Gaia: The Integral Pod - Water Cooler - Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://theurj.gaia.com — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:49:58 GMT

We are also exploring alternatives to capitalism in the Open Integral thread "Emerging economic structures"

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 19:39:42 GMT

As one example of this transition to a new economic form, one that is between capitalism and whatever, is cooperative economics. It's still a market-based economy but the form embodies many of the principles that Mackey champions. For example, per Jaroslav Vanek* (Professor of Economics at Cornell) he'd agree with Mackey that maximzing profit is not the function of markets. He'd also agree in that a free-market economy is the way to go. But Vanek sees capitalism as tending toward monopolies due to the investment of capital by private and separate stockholders. Whereas cooperatives are competitive, market-driven businesses where ownership and management is distibuted to the worker, not capital-holders. The nature of this organizational structure implements all of Mackey's innovations and then some. While Mackey's corporate version is an improvement, it still doesn't provide the democratic advantages of a cooperative and in fact it cannot embody such advantages structurally.

*See this link for an interview with Vanek.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://theurj.gaia.com — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:39:55 GMT

Here's the last paragraph from my last post in the John Mackey thread in Inspirations etc. It's a question I've long had and challenges the basic assumption of zaadz itself, that we can upgrade capitalism by incorporating "consciousness" into it.

And another key question, one asked before, is to wonder if capitalism doesn't have to be replaced by another form of economy in an integral perspective? Perhaps it's tetra-enacted with the rational-egoic level of consciousness and perhaps its form is limited to that structure? So trying to "upgrade" the structure with so-called integral ideas might be like trying to make the old PacMan game do advanced CGI.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:22:35 GMT

So when you see a fine looking woman and you want her, that may be an ancient desire, but when you see a fine new sports car and you want it, that isn't an ancient desire.

According to the multiple brain model, it is, at least as I understand it.

I can't claim to be completely current, and the new brain imaging stuff is telling us new things at a very fast rate...

But, the model goes, status seeking behaviors are mediated by what would be thought of as the mammalian parts of the brain - the tokens of the status seeking behaviors change, but the behaviors themselves are very constant, from culture to culture, and from species to species. It's an abstracted form of public display for status and mating.

This is how the model is used in marketing. When we buy a fancy red car, we're not really buying the car, we're buying both the neurological and endrocrinological rewards and the potential very real physical world rewards of a change in status.

We buy to satisfy an urge mediated from the "middle" and "bottom" structures of the brain.

I know that a lot of neurologists and brain anatomists think that the real picture of how the brain mediates and generates behaviors is a lot more complex than a three (or four) brains model suggests, and I figure they are probably right.

But, I think a lot of people still use it as a metaphor and predictor, because it just works well in application. It works well for me.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 06:51:50 GMT

Bill: "The multiple brains model is obsolete?"

The last thing I read about it was the way blood and brain activity would pool around the older areas of the brain during times of extremem stress, when fight or flight was necessary and a lot of thought wasn't. Like instinct kicking in. That's probably why time seems to slow down in a really tramatic situation, like a car accident or a serious fight, and why some times you don't rememeber exactly what you did or what happened in a tramatic time. I'm not really sure about the exact process or the latest stuff on this.
So I think the context of the situation matters when talking about the multiple brain theory.
This however doesn't have much to do with the baser needs or desires, as most of those come about because we're able to imagine other possibilities, which is made possible only because of the neo-cortex. Thus our delusion is more a product of further evolution than an ancient reptile brain. So when you see a fine looking woman and you want her, that may be an ancient desire, but when you see a fine new sports car and you want it, that isn't an ancient desire.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://theurj.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:44:27 GMT

Since John Mackey was mentioned here as an example of integral business practice, please see this thread in Inspirations etc. I'm feeling a bit disheartened that one of my "heroes" has participated in such activity.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://aqalicious.gaia.com — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:27:53 GMT

see also From Odwalla to Interra

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://FireAngel.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 22:30:07 GMT

ooh, I have things I want to add......
but alas
I am at work for capitalist pigs (pittooy)

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://julieaerwin.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 08:08:39 GMT

Hi Rick And I sometimes hear anger where it's not consciously intended. I am hyper sensitive to it from my upbringing. I'll remember to listen to your posts through a passion filter from now on. :-))) Juliee

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:45:00 GMT

Hey guys, let's keep the posts at the bottom of the thread to make it easier for peopel to follow the conversation please.
Mr. Teacup, my responses to you posts have been posted at the bottom.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://mrteacup.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:37:43 GMT

As to Werbach's observation that environmentalism harbors misanthropy, well, name me a political movement that does not harbor misanthropy.

The environmentalist misanthropy is of a different order altogether. Every worldview hates all the others, but generally they will stop hating you if you convert, but Green tends toward self-loathing on top of that. This is not a winner politically. You won't find a more strident critic of Objectivism than me, and that is why I try to avoid discrediting the ideas that they oppose.

Competition and co-operation are the eros and agape of the economic system. Even though two companies might be competitive with each other, they are also co-operative. For example, both companies share an interest in a stable, predictable government and justice system, share costs of creating transportation, communication and even a military infrastructure that is necessary for business to be conducted. This is all done co-operatively, and the actual exchange with a customer is also co-operative, most companies are run internally with co-operation. There is definitely an element of competition: who can provide the most value to a customer. The problem with capitalism is not competition, but when companies fail to account for the true costs -- environmental, social, etc. -- of what they are selling. These hidden costs are offloaded on to workers, tax payers, societies, ecosystems and future generations, so all anti-corporate projects are really nothing more than making sure that corporations and their customers pay the true costs of the products. In reality, society heavily subsidizes corporations, and we are simply hoping to remove those subsidies, just as free market economics demands. It would mean that many harmful products and business practices turn out to be unprofitable, but that's the way things are in the free market.

It's true that the high standard of living we enjoy could have been achieved purely through co-operative means, but it didn't. Why not? Competitive people did competitive things, and co-operative people did co-operative things, so why did the competitors win? In large part, because they provided better solutions. I'm not saying that capitalism is solely responsible for lower infant mortality -- government obviously played a role too. But where did the government get the money to implement all those improvements? By taxing the public's rising income that was driven up by capitalism. A command economy is too inefficient over the long run to provide an equivalent rise in income.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:08:37 GMT

Michael,

Wow, jumping from marketing to a Mad Max future of global warming all in one thread, interesting. What your talking about with the earth changing axis rotation and the like, are various regular cycles that we've determined happen ever 10,000, 250,000, 50,000 years and a few others. I forget the names of the cycles as they are just named after the people that figured them out, but we aren't in one of those at the present moment.
Since the end of the Pleistocene, the last ice age, we've been in the middle of one of the greatest times of climactic variation in earth's history. The earth is actually much cooler now than it has been during most of the millions of years that it has supported life. But when you study the data and the line graphs, the last 1.5 million years or so looks like an oscillating line on a lie detector, with a rapid back and forth. Whereas before that the changes were smooth and more regular.
So your right that climate would most likely be changing anyway, as we are do for it, but climatologists tend to agree that human activity is adding to a natural event; giving it that extra push if you will, and speeding up the process.
Interestingly enough, since this crowd is into evolutionary theory, many of the key periods in hominid evolution occurred during periods of extreme climate change. I know that Integral people like to think of evolution as something that just happens, like gravity, but unless a species is stressed with environmental change, it's genome can remain rather stable over time, as micro-evolution, or mutations, rarely lead to phenotypic (physical) change over short periods. This is why the roach or the crocadile haven't changed much in millions of years. Currently humans have one of the most stable and least variable genetic structures in the natural world. In the world of evolution, a lack of variation means a lack of possible change available when something does happen.
I can't remember the researchers name that did a systematic study of the fossil record and climate change data, but she found that climate was just one of many other factors, as there were periods of rapid change that affected other species much more than hominids. But, we believe that our ancestors were able to thrive by being one of the few mulit-niche adapters, that is able to survive in places with rapid climate change, much better than other more specialized species.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://mqs.gaia.com — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:02:55 GMT

Teacup,

I'm ok with 9 billion, though I truly think that breakthrough power/food/housing/potable-water/health care technologies can provide sustainable thrivance for more once the death grip of poverty consciousness (a capitalist invention) has been lifted. My reason for the more-the-merrier attitude is that I see this earth as a likely (at least locally in the grand scale of our galaxy) rare opportunity for souls to incarnate. More, these trying and conflicted times are what afford the soul (if you, as I, believe in such a thing) just the kind of intense and rendering fire that can advance a soul's maturation. This concoction of conflicted gender, race, politics, economics, population, religion, resource, and global warming dynamics, is a rich stew fit to nourish the highest levels of karma burning liberation. I imagine billions of old souls from all over the universe standing in line for a shot at this incarnation lottery.

I do not adhere to the conventional wisdom that population-driven ignorance and excesses have precipitated the global warming crisis. A conflicting theory is making its way through the defenses of the politically correct "we-did-it-to-ourselves" mantra. As I understand this alternative view, it says that the evident warming effect that we are seeing as manifest in rising ocean temperatures and melt rates in Greenland and Antarctica, simply cannot be attibuted to CO2 levels alone. In fact, according to the talk, the actual warming indices are as much as 50% higher than can be attributed to CO2 alone. What is it that accounts for this evident discrepancy?

Apparently, the shape of the earth's orbit has something to do with it. Typically, the orbit is somewhat elliptical with periods of greater ellipse coinciding with periods of deep glaciation and periods of more circular orbit (as we are experiencing now) characterized by warming, ice melt, and rising sea levels. It seems that the more circular the orbit, the more a general "warming" of the planet occurs. This warming accumulates in the ocean, hence the general rise in ocean temperatures. Warmer oceans mean incrementally more evaporation into the atmosphere. In conclusion, the theory contends that it is H2O in the atmosphere that is exacerbating the heat-trapping phenomenon. Actually, the theory holds that H20 is the driver with CO2 being the exacerbator.

My point is that population is taking a bad rap for consequences for which it is not responsible. CO2 production, especially in the last 50 years when we really knew and could do better, is the consequence again, of irresponsible, and exploitative economic policy. Additionally, population cannot be held responsible for the earth's orbit and the impact that it has on global warming.

Further (and why it is pertinent to this topic) my point is that the virtual inevitablility of a relatively dramatic (new models suggest as much as 20ft in 50 years) rise in the sea level will force a minimum of 1/3 of the earth's population to relocate. If the rise follows the conservative end of the model, this relocation will be underway in less than 20 years. If population is not substantially "corrected" by then, we could be at the 9 billion population level. This means that, conservatively, 3 Billion people could be on the move in the next 20 - 40 years. That is well within the life time of our children.

My final point is that if anything remotely similar to this scenario in scale and time unfolds, capitalism and the captains of industry as we know it and them today will screw this up so bad that an overwhelmingly apocalyptic cluster fuck will be the inevitable result.

The time for a competitive economic structure is over. It is time for those who seek to lead us to concede to the most conservative of predictive models and begin to plan for this apparent inevitability. IMO, there will be no room for competition in the solution of this dilemna - maybe in the design and engineering arena, a certain vestigial competitive spirit may be useful, but when it comes to implementation, a one-size-fits-all attitude must be built in or competition and a falling-through-the-cracks consequence will unfold as sure as hell. As the world's biggest "exacerbator," biggest economy, and with the most at stake, the US must lead this global effort.

Thus, the question remains: how to change the current hog-wild momentum towards some huge, population-correcting "event?" I don't know what, but I do know that the solution will not come out of the paradigm in which the problem was created. The solution will be spirtually based I suspect - perhaps right along the lines we are exploring here - people willing to wake up from the materialistic nightmare, get realized, start producing light, and become so attractive to "others" that "others" will become willing to follow suit. This is no fantasy, it is the 100th Monkey Tipping Point where the vision would hold 10 Billion of us living here in 50 - 100 years, well fed, healthy, fully challenged by consciousness expansion, and 1/3 of us living at sea.

As to Werbach's observation that environmentalism harbors misanthropy, well, name me a political movement that does not harbor misanthropy. Ayn Rand's exploitation of nascent green is not so much the product of "keen observation," that environmentalists hated "achievement," "reason," "man," and "life," its just the kind of uber-provocative, over-the-top charge that one would expect from her natural successor, Ann Coulter. Ayn Rand was witty and insightful, yes, but she was never anything more than an apologist for the "who me, responsible?" crowd and ultimately served nothing more than to deepen the mess we are in today.

Lastly, as a reluctant but necessary consumer of health care "products," I am here to tell you that the medical industry is no capitalist victory. It is true that infant mortality rates have dropped, but why is this attributed to capitalism? Why could this improvement not have occured in a cooperative system? What makes competition so vital to progress? Why is the most capitalistic nation on earth #38 in the world when it comes to health care for its citizens?

Yer pal,
Michael

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:21:39 GMT

Mr. Teacup: "I like to point out to people that along with all the problems, capitalism has also brought about the lowest infant mortality rate in the last few thousand years."

How's that? The numbers show that child mortality drops with improved hygiene and nutrition. Capitalism hasn't improved either, as these are largely filled by governmental niches. Most of the technology and R&D to improve these things also come from universities and government funding, which are then given freely to private companies that product products with said technology and sold to us for a profit. This is a double taxation.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, until governmental implementation of basic hygienic services, labor and food regulations, capitalist markets did nothing to improve these things.
Global capitalist agricultural markets leave locals undernourished while essential locally grown food is exported, and subsistence farmers are pushed off their land so that higher value exports, like coffee, drugs, cacao and sugar, etc... are grown for export.
There is current food production to supply every man, woman and child on earth with a balanced 2,800 Kcals. a day. The problem, as noted by others, is profit oriented distribution.
30,000 children die every day due to malnutrition, so how are capitalist markets good for child mortality? They are good for U.S. and European mortality rates, but we are a numerical minority.

The poor in the rich north are helped by government programs, not corporate distribution.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://mrteacup.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:13:57 GMT

Michael,

Fortunately, the population is projected to max out at 9 billion.

On whether humanity is a scourge, I recommend this essay by Adam Werbach, president of the Sierra Club. Here's a quote:

Within environmentalists and environmentalism reside both a love for
and a hatred of humanity. Because misanthropy at a political level is
suicidal, it merits remaining private. But over the years, ordinary
Americans have sensed it, the media has magnified it, and during the
springtime of the environmental movement, the keenest conservatives saw
an opportunity to exploit it. Ayn Rand, for one, saw environmentalists'
"ultimate motive [as a] hatred for achievement, for reason, for man,
for life."

And exploit it they have. It's hard to escape the conclusion that the environmental movement has engineered their own defeat. The reflexive hostility to capitalism must be re-examined, because as many environmentalists such as Al Gore point out, the problem is not capitalism per se, but inaccurate accounting of the costs and profits. This is the approach that natural capitalism takes, and is a much more viable approach than the traditional environmentalist one.

I like to point out to people that along with all the problems, capitalism has also brought about the lowest infant mortality rate in the last few thousand years. People like to say that we've been manipulated by the elites, we're being controlled by advertising, etc., and there may be an element of truth to that. But another very important reason is this: people don't want their children to die.

Most people don't get this. They take their and their children's health for granted, so it's easy to rail against capitalism, thinking that capitalism is just iphones and designer clothes. But most of it is not, mostly, it's about not having your children die. You talk about how capitalism takes away health benefits, which it does, but before capitalism, there were no doctors, no medicines and no hospitals. Death is not at our doorstep, and so who are we to pass judgment on the motivations of our ancestors for whom it was? There was exploitation and greed and all the rest, but also it was people, just like you and me, who were trying to be happy and prevent their children from dying.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:34:21 GMT

Capitalism - Economic system characterized by the following: private property ownership exists; individuals and companies are allowed to compete for their own economic gain; and free market forces determine the prices of goods and services.

I understand the attraction of fantasy definitions, but I'm not sure that it's going to help in a situation like this.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://telesterion.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:32:30 GMT

that reptile brain idea reminded me of an interview with one of the heads of marketing for GM. He's an anthropologist and he mentioned the reptile brain and the need for more horsepower, etc... because he was speaking of an overly simplistic bio-psycho model, and decades out of date with modern social science theory. I was telling a couple of my professors about the interview the next day and we all laughed about it.

The multiple brains model is obsolete?

Bummer. I didn't get the memo.

I use it daily, and frankly it's one of the most powerful tools in my toolset. As a communications metaphor, a predictor of behavior, and a methodology for psychological training, it's hard to beat.

I wonder what I could ever use to replace it?

And all those marketing folks are going to be really embarrassed.

What obsoleted it?

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://mqs.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:27:47 GMT

Rick,

For whatever its worth, I have not read all of your posts but I will bet that I have read most of them. I can often feel the strength, insistence, and passion of your positions and interests, but I cannot recall being so distracted by the "anger" in your tone, that it ever occurred to me to comment about it.

Ewan,

As far as discussing capitalism in AQAL terms, I think that is a good, though academic, idea. This topic is about the impact that "capitalism - the street level practice," has on the development of consciousness. I would agree with you that, as an economic system, capitalism can be discussed as free of "values," but, in practice, in the hands of corporations and their boards, capitalism becomes a proto-value in and of itself. It more closely resembles fundamentalist religion in action than a malleable economic theory. At one end of the scale, you have the local, the personal, the gnostic, who try to fit into the capitalistic "faith" so as to feed their families and foster a sense of belonging and service to their communities. At the other end of the scale are the literalists, who have discarded the flesh and wave the bones in ruthless incantations while seeking to destroy or assimilate their competition. IMO, AQAL is not sophisticated enough to tackle this subject. It is also possibly true that my familiarity with AQAL is not sophisticated enough to see how it might be of use. My interest is in creating an economic model that may be personally incorporated and manifest. In a "stuff-oriented" reality, like Rick, I would favor a labor-based political power structure. However, despite my many failings and inconsistencies, I am not a "stuff-oriented" person, but far more an idealistic utopian with a food, clothing, shelter, health care, spiritual practice, theatre, skateboarding, gardening and tantric sex outlook.

If an AQAL perspective can help us move from this racist, androcentric, ageist, imperialistic, fascistic nightmare towards a materially sustainable and spiritually focused lifestyle, then bring the word Ewan. I will do my "wrinklier" best to catch up.

yer pal,
Michael

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:24:16 GMT

Yer absolutely right Ewan, but we have to examine the nature of the beast here. Orange's values are, in a way, value free. It is a rational and theoretical mind that gives little attention to the way the world actually works. So you get concepts that are pushed, like Rational Choice Theory, even though we've known for years that people don't make rational choices when deciding to buy or do something. We say that the price of things is determined by market forces like supply and demand, but in that equation it is necessary for individuals to have full discloser of what something actually costs in monetary units and it's full utility. Both of which are manipulated and hidden from consumers. Add the fact that Capitalism is not in fact value free. It is illegal for a C.E.O to have his corporation do something that will not maximize profits for his shareholders. So, in most cases, it is illegal to do the right thing and to not take advantage of every exploitable situation.
Now I'd like to use that gun analogy that you did. Is it the gun or the shooter? I'd like to ask you what you thoughts are to America's gun laws? What do you think about the fact that I can walk down to the corner of my block to a pawn shop and buy a gun in under an hour, here in Texas. Or, that after a one day course, I can get a permit to carry that gun around with me as long as I conceal it. (Concealed handgun permit). Or, what do you think of my governor, who is pushing a new law through the state legislature to allow me to carry that gun anywhere, even bars and airports? Call it a difference in culture, but as a Texan, this doesn't bother me at all.
Yet the facts remain, that while the U.S. has similar statistical numbers for every like crime when compared to all other industrialized nations, and lower numbers for many, we excel at gun deaths.
I think our rate of home robbery is even lower than many European countries, but we kill thousands of people yearly with guns. Two criminologists studied this issue for a few years and wrote a book titled, "Crime is not the problem: Gun violence in America today."
So the U.S. has proved over the last 50 years that an armed populace can't be trusted to not kill a whole lot of people. Again, because peopel usually don't kill other people rationally and methodically, but randomly and emotionally. The same way they buy things.
We have also proven over the last 100 years that a capitalist economic system can't be trusted not to harmfully exploit people and the environment to the fullest extent possible. The system is set up on the premise that social elites will operate in the system more nobly and with higher standards. But reality doesn't bare that out.
In reality, the Tragedy of the Commons, states that the winner will be the one that can race to the bottom the fastest. Within capitalism, green companies and others don't compete on equal ground. They system privileges those who operate as close to legal limits and those who can cross those limits every now and again will always win. It is more cost effective to break a law if the fine is cheaper than the profit made.
So, again this is something that looks good on paper, but is fucked in reality. So much so that economists have only two choices in the world today: the neo-liberal capitalist market that was being developed by Adam Smith in the 18th century or Marxist theory. That's the end of the choices to be had at a University. Which shows that this is something that is void of real life understanding.
Just like the two lower quadrants, this looks good from afar, but up close it falls apart. The only way to keep either plausible is to keep both out of the light for the last 60 years of knowledge.

But, as Mr. Teacup and others have noted, there are no other options. I'm a socialist, but I don't believe for a minute that pure socialism, a la anrarchism, is plausable or possible in today's world. Maybe in a few hundred years, if we are still here in some Star Trek future it will be, but not now.
So let's keep this about the damaging affects to the spiral that orange systems, like capitalism, have. I started this because, as Bill said, Integral theory focuses on MGM's while it is void of an economic theory.

Re: Marketing, Capitalism and issues of consciousness development

http://rickholden76.gaia.com — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:35:48 GMT

"That's what I hear Rick, but maybe its my own anger.

Juliee"

No, I don't think it's that. I think it is my style of writing. I love to write persuasive essays for various causes, and was inspired from a very early age by all the great speakers, like Martin Luther King Jr., who didn't just get to people with rational and logic reasoning, but actually moved them and made them feel something.
While I don't write like that in this forum, because it is not really the place for that, I think some of that still comes out and it can be read by another as angry and yelling or passionate and caring. Put that into a debate and angry and yelling will win out.