplyDeletei think it is an important distinction you've highlighted between convenience and efficiency and i'm not convinced by either of our arguments. yet. so allow me to extend mine.
efficient:
(esp. of a system or machine) achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense : fluorescent lamps are efficient at converting electricity into light.
• (of a person) working in a well-organized and competent way : an efficient administrator.
• [in combination ] preventing the wasteful use of a particular resource : an energy-efficient heating system.
so the modern consumer lifestyle that allows one to sit back in a comfortable chair, watch television, eat, drink, text message, etc. all at the same time would be efficient as far as maximizing productivity of time by doing all of these things at once. however, the results are what come into question. how are consumers really using their time? this so called "efficiency" does not really produce anything by increasing productivity except consumer satisfaction and corporate profit, so yes in these terms it is abstractly "efficient" for consumers and financially efficient for corporations. so based on what you have been saying it seems you are in favor of consumerism then i think its appropriate that you would call it efficiency because within that system, adhering to the capitalist dogma, it is efficient. i, being more critical of consumerism would call it convenience because efficiency (outside of the context of a consumerist/capitalist culture, but as an idea unto itself) does not necessarily imply EASE which i believe is a the base of every advertisement and acts as the biggest marketing tool to consumers. and with this ease, as i was saying before, comes maximized comfort and thus stagnation. if there is no challenge there is no incentive, no room for adaptation or growth...
i think this makes sense.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletethe root function of capitalism is the maximization of happiness. Happiness to be measured in empirical terms by two quantifiable features: the proliferation of luxury and the accumulation of wealth. it is understood that and a well documented fact that we live in a capitalistic culture, regardless of our political orientations.
ReplyDelete.. there is incentive. greed. the want of more. a fundamental instinct of survival so rudimentary in our identity that capitalism flourishes from that innate feature. Greed produces competition. Your confusing comfort with apathy. Not so.
*Lets examine:
[how are consumers really using their time? this so called "efficiency" does not really produce anything by increasing productivity except consumer satisfaction and corporate profit}]
* first off what do you mean by produce something??
**see my explanation of the shoes—consumerism produces a shit ton—that’s the problem. The only reason we are discussing efficiency is in relation to consumerism/capitalism/economics and within those contexts: consumer satisfaction and corporate profit are euphemisms for increased access to luxuries and the accumulation of wealth—those two factors are the empirical tools to measuring the main objective of capitalism: HAPPINESS. So yes they, “really produce anything by productivity…consumer satisfaction and corporate profit.”