There are very few instances where the route to personal success, is doing as little as possible, so I am trying to teach my son (9) the value of hard work.
The tidying of the bedroom scenario is one where I hope he can get the message.
It will not get done by sitting and looking at the mess. No matter how many times he says, "Ill tidy it in a bit", unless he translates the thoughts into action, it will never happen.
It is not as easy as you may think, to illustrate the benefits of the "Protestant Work Ethic" There is little supporting evidence to suggest that hard work equates to success.
Firstly, we have the sub working class who get along (nicely in some cases), by NOT working, then we have the opposite side of the spectrum, those who have succeeded by the merits of others.
I am thinking mainly of those who have inherited wealth and live a very comfortable lifestyle but do not appear to have actually done anything to earn it, unless you consider having a sense of duty to those less fortunate, as a job.
This led me to consider the role in society, of those who have inherited wealth (and therefore influence) when compared with your average hardworking bloke.
I do have great respect for those types who have built their lives on the basis of hard work and common decency especially when you contrast them with others who I do not respect. They seem only to be able to duck and dive, yet to the whole world, have the trappings of success.
I cannot help thinking about the way tribal societies are organised. The chief was once the fiercest warrior in his younger days. He was the strongest, best climber of trees, and most skillful hunter. This is pretty much how I would expect Darwinism to work in real life. The fittest would survive and pro-create. Those who wield power in this mixed up western society, would be the least likely to survive in the world of natural selection.
When you look at it this way, it could be argued that the greatest attribute, many of our current ruling elite possess, is pliability. I don't mind that as long as folks are straight about it. It's when weakness and lack of moral standing are paraded as integrity and honesty, that I get miffed.
No wonder we find it a battle to raise our kids properly with so many wrong messages and mixed up signals.
I do have great respect for those types who have built their lives on the basis of hard work and common decency especially when you contrast them with others who I do not respect. They seem only to be able to duck and dive, yet to the whole world, have the trappings of success.
ReplyDeletethe issue, it seems to me - is did they make that themselves or did they inherit it? It changes everything.
Yes that's it James. I especially dislike millionaire politicians (regardless of party) lecturing us about a work ethic which they personally, have no experience of.
ReplyDelete"... would be the least likely to survive in the world of natural selection"
ReplyDeleteWe never left it. We are living in it. And "fittest" in that context simply means most likely to reproduce. Everything we do is natural (including making plastics and microelectronics and genetic engineering and pesticides and etc...) because we are part of nature. It may not all be nice or good or wise, but it is as natural as a crow using a twig as a tool. And natural selection cannot be turned off. even though, thanks to our own natures, we may influence it, naturally...
Pete I think your reasoning odes not go far enough.
ReplyDeleteYou say "Those who wield power in this mixed up western society, would be the least likely to survive in the world of natural selection."
You see those inheriting wealth as weak or unfit? Well firstly those who inherit wealth and power usually inherit the genes of those who gained the wealth and power, success is arguably a measure of fitness of some sort. Also they do say a fool and their money are soon parted. So if the inheritors can hang on to wealth and turn it into power they are probly not really fools or unfit after all.
Also natural selection just refers to the environment the genes find themselves in, if it is urban civilisation, or in a jungle, or savannah.
And that chief you talk about, he is probably also the one who can get the most people on his side by whatever means, maybe a combination of having tough henchmen, being smart, good at being popular and making sure people owe him favours - politicing in other words.
Moggsy, I suppose what I am trying to get at is that those who rule, do not necessarily have the character that you would expect of a ruler. They operate under a different set of standards to most of us, IE pliability is their greatest asset. They are often sociopaths, or in the employ of sociopaths.
ReplyDeleteI seriously question their legitimacy.
I try to keep things in light digestible portions.
As for Darwinism, there are some merits but on the whole, count me out ;-0
Andrew, Im not sure I really understand what you are saying. The problem for me is that I do not accept that we are merely biological machines. What of the soul or spirit?
ReplyDeleteWho knows if we are "mere" biological machines? certainly not me, and nor, I expect, you. My point is that natural selection continues, because it is simply the preferential continuation of the genes of those individuals who are best adapted to the current circumstance to send their genes into future generations.
ReplyDeleteThe "soul" and the "spirit" are concepts invented by humans that may or may not correspond to something real. If they do correspond to something real I am pretty sure they will be very different from what we can conceive of, but I am not afraid nor ashamed nor uncomfortable in saying, "I just don't know" (and neither does anyone else, whatever they may say).
I appreciate your honesty Andrew. FWIW, I have no problem with the natural selection model you mention.
ReplyDeleteSoul and spirit? I expect you are looking for empirical evidence. There is non, yet. Belief plays a part. I would stake my life on their existence, but I may struggle to prove it to you.
Is the scientific method is the only measure by which such things are to be proven?
Any method at all will be fine by me, so long as it doesn't rely on wishful thinking and deciding something must be there before looking for it. I have little doubt that existence is far more mysterious than we can ever know.
ReplyDelete