inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

DJ Squiggle · 15-Sep-11, 05:09pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

- some hippie who broke into CNN

That implies it is a hack but it is actually a CNN commissioned opinion article by the legendary media commentator Douglas Rushkoff.

Great find though, thanks.

DJ Squiggle · 16-Sep-11, 03:46am

Epicurus (307BC) believed that pleasure is the greatest good. But the way to attain pleasure was to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires...Epicurus and his followers shunned politics...After the official approval of Christianity by Constantine the Great, Epicureanism was repressed.

An nnteresting bloke that I only just discovered (being a philosophy ignoramus).

Kid A · 16-Sep-11, 09:42pm

Epicurus is turbo. Although probably less important, I hold him in higher regard than the likes of Plato and Aristotle (if we're comparing Greeks).

Media Player

twistedbydesign · 18-Sep-11, 12:33am

http://www.alaindebotton.com/status.asp

modern hodgepodge of the views of some ancient robed gentlemen

Kid A · 18-Sep-11, 10:48am

Mocking Alain has seemingly become the humanities intellectual right of passage. Apparently philosophy has to be a slight and opaque critique of the last A-class journal entry on the fact-value distinction to be worthy of our attention.

God forbid we read something that might prompt us to consider our daily life.

DJ Squiggle · 18-Sep-11, 04:32pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by twistedbydesign

http://www.alaindebotton.com/status.asp
modern hodgepodge of the views of some ancient robed gentlemen

Have you read it? The blurb makes the book sound reasonable. ie bucking the status game unaided is difficult which is precisely why even people who see through it is cannot wean themselves from it. The old "if you can't beat tem, join them" adage usually kicks in.

Not everyone is strong enough to hang in there without genuine support (vs radical fellow leftist scenesters). Talking about it here honestly without descending into namecalling is part of that support process.

twistedbydesign · 19-Sep-11, 03:34pm

Yeah i have and I definitely recommend reading it at some point.
He also made a tv series based on this book that's a nice digestible collection.

I'm not sure about all of Eckart Tolle's work but one of the points that stuck with me from reading some of his stuff is his broader definition of 'ego' both on an individual and collective level, and how the fear it generates in relation to self image maintains a schizophrenic thought pattern that is never satisfied.

'once we have this we will this' etc
It's never a reference to the present moment, and as such the 'once' never arrives. It's something we've created ourselves.

twistedbydesign · 19-Sep-11, 03:49pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

This romanticisation of the peasent lifestyle that is running amok in australia doesnt really sit well with me.

An interesting model which may help to explain the human drive for growth (and hostility in some small sections) is Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I missed this before

Maslow's heirarchy being hijacked by marketing ****s is a major cause of the drive for more.

If you create enough insecurity in the consumers self-esteem/belonging needs you can constantly offer temporary satisfaction through whatever you're hocking..and prevent the last need being fulfilled as well....self-actualization

To distract people from higher needs, threaten their lower needs.

Accepting the first two categories as fundamental human rights should've been the first step

twistedbydesign · 03-Oct-11, 04:49am

Growth is an ego based mindset.

It drives involuntary thinking that in turn perpetuates endless wants, both on an individual and cultural level.
It will stop when people break away from those ego driven thought patterns and focus on the presence that is observing the insatiable insane thought pattern.
Self-image is something that can't be defined or labeled, let alone bought in a clothing store or whatever.
The ego's perception of 'itself' is conditioned from a demented society and a horrific culture.
It's not real.

It's not 'I think therefore I am'
It's 'I am therefore I am'

Nardo · 03-Oct-11, 12:13pm

i agree that growth is being driven by ego. humans are hard wired to procreate and to compete in society for the benefit of their own bloodline. that's ego at work. social competition.

humans want to feather their own nests, set their children up for a future in society (according to the noms of that society) and generally be better positioned than others.

this isnt new. people have always been wanting of stuff they don't need.

I dont agree that maslow's hierarchy of needs has been 'hijacked' by marketing. it's a theory and an explanation, not a weapon of mass destruction.

i did a marketing degree as well as some postgrad marketing study. this has made me a fairly cynical individual and the older i get the less i respect the practice of marketing. i particularly cant stand the way that shopping is promoted as a leisure activity. if you ever want to meet some fairly vacuous lecturers and students - study marketing.

"i just love to shop and so i decided to study marketing". puke.

marketers are taught that marketing, as opposed to sales, is about providing consumers with stuff they need and want. if they just fulfilled needs then that would be fine and consumer excess wouldn't exist. growth would be based on population only, not on how many shoes women have in the closet, the number of tvs or cars.

marketers are deluded and they think that they fulfil some great need in society and that they fill a void somehow. the way they talk about it you would almost think they are part supreme leader, part charity worker - doing us all a favour (exhibit a - gruen panel members). they see themselves as pioneers and thought leaders. this is crap.

people don't need a big screen tv. they don't need 99% of what they buy.

The reason we want more than we need is all to do with ego. t's not some evil scheming marketer that dreams up bigger and better tvs. it's humans as a collective who are driven by ego and an intrinsic need to compete and procreate who always want bigger, better, faster, etc.

marketers don't get off the hook though. marketers are serving the collective ego and they are more like order fillers than masterminds. they are not nearly as clever or influential as they like to think they are. they feed off the system and human ego rather than drive it. there's nothing glamorous or trailblazing about that.

the clever marketer would use their knowledge of persuasion to convince people not to buy crap they don't need. they would make people realise that by feeding our instinctive desire to compete and feather the nest, we bring the extinction of our species closer. we consume more resources and most importantly, we ignore the human need for genuine happiness.

i agree that dick smith of all people is not the person to push this population argument. such a hypocrite to have made his fortune selling crap to people and now he gets on his high horse. i suppose though, that no one wants to listen to a hippy out the back of nimbin that has been living dick smith's philosophy for decades, whilst dick was in his chopper and making dickmite.

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 01:39pm

ego has always been there though since the dawn of time, i don't think it's a modern phenomenon. i don't think marketing per se was around during the greek and roman civilisations, yet status and social competition defined society in those empires. i think to much 'credit' is laid at the feet of marketers and like Nardo, i don't think they are as powerful or influential as they themselves would like to think. They simply feed off the human ego

big eddie · 03-Oct-11, 01:41pm

I'd say that 'keeping up with the Jones' has become a much more common pursuit in Australia in the last 20 years.

It was always there, but now it is an affliction of a much broader cross section of society.

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 02:28pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

I'd say that 'keeping up with the Jones' has become a much more common pursuit in Australia in the last 20 years.

It was always there, but now it is an affliction of a much broader cross section of society.

do you think or has media and internet saturation just made us more aware of it?

big eddie · 03-Oct-11, 02:33pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

do you think or has media and internet saturation just made us more aware of it?

Nah, massive demographic change. The 'average' worker now has much, much more disposable income than they did 20 years ago. Increased discretionary spending power goes hand in hand with status anxiety.

The shift away from the union based workforce with centralised wage fixing has as much to do with that as marketing though.

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 02:41pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Nah, massive demographic change. The 'average' worker now has much, much more disposable income than they did 20 years ago. Increased discretionary spending power goes hand in hand with status anxiety.

The shift away from the union based workforce with centralised wage fixing has as much to do with that as marketing though.

maybe in absolute dollar terms, but the cost of living is also much higher (at least in sydney), so the disposable income doesn't go very far

big eddie · 03-Oct-11, 02:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

maybe in absolute dollar terms, but the cost of living is also much higher (at least in sydney), so the disposable income doesn't go very far

Wages have risen, consumer goods have become *much* cheaper, housing is the only one major cost that has outstripped inflation.

There was a really good article on this recently, but the long and the short of it is that on average we have *much* more disposable income now than we did 20 years ago. I'll see if I can dig it up.

EeeeeeeJ · 03-Oct-11, 02:52pm

Consumerism needs to be distinguished from "growth". The economy may depend on growth but it's only growth in certain indicators like employment. Growth in prices doesn't help and growth in debt is only good for certain businesses.

The past couple of decades come after the end of the Cold War and lowering of industrial protection. Being able to produce consumer goods anywhere in the world makes it easier to provide consumers with cheap goods, aiding consumerism. Technology has advanced enough that it's easy to innovate to invent new consumer electronic devices. In Australia, the GST has lead to reduced taxes for many luxury goods. As we move further away from the Great Depression, people see less need to do without or to keep money aside. With observance of religion declining, some people who would have got spiritual fulfilment from religion instead get a different fulfilment from buying stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo

humans want to feather their own nests, set their children up for a future in society (according to the noms of that society)

Interesting use of brackets there. If you spend a few thousand on another big screen TV to replace your current one, you're likely to deprive your children of a few thousand elsewhere (education, holidays, savings, health) but somehow "the norms of society" make the latest model television more important.

It was also interesting reading Paul Sheehan's column on baby boomers last week. Along with the expected "I'm a boomer and I'm not wasting the world" responses, one commenter wrote about attending investment advice seminars and how they emphasise that people approaching retirement should aim to spend all of their savings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo

marketers are serving the collective ego and they are more like order fillers than masterminds. they are not nearly as clever or influential as they like to think they are. they feed off the system and human ego rather than drive it. there's nothing glamorous or trailblazing about that. the clever marketer would use their knowledge of persuasion to convince people not to buy crap they don't need.

That would be true of promoting the new television. Everyone has had one, even if it's not a big one, and they know how it fits into life.

When banks try to market credit, they again would be trying to convince people that they need extra money. These days they seem more often to be advertising ways to save money. Convincing people to switch between savings accounts would be slightly different.

Apple Computer are in a different class. They persuade people that they don't need something that's been on the market for years, like a smart phone or a tablet PC, and that it's really exciting. Does that mean driving people's ego? Is that marketing alone?

Geezah · 03-Oct-11, 03:11pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kid A

Mocking Alain has seemingly become the humanities intellectual right of passage. Apparently philosophy has to be a slight and opaque critique of the last A-class journal entry on the fact-value distinction to be worthy of our attention.

God forbid we read something that might prompt us to consider our daily life.

Yeah, mad props to de Botton. He's one of the best modern philosophers to read to get into the more brutal density of some of the older philosophers.

But more than that, I think his deconstructions of modern life are, in and of themselves, important works in making us think about our lives and what we value: in particular his polemics on love, work, status, and travel are all compelling reads and actually had me questioning what I want from my life; what I find truly important. It's something I've got better at refining in the last few years, due to writers like de Botton, Taleb, Pinker, Harris, Dawkins, and Hamilton.

big eddie · 03-Oct-11, 03:38pm

Reading Clive Hamilton made me determined to be less of a twat.

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 04:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by EeeeeeeJ

Interesting use of brackets there. If you spend a few thousand on another big screen TV to replace your current one, you're likely to deprive your children of a few thousand elsewhere (education, holidays, savings, health) but somehow "the norms of society" make the latest model television more important.

?

i think that's a pretty simplistic generalisation. I don't know of too many parents who put a TV before the education and welfare of their children. In fact, i think it's the opposite......too many parents are striving for that bit extra to send their children to better schools, to make sure they don't go wthout the latest technological gismos and to make sure they get a holiday at seaworld every year. They are overcompensating for what they think is the right way to raise their child

i think the women's movement of the 70's has helped destabilise the 'family' and that in turn has led to the 'me first' attitude prevalent today

Geezah · 03-Oct-11, 04:07pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

Reading Clive Hamilton made me determined to be less of a twat.

I thought Growth Fetish and Affluenza were both excellent. TBH though, those are the only two of his that I have read.

Geezah · 03-Oct-11, 04:14pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

i think the women's movement of the 70's has helped destabilise the 'family' and that in turn has led to the 'me first' attitude prevalent today

You back on the weed again buffed? Stop; smoking; bongs.

Nothing to do with the 24/7 working week, increase in nightshift work and occupations, expectation of working longer hours, rampant materialism, and the commercialisation of the public square (so to speak).

None of that: it's the feminists from the 70's that have destabilised the family.

My Ancient History teacher used to have a saying for that kind of ridiculous statement: What rot.

Nardo · 03-Oct-11, 04:50pm

i agree that parents do tend to focus their spending on private schooling, tutors, activities, sports etc so they can provide their kids with, what they think, is the best possible start to life. all of these things involve spending more money and parents are working longer hours to pay for it.

the reality is that kids don't need half of that shit as much as they need their parents' time. and not some BS 'quality time' concept that became fashionable in the 80s.

a whole lot of parents would be happier personally and they would have happier children if they spent less money on the kids and therefore were able to work less.

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 06:30pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

You back on the weed again buffed? Stop; smoking; bongs.

Nothing to do with the 24/7 working week, increase in nightshift work and occupations, expectation of working longer hours, rampant materialism, and the commercialisation of the public square (so to speak).

None of that: it's the feminists from the 70's that have destabilised the family.

My Ancient History teacher used to have a saying for that kind of ridiculous statement: What rot.

well take it from whatever angle you like, but with women's increased participation in the labor force, the advent of contraception and abortion and decline in marriage and fertility rates, it has led to the SINKS and DINKS and what else are they going to do but accumulate and spend? I don't think it's a coincidence that fertility rates dropped sgnificantly at the same time that the women's movement happened. good, bad or whatever view you take, that's the reality

Geezah · 03-Oct-11, 07:24pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

well take it from whatever angle you like, but with women's increased participation in the labor force, the advent of contraception and abortion and decline in marriage and fertility rates, it has led to the SINKS and DINKS and what else are they going to do but accumulate and spend? I don't think it's a coincidence that fertility rates dropped sgnificantly at the same time that the women's movement happened. good, bad or whatever view you take, that's the reality

But women are still having families. They are mostly having 2 kids rather than 4. House prices are ridiculous in most capital cities but vertical integration will necessitate having smaller families and houses and expectations anyway.

You are blaming the feminist movie of the 70's: yet stay completely silent on the progress of capitalism. Point is, there is no doubt that women having greater access to tertiary education and employment opportunities has lead to a reduction in family sizes but it's more the progress of capitalism that can be blamed for people's ability to afford more children.

I think having less children is a good thing. It will have an economic impact in time but that would just be what free-marketeers call a "correction" and it would allow a paradigmatic shift to occur in relation to what a realistic population should look like.

Anyway, my main issue with what you said was that the feminists somehow destabilised families. On that, I call booooooll shiiit.

Griggle · 03-Oct-11, 07:46pm

Well the juries still out on whether or not I turned out all right, but all my childhood memories I have where I was really enjoying myself are me running around the bush unsupervised, ditching my parents for several weeks in Micronesia to go check out some islands they didn't plan on visiting or something similar.

My great grandfather was a ships captain (sail and steam), later became a harbour master and only stopped at home (a farm in the bush in WA) long each year enough to knock his wife up again, arguably all of his eight kids turned out fine.

My grandfather was in the army in transport and spent months driving around every country town in WA and so also spent long periods away from home. When he got out of the military he got a job selling insurance and used to drive around to the same country towns. Arguably all his kids turned out fine.

I'm not sure this magical time period when parents spent massive amount of times with their children and as such provided them with a more nurturing environment than we currently provide actually ever existed except in some 50's Happy Days fantasy land.

Abziie · 03-Oct-11, 07:54pm

Geezah:

You think that feminism and modern methods of contraception had less to do with the concept of "family" evolving than capitalism over the past 4 decades?

buffed · 03-Oct-11, 09:03pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

But women are still having families. They are mostly having 2 kids rather than 4. House prices are ridiculous in most capital cities but vertical integration will necessitate having smaller families and houses and expectations anyway.

You are blaming the feminist movie of the 70's: yet stay completely silent on the progress of capitalism. Point is, there is no doubt that women having greater access to tertiary education and employment opportunities has lead to a reduction in family sizes but it's more the progress of capitalism that can be blamed for people's ability to afford more children.

I think having less children is a good thing. It will have an economic impact in time but that would just be what free-marketeers call a "correction" and it would allow a paradigmatic shift to occur in relation to what a realistic population should look like.

Anyway, my main issue with what you said was that the feminists somehow destabilised families. On that, I call booooooll shiiit.

capitalism has been around since the greek and roman empires, the feminist movement hasn't.

capitalism has nothing to do with people not being able to afford children........how was having 6 children in 1930 more affordable than it is to have two today? The point being that back then, women aspired to having a family. Now many women do not aspire to having families and aspire to having a career or polygamous relationships instead.

i quote from the Parliamentary library in 2003

"The reasons that have been advanced for the decline in the fertility rate from the 1961 level of 3.5 to the current level of 1.7 include

14)

1.introduction of the oral conceptive pill in 1961
2.availability of abortion, effectively on request, following a reinterpretation of abortion law in 1971. This had a particular impact on young women's fertility(15)
3.increasing job insecurity, and
4.increasing participation of women in higher education and the labour force. Women increased their participation in the labour force from 37 per cent in 1971 to 55 per cent in 2001.(16)"

Geezah · 04-Oct-11, 12:09am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abziie

Geezah:

You think that feminism and modern methods of contraception had less to do with the concept of "family" evolving than capitalism over the past 4 decades?

They are connected. I think that the evolution of capitalism and its adjunct materialism/conspicuous consumption, technology, and rising expectations are all just as responsible as contraception and female equality for a reduction in family sizes.

To blatantly say that the feminist movement of the 70's is responsible for "destabilising 'families'" is just nonsense. This is what buffed said. Perhaps I am reading him wrong or he is using the incorrect terminology or I am. To say that feminism destabilises the family suggests somehow that there is unhappiness in the family and the cause is feminism.

Families are still families now. We live in a different time but a family is still just a group of people related by blood, marriage and adoption.

We may be having smaller families now but they are still families. The destabilising effect comes from the rapaciousness of modern capitalism and the expectations of what makes a good life.

didjeridude · 04-Oct-11, 12:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

capitalism has been around since the greek and roman empires, the feminist movement hasn't.

capitalism has nothing to do with people not being able to afford children........how was having 6 children in 1930 more affordable than it is to have two today? The point being that back then, women aspired to having a family. Now many women do not aspire to having families and aspire to having a career or polygamous relationships instead.

i quote from the Parliamentary library in 2003

"The reasons that have been advanced for the decline in the fertility rate from the 1961 level of 3.5 to the current level of 1.7 include14)

Its development moreso than capitalism per se that affects fertility rates. Sure those things you mention are relevant to Australia but development and economic growth is a global phenomenon and they don't apply to other parts of the world as neatly as they do to Australia. What is interesting is that some of those things you mention like job security are actually contributing to increases in fertility rates in the most developed countries of the past 5yrs or so

http://scienceblogs.com/notrocketsci.../Fertility.jpg

Have a look at some of these TED talks.....
http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 12:33am

I'm glad to hear someone daring to be non-PC without being a troll. Geezah, can you leave out the bullying name calling please? You make some good points without the need for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Now many women do not aspire to having families and aspire to having a career or polygamous relationships instead.

You are plain wrong on the polygamy. It is a general term. You probably don't mean polyandry so I will presume you mean polyamory. Being the latter myself, I suffer because of the painful reality that women are not into poly. The ratio is about 2 men per woman in three online circles I have socialised in: an international IRC room, an Australian emaillist (that has social/discussion meetups), and an online forum amongst backpackers. A headcount of the members in that last group proves my point. (Actually most poly people themselves are deluded that the numbers are equal until I force them into simple arithmetic).

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

"The reasons that have been advanced for the decline in the fertility rate from the 1961 level of 3.5 to the current level of 1.7 include14)

Geezah's figure of approximately 2 is closer to the current level. The reason being that this generation waiting longer until they had their babies so for about ten years there was a one-off(?) decline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

1.introduction of the oral conceptive pill in 1961
2.availability of abortion, effectively on request, following a reinterpretation of abortion law in 1971. This had a particular impact on young women's fertility(15)
3.increasing job insecurity, and
4.increasing participation of women in higher education and the labour force. Women increased their participation in the labour force from 37 per cent in 1971 to 55 per cent in 2001.(16)"

Education for women is almost universally recognised as the optimum path for lifting the 3rd world out of poverty. It leads to confidence in exercising their legal rights and (as you are aware) financial independence. You may not be aware than a greater proportion of the money earned by women goes back into the family (vs man). The pill and abortion gives the woman a choice rather than leaving it to the man... more empowerment. Sounds democratic to me.

Having said all of that, it is valid to simply ask ourselves: is forcing as many mothers as possible into "the work force" as possible necessarily a win for women? Perhaps if they had other paths to empowerment and respect this would not be necessary? However when you look at the wages of people who enjoy community building and caring (ie mainly women) rather than engineering or finance (ie mainly men) we now numerically have proof that gender equality is a long way off.

I've known many "alternative" women who talk of not playing the nesting game when they are older. Now at age 47 I've followed through to find that almost all of them do anyhow. To be fair, most guys don't follow through with the rebellious plans of their youth either.

It would be nice to have some women's input on this but they are generally not as into electronic music or philosophy so that may not happen (again... a non-PC statistical imbalance that I wish were different).

Geezah · 04-Oct-11, 12:35am

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

capitalism has been around since the greek and roman empires, the feminist movement hasn't.

capitalism has nothing to do with people not being able to afford children........how was having 6 children in 1930 more affordable than it is to have two today? The point being that back then, women aspired to having a family. Now many women do not aspire to having families and aspire to having a career or polygamous relationships instead.

i quote from the Parliamentary library in 2003

"The reasons that have been advanced for the decline in the fertility rate from the 1961 level of 3.5 to the current level of 1.7 include14)

1.introduction of the oral conceptive pill in 1961
2.availability of abortion, effectively on request, following a reinterpretation of abortion law in 1971. This had a particular impact on young women's fertility(15)
3.increasing job insecurity, and
4.increasing participation of women in higher education and the labour force. Women increased their participation in the labour force from 37 per cent in 1971 to 55 per cent in 2001.(16)"

1. Capitalism hasn't been around since the Greeks and Romans. Trade has been, concentration of wealth has been, but not capitalism. But that's me being a pedant. Greed has definitely been with us since we started worshipping objects and materials as desirable.

2. You said that feminism has de-stabilised families. I took that to mean that you think family disunity, unhappiness, divorce and break ups are at fault for destabilising families.

If you meant that feminism is responsible for a reduction in women from developed countries having less children, even then I would disagree. Men and women both wanting to have sex without the resultant pregnancy was as much responsible for contraception. That was borne of the 60's. Which was a rebellion against just doing what you were told when you were told to.

A rebellion against a conservatism from both the pious and religious being unrealistic and unreasonable about human nature and sexual desire.

Using your reductive logic then buffed: conservatives are responsible for the reduction/de-stabilisation in families due trying to restrict human instinct in an unreasonable manner.

There are many contributing factors in the reduction of family sizes as there are for family instability: reducing it all to feminism in the 70's is just conveniant and lazy thinking.

Geezah · 04-Oct-11, 12:43am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

I'm glad to hear someone daring to be non-PC without being a troll. Geezah, can you leave out the bullying name calling please? You make some good points without the need for it.

1. I am not bullying or name-calling. Where have I?

2. If you are referring to my crack about weed, I was being ironic. This used to be buffed's main rebuke when his arguments were smacked down.

3. Shit dude, I'm all for free-speech. In fact I think, as good a job as the moderators do, I would be happy if they allowed a bit more verbal violence to go through to the keeper (unless it gets really personal and/or threatening - which it mostly does not).

4. Buffed's a big boy. I'm not throwing haymakers at him. Just a few clean uppercuts and jabs.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 01:19am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

my main issue with what you said was that the feminists somehow destabilised families. On that, I call booooooll shiiit

Yeah I don't mind a few going through "to the keeper" as you put it, but I have never seen any moderation here and I am so impressed with this thread that I would hate it to degenrate into what most political forums on the internet become. I guess I am being precious. The reason I often go to India is precisely because of the intelligent discussion that is to be had there with complete strangers IN REAL LIFE. Mind you I cut my hair short after the last time because I was sick of hippies thinking I was one of them and then trying to bully me into their feelgood fascism. I am a bit of a hippie though, a bit of a punk too, a bit of a raver, a bit of a geek, a bit of a traditionalist, a bit of many paradoxical things... just as all real people are. Actually I'm only a traditionalist when others around me aren't > : )

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 10:53am

capitalism is an economic system.......it's not responsible for reduction in fertility. The biggest decrease in fertility rates occured throughout the late 60's and 70's, precisely the time of the women's movement. You can call it coincidence, but i think it has more to do with the women's movement. With a drop in fertility rates, there is also a drop in household formation, marriage etc. Ultimately we have become a society that has turned it's back on the 'family'. When that happens people focus on careers and on 'building' and consuming. Whether you think liberation of women is a good or bad thing is not the point here, the thread is discussing reasons for the growth fetish and for me, the progressive decline in importance of the family and family unit is a large contributing factor to the push for growth, material well being and status at the individual level. I mean you only have to look at the role models for young females these days.......kim kardashian, paris hilton, Lady Gaga, sex and the city. Let's get serious here

horst · 04-Oct-11, 11:27am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

3. Shit dude, I'm all for free-speech. In fact I think, as good a job as the moderators do, I would be happy if they allowed a bit more verbal violence to go through to the keeper

That actually was the intention in the beginning, and to a large extent this is actually happening, but the reality is that it's easier to construct an argument if one hasn't to clear the 'I have just been personally attacked' hurdle first.
That's not to say that you can't criticize someone personally, but there are ways about that which will not escalate into a brawl.

claude glass · 04-Oct-11, 12:55pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

capitalism is an economic system.......it's not responsible for reduction in fertility. The biggest decrease in fertility rates occured throughout the late 60's and 70's, precisely the time of the women's movement. You can call it coincidence, but i think it has more to do with the women's movement. With a drop in fertility rates, there is also a drop in household formation, marriage etc. Ultimately we have become a society that has turned it's back on the 'family'. When that happens people focus on careers and on 'building' and consuming. Whether you think liberation of women is a good or bad thing is not the point here, the thread is discussing reasons for the growth fetish and for me, the progressive decline in importance of the family and family unit is a large contributing factor to the push for growth, material well being and status at the individual level. I mean you only have to look at the role models for young females these days.......kim kardashian, paris hilton, Lady Gaga, sex and the city. Let's get serious here

buffed, I think you make an interesting point about family and career focus. my guess is there is a much more complex set of relations than just that one though.

i'm not sure that materialism is the prime motivating factor for all woman wanting careers though, i think in many cases materialism might follow as an effect, not a cause, once the expected personal rewards of a career don't materialise (no pun intended) coupled with the bombardment of advertising telling us that consumption of luxuries will make us happy. "I really need the $2,000 espresso machine, a BMW and Christian Louboutin shoes! ThenI will be happy"

Every company i've ever worked for wants growth. i've never worked in a company that doesn't set growth targets. Every year the management of the various companies i've worked for has set top line or profit growth targets somewhere between 5% and 20% (often with complete disregard to a country's economy or the markets I've worked in I might add). CEOs' rewards are tied to growth. This then trickles down to everyone's KPIs. Then people slavishly work to met these targets so they can get or bonus, or in many cases, simply keep their jobs. This is capitalism and this seems to me to be the prime mover of growth.

big eddie · 04-Oct-11, 12:59pm

I feel so sorry for the guys stuck Enterprise ICT sales in the US & Europe at the moment, shit is fucking dire. Their sales growth targets are wildly out of step with the market realities at the moment. As far as the regional benchmarks go, APJ is a decent spot to be right now.

didjeridude · 04-Oct-11, 12:59pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

capitalism is an economic system.......it's not responsible for reduction in fertility. The biggest decrease in fertility rates occured throughout the late 60's and 70's, precisely the time of the women's movement. You can call it coincidence, but i think it has more to do with the women's movement. With a drop in fertility rates, there is also a drop in household formation, marriage etc. Ultimately we have become a society that has turned it's back on the 'family'. When that happens people focus on careers and on 'building' and consuming. Whether you think liberation of women is a good or bad thing is not the point here, the thread is discussing reasons for the growth fetish and for me, the progressive decline in importance of the family and family unit is a large contributing factor to the push for growth, material well being and status at the individual level. I mean you only have to look at the role models for young females these days.......kim kardashian, paris hilton, Lady Gaga, sex and the city. Let's get serious here

There was a big increase in the marriage rate (both actual and crude) right in the middle of your women's lib movement which coincided with the baby boomers reaching their 20s. Since then marriage rates have gradually fallen whereas de facto rates have increased, so cohabitation rates have stayed more or less even. The proportion of couples (married or de facto) living together without kids has increased, but the proportion with kids has declined. The proportions of large families (3 or 4 kids) has also declined. However, the fertility rate of women aged 30-34 has steadily increased since the 1970s, whereas its mainly women in their 20s who are having less kids. There really is no evidence anywhere to suggest that we are a heathen society that has turned its back on "family", but a lot of evidence to suggest that women are simply waiting longer to have kids.

The driving factor in fertility rates has more to do with the economy. When stuff gets more expensive, people have less kids, if the economy goes to shit, people have less kids. All of the stats on households and marriages and families support this conclusion. The fact that fertility rates have gone up in the past 5-7yrs supports this conclusion. All of the stats on fertility rates for the past 100yrs across the globe also support this concept (ie: as a society becomes more developed they have less kids).

claude glass · 04-Oct-11, 01:38pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by big eddie

I feel so sorry for the guys stuck Enterprise ICT sales in the US & Europe at the moment, shit is fucking dire. Their sales growth targets are wildly out of step with the market realities at the moment. As far as the regional benchmarks go, APJ is a decent spot to be right now.

APJ = Asia Pacific Japan? Apparently there are 92 APJ acronyms.

What's crap is when targets are not made you can get psychopathic ignoring of reality and individuals are blamed for not being good enough.

big eddie · 04-Oct-11, 01:41pm

Yah Asia-Pacific & Japan

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 01:45pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

The driving factor in fertility rates has more to do with the economy. When stuff gets more expensive, people have less kids, if the economy goes to shit, people have less kids. ).

i disagree. I think it has more to do with personal lifestyle choices than it does with how expensive it is. with women choosing to have children in later life, it also means they run the risk of not being able to have kids at all, which is what is happening. disposable income in developed countries in absolute terms is far higher than it has been at any time and while life is more expensive, incomes are also much higher.

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 01:56pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

i'm not sure that materialism is the prime motivating factor for all woman wanting careers though, i think in many cases materialism might follow as an effect, not a cause, once the expected personal rewards of a career don't materialise (no pun intended) coupled with the bombardment of advertising telling us that consumption of luxuries will make us happy. "I really need the $2,000 espresso machine, a BMW and Christian Louboutin shoes! ThenI will be happy"

.

Being a full time 'mother' or a 'homemaker' is almost viewed as a term of derision nowadays by women. I had a friend who just gave birth 5 weeks ago tell me she's already looking forward to going back to work because she misses being stimulated. I mean 5 weeks?.......jesus, have we become that pathetic that we can't go 5 weeks without needing to be stimulated after we've given birth to our own child? I never knew being an office admin manager was so stimulating (sarcasm intended). To me that's just ego, not stimulation

the sad reality for most women though is tha by the time they reach their mid-late 30's and mother nature starts knocking on the door very loudly, it's too late. I'm sure you like me have dozens of female friends who did the whole career thing who are now desperately looking for 'love' on dating sites in order to have a family. At 38 your chances of conceiving are pretty low.

whether it's materialism, poor role models whatever, family and what it is to raise a family has gone to shit IMO

claude glass · 04-Oct-11, 02:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by buffed

Being a full time 'mother' or a 'homemaker' is almost viewed as a term of derision nowadays by women. I had a friend who just gave birth 5 weeks ago tell me she's already looking forward to going back to work because she misses being stimulated. I mean 5 weeks?.......jesus, have we become that pathetic that we can't go 5 weeks without needing to be stimulated after we've given birth to our own child? I never knew being an office admin manager was so stimulating (sarcasm intended). To me that's just ego, not stimulation

the sad reality for most women though is tha by the time they reach their mid-late 30's and mother nature starts knocking on the door very loudly, it's too late. I'm sure you like me have dozens of female friends who did the whole career thing who are now desperately looking for 'love' on dating sites in order to have a family. At 38 your chances of conceiving are pretty low.

whether it's materialism, poor role models whatever, family and what it is to raise a family has gone to shit IMO

Yeah I generally agree with you. I think this is the contemporary Australian condition. I am just saying that I think the causes of all of this are quite complex. I think we really have been barking up the wrong tree, or trees, and the chickens are coming home to roost (to thoroughly mix animal metaphors). It is reinforced by the Euromoney article that points out we have all the indicators of success and we seem to be as unhappy as people living in poor countries.

We seem to have failed at a secular life, but I don't see religion as any kind of answer. We can't go back to the past way of living though, that is simply not possible, or desirable. And to me it is tied into our ecological catastrophe as well. There is not enough stuff left.

As Bruno Latour says we need to innovate as never before but with caution.

gravyishot · 04-Oct-11, 02:41pm

I blame point to point speed cameras for Australia's malaise.

Griggle · 04-Oct-11, 02:50pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by gravyishot

I blame point to point speed cameras for Australia's malaise.

The support of four football codes instead of the one or two typically supported by developing nations must be playing havoc with our fertility rates too.

claude glass · 04-Oct-11, 02:57pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Griggle

The support of four football codes instead of the one or two typically supported by developing nations must be playing havoc with our fertility rates too.

And GM food.

DJ Squiggle · 04-Oct-11, 04:03pm

Buffed, whatever hypothesis you have about causes in Australia, and no matter how reasonable the cause and effect sounds, your observations do not prove cause and effect. Far stronger is the correlation between education and fertility. a GLOBAL phenomenom. If I dig up some actual statistics would that convince you? (I won't bother otherwise). You are undermining some very important concerns about an institutional attack on family values by linking them with fertility rates.

buffed · 04-Oct-11, 04:25pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Squiggle

Buffed, whatever hypothesis you have about causes in Australia, and no matter how reasonable the cause and effect sounds, your observations do not prove cause and effect. Far stronger is the correlation between education and fertility. a GLOBAL phenomenom. If I dig up some actual statistics would that convince you? (I won't bother otherwise). You are undermining some very important concerns about an institutional attack on family values by linking them with fertility rates.

well fertility rates are a gauge of the fomation of family are they not. By family i mean a couple with kids, not two adults living together. if less people are forming families then clearly, the importance of the 'family' is diminishing in society. It's largely irrelevant whether education or some other reason is causing that, but at the end of the day, less people are choosing to start families and that reflects a change in values more than anything else IMO

dbb618 · 04-Oct-11, 04:31pm

bull fucking shit

having a smaller family does not imply that family is less important.

the reasons that religious headcases and poor people have large families is (a) their imaginary god tells them to and (b) if you have enough children some of them might survive the high child mortality period and make it to adulthood.

Neither of those reasons is a good reason for having a child and neither means that their family is more important than a childless couple or a family with 1 or 2 children,

DJ Squiggle +	15-Sep-11, 05:09pm #51 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by twistedbydesign - some hippie who broke into CNN That implies it is a hack but it is actually a CNN commissioned opinion article by the legendary media commentator Douglas Rushkoff. Great find though, thanks.
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	16-Sep-11, 03:46am #52 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Epicureanism Epicurus (307BC) believed that pleasure is the greatest good. But the way to attain pleasure was to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires...Epicurus and his followers shunned politics...After the official approval of Christianity by Constantine the Great, Epicureanism was repressed. An nnteresting bloke that I only just discovered (being a philosophy ignoramus).
	Kid A likes this post <like Quote

twistedbydesign +	18-Sep-11, 12:33am #54 grokkin it over
Joined Mar '04 Times thanked < 123 Posts 15,930	http://www.alaindebotton.com/status.asp modern hodgepodge of the views of some ancient robed gentlemen
	Be the first<like Quote

Kid A +	18-Sep-11, 10:48am #55 Private Language
Joined Apr '07 Times thanked < 172 Posts 4,779	Mocking Alain has seemingly become the humanities intellectual right of passage. Apparently philosophy has to be a slight and opaque critique of the last A-class journal entry on the fact-value distinction to be worthy of our attention. God forbid we read something that might prompt us to consider our daily life.
	Be the first<like Quote

DJ Squiggle +	18-Sep-11, 04:32pm #56 intolerance will not be tolerated
Joined Feb '08 Times thanked < 2 Posts 164	Quote: Originally Posted by twistedbydesign http://www.alaindebotton.com/status.asp modern hodgepodge of the views of some ancient robed gentlemen Have you read it? The blurb makes the book sound reasonable. ie bucking the status game unaided is difficult which is precisely why even people who see through it is cannot wean themselves from it. The old "if you can't beat tem, join them" adage usually kicks in. Not everyone is strong enough to hang in there without genuine support (vs radical fellow leftist scenesters). Talking about it here honestly without descending into namecalling is part of that support process. Last edited by DJ Squiggle: 18-Sep-11 at 05:40pm
	Be the first<like Quote

inthemix.com.au: australian dance music | news | reviews | photos | forums | chat | what's on

View AllcloseChatterbox

View AllcloseYour Feed

closeMy Menu

closeStatus

Current Affairs and Politics

The Growth Fetish

Quick Reply

Posting Rules