Comments on: Our Commitment to Immaturity, Mendacity and Profound Gullibility http://www.deeshaa.org/2005/01/05/our-commitment-to-immaturity-mendacity-and-profound/ Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:41:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Arun Anantharaman http://www.deeshaa.org/2005/01/05/our-commitment-to-immaturity-mendacity-and-profound/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Arun Anantharaman Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://home.blogstreet.com/2005/01/05/236#comment-535 Coincidentally, I have been reading this book - Growth Fetish, a sort of condemnation of the process of growth that is the hallmark of the culture Galbraith talks about. I don't know what an old world liberal is, but it is an unfortunate problem that the process of growth as engendered by neoliberal politics and market fundamentalism leads to the sort of society Galbraith describes. Sadly, we seem to be growing the same way. Maybe it is the inevitable that the growth process takes this shape, but it would be a better world if it didn't. To quote Clive Hamilton, the author of the Growth Fetish, "Writing in 1865, John Stuart Mill devoted sustained attention to a concept that would be unthinkable to today’s economists and policy makers - the idea of the stationary state. Like many of his contemporaries, he believed that any serious discussion of the relationship between economic growth and human wellbeing leads ineluctably to a consideration of the stationary state. Mill asked, ‘Towards what ultimate point is society tending by its industrial progress? When the progress ceases, in what condition are we to expect that it will leave mankind?’ One searches in vain for any mention of these questions in modern economics texts. Anyways...I suppose the patriotic way of looking at it is - the momentum and the currency markets are with us. Just grow when you can & let the kids handle the problems we pass on. Coincidentally, I have been reading this book – Growth Fetish, a sort of condemnation of the process of growth that is the hallmark of the culture Galbraith talks about.

I don’t know what an old world liberal is, but it is an unfortunate problem that the process of growth as engendered by neoliberal politics and market fundamentalism leads to the sort of society Galbraith describes. Sadly, we seem to be growing the same way. Maybe it is the inevitable that the growth process takes this shape, but it would be a better world if it didn’t.

To quote Clive Hamilton, the author of the Growth Fetish, “Writing in 1865, John Stuart Mill devoted sustained attention to a concept that would be unthinkable to today’s economists and policy makers – the idea of the stationary state. Like many of his contemporaries, he believed that any serious discussion of the relationship between economic growth and human wellbeing leads ineluctably to a consideration of the stationary state. Mill asked, ‘Towards what ultimate point is society tending by its industrial progress? When the progress ceases, in what condition are we to expect that it will leave mankind?’ One searches in vain for any mention of these questions in modern economics texts.

Anyways…I suppose the patriotic way of looking at it is – the momentum and the currency markets are with us. Just grow when you can & let the kids handle the problems we pass on.

]]> By: Ram http://www.deeshaa.org/2005/01/05/our-commitment-to-immaturity-mendacity-and-profound/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Ram Unknown, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://home.blogstreet.com/2005/01/05/236#comment-536 There seems to be this idea that this "dream world" of associations is something we have control over. This is not true, building such associations is a basic survival strategy of the human brain. Branding and other such value associations is just an offshoot of this process. It is something we do automatically, the businesses and ad agencies just try to build on it. And this is not something new, or even limited to humans, many other species learn to identify social class, we extend such social learning to objects and artifacts, that's all. JKG is trying to make a dissociation between "real" utility (toothbrush cleans teeth) and "fictional" utility (stylish toothbrush signals X), but that is an artificial, and prescriptive, distinction from the point of view of survival, utility is utility. (BTW, his terminology for the two, truth and aesthetics, is a bit distressing, because it runs, and muddles, a whole lot of things together). There seems to be this idea that this “dream world” of associations is something we have control over. This is not true, building such associations is a basic survival strategy of the human brain. Branding and other such value associations is just an offshoot of this process. It is something we do automatically, the businesses and ad agencies just try to build on it. And this is not something new, or even limited to humans, many other species learn to identify social class, we extend such social learning to objects and artifacts, that’s all.

JKG is trying to make a dissociation between “real” utility (toothbrush cleans teeth) and “fictional” utility (stylish toothbrush signals X), but that is an artificial, and prescriptive, distinction from the point of view of survival, utility is utility. (BTW, his terminology for the two, truth and aesthetics, is a bit distressing, because it runs, and muddles, a whole lot of things together).

]]>