4 ms·

From a link to A Few Notes On The Culture[1] in the discussion on Iain M. Banks’ Why the Culture Wins, from a couple of days ago: > The market is a good exampl

From a link to A Few Notes On The Culture[1] in the discussion on Iain M. Banks’ Why the Culture Wins, from a couple of days ago: > The market is a good example of evolution in action; the try-everything-and-see-what-works approach. This might provide a perfectly morally satisfactory resource-management system so long as there was absolutely no question of any sentient creature ever being treated purely as one of those resources. The market, for all its (profoundly inelegant) complexities, remains a crude and essentially blind system, and is - without the sort of drastic amendments liable to cripple the economic efficacy which is its greatest claimed asset - intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between simple non-use of matter resulting from processal superfluity and the acute, prolonged and wide-spread suffering of conscious beings. > It is, arguably, in the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values and considerations that humankind displays most convincingly both its present intellectual [immaturity and] — through grossly pursued selfishness rather than the applied hatred of others — a kind of synthetic evil. … > The Culture, of course, has gone beyond even that, to an economy so much a part of society it is hardly worthy of a separate definition, and which is limited only by imagination, philosophy (and manners), and the idea of minimally wasteful elegance; a kind of galactic ecological awareness allied to a desire to create beauty and goodness. > Whatever; in the end practice (as ever) will outshine theory. [1]: http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm http://www.vavatch.co.uk/books/banks/cultnote.htm

kubanczyk 3y ago
> the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values There's no such elevation. The political process ultimately decides the law (including constitutional), and the law regulates (or frees) the market.
- arcwhite 3y ago
  To some extent? But then we have lobby groups, PACs, regulatory capture and astroturf campaigns that have proven to be quite successful techniques to subvert the political process. I'd argue that those techniques put us back at the mechanistic system being elevated above other values.
- chii 3y ago
  > the law regulates (or frees) the market. and yet, black markets exists, especially in places where the law fails to provide or provision a sufficiently free market for some goods/services. So i would argue that the law does not decide this, or you could call it law of nature that decides it.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Even these black markets tend to use the institutions of law and society, for example, money and they rely on the protection of law, too, i.e., law enforcement isn't typically free to do whatever to combat them. Where enforcement is strongest, black markets have a hard time forming.
- lmm 3y ago
  You'll find a great many people on this very forum arguing that a given law is bad because it's bad for the market, dismissing the question of whether that market is actually producing good outcomes for humans as beneath consideration. So in practice a lot of people do elevate the market over more human values, and that influences the political process and the law.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    Not to mention, economic factors are stronger than political or social factors. The market economy is winning for basic evolutionary reasons: those who engage in it are able to outcompete those who don't, whether it's at the "marketplace of ideas" or in the field of battle. And it doesn't even matter if, at individual level, the pro-market society is worse off. Much like with hunter-gathering vs. agriculture - the former lifestyle may be better for you, but if your group doesn't adopt the latter, it'll eventually be conquered by a group that does. In the end, people end up elevating the market above all, whether they want it or not, because they underestimate the power of the system they're dealing with.

kubanczyk 3y ago

> the elevation of this profoundly mechanistic (and in that sense perversely innocent) system to a position above all other moral, philosophical and political values There's no such elevation. The political process ultimately decides the law (including constitutional), and the law regulates (or frees) the market.

arcwhite 3y ago
To some extent? But then we have lobby groups, PACs, regulatory capture and astroturf campaigns that have proven to be quite successful techniques to subvert the political process. I'd argue that those techniques put us back at the mechanistic system being elevated above other values.
chii 3y ago
> the law regulates (or frees) the market. and yet, black markets exists, especially in places where the law fails to provide or provision a sufficiently free market for some goods/services. So i would argue that the law does not decide this, or you could call it law of nature that decides it.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Even these black markets tend to use the institutions of law and society, for example, money and they rely on the protection of law, too, i.e., law enforcement isn't typically free to do whatever to combat them. Where enforcement is strongest, black markets have a hard time forming.
lmm 3y ago
You'll find a great many people on this very forum arguing that a given law is bad because it's bad for the market, dismissing the question of whether that market is actually producing good outcomes for humans as beneath consideration. So in practice a lot of people do elevate the market over more human values, and that influences the political process and the law.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  Not to mention, economic factors are stronger than political or social factors. The market economy is winning for basic evolutionary reasons: those who engage in it are able to outcompete those who don't, whether it's at the "marketplace of ideas" or in the field of battle. And it doesn't even matter if, at individual level, the pro-market society is worse off. Much like with hunter-gathering vs. agriculture - the former lifestyle may be better for you, but if your group doesn't adopt the latter, it'll eventually be conquered by a group that does. In the end, people end up elevating the market above all, whether they want it or not, because they underestimate the power of the system they're dealing with.