What about stewardship?

[coberst]

What about stewardship?

Stewardship-- the conducting, supervising, or managing of something... the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care...

Stewardship is a word used often in the Bible and was at one time used often in England. It was used in England because the youth of the landed aristocracy was taught that they were responsible for the care of the family properties in such a way that they passed on to the next generation an inheritance equal to but more appropriately larger than that received. Each generation was not the owner but was the steward for the family estates. Any individual who squandered the inheritance was a traitor to the family.

I am inclined to think that each human generation must consider itself as the steward of the earth and therefore must make available to the succeeding generations an inheritance undiminished to that received.

In this context what does "careful and responsible management" mean? I would say that there are two things that must be begun to make the whole process feasible. The first is that the public must be convinced that it is a responsible caretaker and not an owner and secondly the public must be provided with an acceptable standard whereby it can judge how each major issue affects the accomplishment of the overall task. This is an ongoing forever responsibility for every nation but for the purpose of discussion I am going to speak about it as localized to the US.

Selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature. How does a nation cause its people to temper this nature when the payoff goes not to the generation presently in charge but to generations yet to come in the very distant future? Generations too far removed to be encompassed by the evolved biological impulse to care for ones kin.

How is it possible to cause a man or woman to have the same concern for a generation five times removed as that man or woman has for their own progeny?

I suspect it is not possible, but it does seem to me to be necessary to accomplish the task of stewardship.

The questions I would like to ask everyone are:

Do you agree that the acceptance of stewardship responsibility for this planet is vitally important?

Do you have a different idea whereby this stewardship might develop?

[Lynx]

It is very important. We live on a planet with finite access to resources. We should use technology to minimize waste and maximize sustainability.

People will not care about stewardship if they must spend their time struggling to survive. Therefore, socio-economic policy must change to offer them a better standard of living. Members of this forum do not believe that capitalism can be reformed to achieve that goal.

Education can help awaken people's initiative. Where initiative ends, incentives begin.

[SpikeyRed]

Fundamentally I disagree that 'selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature.' I believe, in a materialist sense, that consciousness is determined by material existence.
I would tend to agree that Capitalism creates selfishness and greed though and that these two things are definitely obstacles too the concept of Stewardship that you speak of.

I do agree that your notion of Stewardship is important, and I think you have bassically put in a nutshell the views of alot of Environmentalists and activists of today.

But as Lynx said, Capitalism stands in the way off this concept being embraced by the broader layers of humanity, because of it's affects on conciousness and because of the competitive, wasteful and profit-motivated nature of the world economy under Capitalism. I think that a general socialist goal of collective ownership, control and administration of the wealth and means of production would make such a concept of 'Stewardship' a very real and attainable thing.

[coberst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 12:50 pm
It is very important. We live on a planet with finite access to resources. We should use technology to minimize waste and maximize sustainability.

People will not care about stewardship if they must spend their time struggling to survive. Therefore, socio-economic policy must change to offer them a better standard of living. Members of this forum do not believe that capitalism can be reformed to achieve that goal.

Education can help awaken people's initiative. Where initiative ends, incentives begin.
I think that we depend too much on technology to solve our problems. Technology is the source of many of our problems.

Our educational system is controlled by those powers who have organized the present educational system to ignore just such problems. Education is designed to make us all good producers and consumers and I do not think that Corporate America is going to change that until the grassroots force such a change.

[coberst]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 01:18 pm
Fundamentally I disagree that 'selfishness and greed are fundamental components of human nature.' I believe, in a materialist sense, that consciousness is determined by material existence.
I would tend to agree that Capitalism creates selfishness and greed though and that these two things are definitely obstacles too the concept of Stewardship that you speak of.

I do agree that your notion of Stewardship is important, and I think you have bassically put in a nutshell the views of alot of Environmentalists and activists of today.

But as Lynx said, Capitalism stands in the way off this concept being embraced by the broader layers of humanity, because of it's affects on conciousness and because of the competitive, wasteful and profit-motivated nature of the world economy under Capitalism. I think that a general socialist goal of collective ownership, control and administration of the wealth and means of production would make such a concept of 'Stewardship' a very real and attainable thing.
It seems to me that capitalism is so successful because self-interest is the primary driving force for all humans.

Perhaps socialism is an answer but I suspect that capitalism rules today and will never allow itself to be replaced unless the citizens became much more intellectually sophisticated than they are today and forced the issue.

[MarxSchmarx]

It seems to me that capitalism is so successful because self-interest is the primary driving force for all humans.

Well if by "successful", you mean there are scumbags the world over seeking to be a master in a world of slaves, and by "self-interest" you mean fear of personal ruin if you try to oppose the present order, you might have a point.

But if "all humans" were "primarily driven" by self-interest, they'd say "fuck this shit" and we'd have red utopias everywhere.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:49 am
I think that we depend too much on technology to solve our problems. Technology is the source of many of our problems.

Our educational system is controlled by those powers who have organized the present educational system to ignore just such problems. Education is designed to make us all good producers and consumers and I do not think that Corporate America is going to change that until the grassroots force such a change.
Technology is a tool - it can cause problems or solve them. I advocate using technology to solve more problems than it creates. Questioning our assumptions will help us use our technological tools more effectively.

I sincerely hope the education system is not as bad as you say it is or that it is under tight control by the bourgeoisie. In any case, it is clear that people who desire social change will have to play the part of educator in some way.


Perhaps socialism is an answer but I suspect that capitalism rules today and will never allow itself to be replaced unless the citizens became much more intellectually sophisticated than they are today and forced the issue.
Indeed.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It is very wrong to blame technology for anything.

The factory, for example, can be used to produce all kinds of amazing things for people to use but it can also be used as part of an industrialized genocide.

The vast majority of technology is produced because people to some degree or another are satisfied in some way by it. The technology that isn't desired is abandoned.

But, in a world of competing states, the most awful technology is maintained to guarantee the different states' own survival.

And because states are in competition with one another, an idea of 'stewardship' could be adopted in the same way as international law has been adopted. In that, it primarily serves to keep capitalist society functional. So, the powers that be, might well deem the idea of 'stewardship' necessary to capitalism continuing.

[coberst]

I recently had occasion to hang out in the waiting area of St Joseph Hospital in Asheville for a few hours. I was free to walk many of the corridors and rest in many of the waiting areas along with everyone else. It was early morning but it was obvious that the hospital functioned fully 24/7.

A person can walk the corridors of any big city hospital and observe the effectiveness of human rationality in action. One can also visit the UN building in NYC or read the morning papers and observe just how ineffective, frustrating and disappointing human rationality can be. Why does human reason perform so well in some matters and so poorly in others?

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Normal science is successful primarily because it is a domain of knowledge controlled by paradigms. The paradigm defines the standards, principles and methods of the discipline. It is not apparent to the laity but science moves forward in small incremental steps. Science seldom seeks and almost never produces major novelties.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Coberst, I have bad news for you:


There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved only using deductive and inductive reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning methods require the ability to slip quickly between contradictory lines of reasoning. One needs skill to develop a synthesis of one point of view with another. Where technical matters are generally confined to only one well understood frame of reference real life problems become multi-dimensional totalities.

When we think dialectically we are guided by principles not by procedures. Real life problems span multiple categories and academic disciplines. We need point-counter-point argumentation; we need emancipatory reasoning to resolve dialectical problems. We need critical thinking skills and attitudes to resolve real life problems.

Whatever the limitations of logic are (and they are not the usual ones peddled about by dialecticians), dialectical logic can, and has never solved a single problem.

Not only can it not account for change -- on that see here:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292398454 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69128&view=findpost&p=1292398454)

-- it is incomprehensible (on that, see the Essays at my site).

Small wonder then that it has presided over 140 years of almost total failure among revolutionary dialecticians.