I find it curious that American creationists set themselves against biologists instead of anthropologists. For anthropology demonstrates better than any other area of science that religion and the gods of said religion, are cultural products to create a group identity, enforce social norms and be a means of controlling your population.
That every civilization that has risen and fallen in human history, has had their own gods/goddesses – and creation myths – that they worshiped demonstrates that humans create the gods and religion is the cultural mechanism to incorporate the gods into the society.
Religionists often forget that there are thousands of religions practiced around the world and they ignore these other religions to battle against atheists, who do not believe in any of them.
But only difference between an atheist and a believer in any religion, is that one religion – most people are 99.9% atheist – if you are a Christian, you are an atheist to all the other religions that are currently practiced or have been practiced or will be practiced.
Atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a rejection of the claims for deities and their dependent religion – so atheism has nothing to prove – this means that believers and non-believers are not in the same boat needing proof-paddles. only believers require proof – which they set the bar very low on for themselves, being wishful thinking and subjective feelings/experiences – but they only really need to provide evidence if they want to convince a non-believer – and so far, the only method that’s demonstrated a conversion rate is using a sword.
And really, given the embarrassing number of religions that have been practiced through history and into the modern era – including and maybe especially religions that came to be in the modern era in addition to the various sects and splinter groups of the existing ones – religion shouldn’t pit itself against science – biology or anthropology – because the more that science explains and the deeper our understanding of ourselves, the fewer aspects of our lives – intellectual or emotional – religions belongs in or satisfies.
After all, every religion started with one person having an idea and marketing it to followers, so what need does anyone have to go farther afield than themself to determine and define their religion?
Well, unless you want to make some money and wield power and influence with the least amount of work and effort – then you need to attract and maintain followers. But, as the great philosopher PT Barnum noted, there’s one born every minute.
Capitalism needs to be re-framed from it’s bad rap of greed/exploitation.
Part of the problem, I think is that many CEOs are diagnosable as sociopaths (not violent, but lacking compassion) who make decisions based on what’s favourable for the wrong group – the stockholders instead of the workers who produce the goods or provide the services of the company that generate the capitol the company earns.
Stockholders provide capitol that is not directly associated with the company’s production, although I suppose stocks could be viewed as an ancillary product.
But stockholders are much more fickle than employees – stocks are bought and sold all the time – it seems like not many stockholders have the idea of buy and hold on for the long term.
Capitolism can be reframed to benefit not only those who invest the capitol or the ones who create the opportunities for capitol to be made, but also those who produce the services or labour that creates the new capitol.
I think capitalism doesn’t have to be viewed as greed centred, because capitalism is not solely motivated by greed – but also the drive to innovate, to invent, to better people’s lives and contribute to society and to leave one’s mark on the world.
For a company to function, it needs many groups of people from employees, suppliers, consumers and investors – and all of these people need a job to ensure that they can take care of their basic needs as well as creating personal wealth and quality of life.
When capitolism works well, all the participants benefit, which in turn benefits society.
To work well, capitalism needs to include heart and compassion. And it’s in a company’s interest to be a good corporate citizen, since consumers are increasingly not only concerned with a good product at the lowest price.
Consumers want to know that the company is not polluting the environment, has fair employee practices from demographic hiring and promotion policies but also not using a slave workforce in less regulated countries, is creating a product that is safe and is not engaging in creative accounting.
Capitalism has long since stopped being about enriching the robber baron at the top.
But is a system of interconnectedness.
The company needs employees (who also need jobs) and consumers (who need jobs). For those times when companies act like consumers are replaceable and employees are expendable or outsourceable.
There’s also government regulators and enforcement – more people with jobs!
The more people who have jobs, the more people are consumers, are taxpayers and are benefiting from capitalism.
Is this naive or Utopian?
Maybe – and I think more needs to be understood about ‘greed’, and perhaps how to control, mitigate or redirect it – as I think it is an extension of a survival instinct.
Buy why can’t we rethink greed from “Me instead of you” to “Me and then you” ?
After all, you can accumulate so much wealth that it’s beyond your comprehension – and then what? What challenges do you have left to face when money solves or eliminates survival issues and pretty much ensures that any whim can be satisfied?
I’m not saying that three’s nobility in being poor – I don’t buy that at all – but there is something to be said for having just enough to be comfortable and not worry about the basics – but still having to work and problem solve for less essential things.
It seems to me that in many ways, having a huge amount of money takes you out of the world, since you can create your own little bubble world.
Humans are social creatures and I don’t think we generally do okay in bubble world.
Look how many celebrities die young from drugs and alcohol, unable to cope with too much money and not enough challenges.
The robber baron descendants and hereditary wealthy who live in their own bubbles seem to not understand that the power they have in bubble world doesn’t pass into the real world, which isn’t structured to suit them.
And that laws and rules still apply to them when they step outside their bubbles.
The dangerous ones who try to remake the world over into their bubble by funding terrorism is the darkest side of wealth.
Concentrating wealth in the hands of the few skews the world.
Redistributing the wealth through capitolism – employment and consumerism as the redistribution methods – would avoid the concerns of redistribution by purely socialist or communistic methods.
Wealth redistribution must remain connected to innovation, to labour, and to contribution.