The Great Affluence Fallacy

[laughing dog]

The OP is not about abandoning economic or technogical progress or capitalism per se. It is about finding a proper balance between a feeling of inclusion in a community and increasing one's wealth. Even if you disagree with what constitutes a proper or better balance, this should be easy to understand.

But given the persistence of straw men in this OP, I guess it isn't as easy as one would think.

 

[Trausti]

I think the problem is that Brooks's piece is a bit unfocused. Citing the relationship between Whites and Amerindians 300 years ago to conclude that Millennials desire more community is stretch. It ignores the history of white captives of Indians. Adults males were killed off. Women forced to be squaws. But children were raised as if the tribe's own. It's understandable why a white child raised in an Indian tribe would want to stay with the tribe. It's also understandable why, if you married a tribe member and had children, a white person would not want to return to a society which would ostracize them. In any event, there is little indication the resistance to return was due to favoring communal life over western consumerism. Indeed, if western consumerism is so horrible, why do hordes of non-westerners from more communal societies risk life and limb to come to the West? Non-western societies appear to have embraced western consumerism with alacrity.

Brooks seems to be having a midlife crisis. Or he needed to meet a deadline and wrote of an idea he had while reading a book on the toilet.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I wonder if the colonial era wasn't a golden age for the NA lifestyle. Metal tools, weapons, cookware, domestic animals all would've made life easier.

Would all those captives have remained in true Stone Age conditions?

Don't forget the plagues and constant warfare with a technologically advanced enemy that is relentlessly expansionist. But other than that, I'm sure it was a golden age.

Well, the period mentioned in the OP ended around 1780. Here in NYC there was a significant NA population until well into the 19th century. Which means whites and NAs lived in proximity for at least a couple of centuries. European expansion took a long time to play out (they didn't always win either).

 

[AthenaAwakened]

so natives were never happy? then why didn't they run to join white folk in town? why didn't the white folk who lived among them runaway as soon as possible?

I'm proud of the tribe that I'm from. But again, this fantasy that Indians were so happy is just false. My tribe was in constant warfare for a 1,000 years before the white man came to the US. Life was brutal then. People were constantly on the run and scared.

None of that post answers any of the questions asked.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think the problem is that Brooks's piece is a bit unfocused. Citing the relationship between Whites and Amerindians 300 years ago to conclude that Millennials desire more community is stretch. It ignores the history of white captives of Indians. Adults males were killed off. Women forced to be squaws. But children were raised as if the tribe's own. It's understandable why a white child raised in an Indian tribe would want to stay with the tribe. It's also understandable why, if you married a tribe member and had children, a white person would not want to return to a society which would ostracize them.

So tribal life, for all its brutishness, still treated white folk in their communities better than white folk treated natives in town?

In any event, there is little indication the resistance to return was due to favoring communal life over western consumerism. Indeed, if western consumerism is so horrible,

Did Brooks say that western consumerism was horrible?

why do hordes of non-westerners from more communal societies risk life and limb to come to the West?

War, famine, disease, etc. No one leaves hearth and home, uproots or leaves behind kith and kin, just to buy an iPhone.

Non-western societies appear to have embraced western consumerism with alacrity.

more like adapting it to fit within existing structures and to meet existing needs.

Brooks seems to be having a midlife crisis. Or he needed to meet a deadline and wrote of an idea he had while reading a book on the toilet.

Or maybe he just doesn't agree with you.

 

[Trausti]

Or maybe he just doesn't agree with you.

Then what is the point other than to get clicks? You apparently posted this OP because you thought, I guess, that it offered some profound insight. But it doesn't. Young people feel alienated. Well, that's never happened before.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Or maybe he just doesn't agree with you.

Then what is the point other than to get clicks? You apparently posted this OP because you thought, I guess, that it offered some profound insight. But it doesn't. Young people feel alienated. Well, that's never happened before.

So why didn't alienated NA teenagers prefer white society?

If it's universal, it should be a two way street.

Maybe there is a profound point. But if so that'll only become known by studying it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you ignore profit and loss you find yourself overspending and it's no longer a world of abundant wealth.

Where did I say anything about IGNORING profit and loss? Either reference the words actually used or just be quiet.

While you weren't as blunt about how you stated it the rebuttal is still valid. If you fail to measure input and output you're sure to end up in a situation where output exceeds input and things will fall apart.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, American Indians were pretty affluent back in the days.

It all depends on how affluence is defined.

How can a society say it is affluent if it is not sustainable?

That's not affluence. It's insane gluttony.

A bubble that will burst one day.

You think the Indians used sustainable practices??

The only reason it's anything resembling sustainable is enough died due to war and lean times.

It's just when things fall apart there isn't much left in the history books to show the ones that died off. Dead societies rarely make it past the archeologists books.

 

[untermensche]

It all depends on how affluence is defined.

How can a society say it is affluent if it is not sustainable?

That's not affluence. It's insane gluttony.

A bubble that will burst one day.

You think the Indians used sustainable practices??

The only reason it's anything resembling sustainable is enough died due to war and lean times.

It's just when things fall apart there isn't much left in the history books to show the ones that died off. Dead societies rarely make it past the archeologists books.

The post was about "affluence" not those dirty Indians.

The affluence of a society that is not sustainable is a phony affluence, an affluence stolen from future generations.

It is a bubble soon to burst.

A greedy insanity.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Where did I say anything about IGNORING profit and loss? Either reference the words actually used or just be quiet.

While you weren't as blunt about how you stated it the rebuttal is still valid.

No, it isn't. And I said exactly what I meant. Loren, you have got to stop seeing the words you want and start reading the words that are.

If you fail to measure input and output you're sure to end up in a situation where output exceeds input and things will fall apart.

Which has what to do with anything I or anyone else has actually stated?

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting that you brought up Trump and the community. Racism and anti-immigration come from individuals trying to protect their community. Same with the Brexit.

 

[laughing dog]

Where did I say anything about IGNORING profit and loss? Either reference the words actually used or just be quiet.

While you weren't as blunt about how you stated it the rebuttal is still valid. If you fail to measure input and output you're sure to end up in a situation where output exceeds input and things will fall apart.

If you fail to actually read an OP with any level of normal comprehension, you're sure to end up in a situation where babble exceeds relevant content, and the discussion falls apart.

 

[untermensche]

It's interesting that you brought up Trump and the community. Racism and anti-immigration come from individuals trying to protect their community. Same with the Brexit.

If only these people were protecting from a reasonable danger.

Trump denies man-made climate change.

He is blind to real dangers and sees imaginary dangers, like the danger of poor Mexicans digging ditches.

 

[coloradoatheist]

It's interesting that you brought up Trump and the community. Racism and anti-immigration come from individuals trying to protect their community. Same with the Brexit.

If only these people were protecting from a reasonable danger.

Trump denies man-made climate change.

He is blind to real dangers and sees imaginary dangers, like the danger of poor Mexicans digging ditches.

No, putting global warming issue aside, the fear and hatred of immigrants comes from the community not wanting to change its identify and cohesiveness. Just like the native americans didn't want to see both groups as Americans, they had their own culture and identity they wanted to protect. The people who want to keep immigrants out are trying to protect an identity.

 

[dismal]

It's interesting that you brought up Trump and the community. Racism and anti-immigration come from individuals trying to protect their community. Same with the Brexit.

If only these people were protecting from a reasonable danger.

Trump denies man-made climate change.

He is blind to real dangers and sees imaginary dangers, like the danger of poor Mexicans digging ditches.

I don't know how anyone can say Trump is "Against Mexicans" for wanting them to stay in Mexico. Where they can live closer to the native American ideals espoused in this thread, and avoid the Affluence Fallacy everyone in this thread so clearly believes destroys our happiness.

 

[Elixir]

I don't know how anyone can say Trump is "Against Mexicans" for wanting them to stay in Mexico.

I bet you don't know how anyone can say someone is against black people for wanting them to go back to Africa, either...

 

[untermensche]

If only these people were protecting from a reasonable danger.

Trump denies man-made climate change.

He is blind to real dangers and sees imaginary dangers, like the danger of poor Mexicans digging ditches.

No, putting global warming issue aside, the fear and hatred of immigrants comes from the community not wanting to change its identify and cohesiveness. Just like the native americans didn't want to see both groups as Americans, they had their own culture and identity they wanted to protect. The people who want to keep immigrants out are trying to protect an identity.

You can't rationally put real dangers aside and focus on your imaginary dangers.

Societies do not have the inherent rights you claim they have.

Societies can give all people rights, like freedom of speech and so on.

That is as much as societies have the right to do. They have no right to by force try to create "racial purity". That is a path of destruction.

And what we actually see over and over is second generation Americans fully assimilated to American culture.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, putting global warming issue aside, the fear and hatred of immigrants comes from the community not wanting to change its identify and cohesiveness. Just like the native americans didn't want to see both groups as Americans, they had their own culture and identity they wanted to protect. The people who want to keep immigrants out are trying to protect an identity.

You can't rationally put real dangers aside and focus on your imaginary dangers.

Societies do not have the inherent rights you claim they have.

Societies can give all people rights, like freedom of speech and so on.

That is as much as societies have the right to do. They have no right to by force try to create "racial purity". That is a path of destruction.

And what we actually see over and over is second generation Americans fully assimilated to American culture.

The reason people are fighting it is because they believe they aren't assimiliating and that they are keeping their culture. Whether it's the Hispanic culture or a muslim culture. It would be the same way that the Native Americans thought the whites coming in would ruin their culture.

 

[untermensche]

You can't rationally put real dangers aside and focus on your imaginary dangers.

Societies do not have the inherent rights you claim they have.

Societies can give all people rights, like freedom of speech and so on.

That is as much as societies have the right to do. They have no right to by force try to create "racial purity". That is a path of destruction.

And what we actually see over and over is second generation Americans fully assimilated to American culture.

The reason people are fighting it is because they believe they aren't assimiliating and that they are keeping their culture. Whether it's the Hispanic culture or a muslim culture. It would be the same way that the Native Americans thought the whites coming in would ruin their culture.

Yes, a lot of Americans are ignorant and xenophobic and hateful and easily frightened.

But most second generation Americans are fully assimilated.

They may also have parts of their old culture.

Which some ignorant Americans for some reason can't stand as they display their Confederate flags.