Re: [sixties-l] Re: Horowitz corporations (Mandel replies to Blankfort)

From: sixties@lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Fri Jul 14 2000 - 23:54:30 CUT

  • Next message: William Mandel: "Re: [sixties-l] Re: corporations and techno-change availability"

    [modr8r note: Bill, you've got to start trimming your messages. i did it
    this time for you (first & last time, btw), but note that the continuity
    with the rest of the thread has been lost. every single post I've sent
    back to you for trimming and resending you have ignored. please be more
    conscientious about this in the future. (sorry to single out bill, but
    there are others on the list guilty of the same thing and they need to
    hear this as well).]

    Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2000 14:10:39 -0700
    From: William Mandel <wmmmandel@earthlink.net>
    Reply-To: wmmmandel@earthlink.net
    To: sixties-l@lists.village.virginia.edu
    Subject: Re: [sixties-l] Re: Horowitz corporations
    References: <200007131106.LAA60744@lists.village.virginia.edu> <396EAF88.76E90EEB@tucradio.org>

    Every point you make is worthy of consideration. The fact is that
    people from all over the world except western Europe, the white
    former components of the British Empire (Canada, Australia, New
    Zealand), and Japan, fight like hell to get into this country,
    plus a significant number from the advanced capitalist countries
    I have listed, while emigration from the U.S. to anywhere else is
    tiny, except where one's Social Security buys a higher living
    standard than it can here (Mexico and Ireland and Poland, for
    example).
        So one has to face the reality that the vast majority of
    human beings judge a country by the material living standard it
    offers, despite all the trade-offs. Use the word "consumerist" if
    you wish, but the fact remains.
                    Bill Mandel

    Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    >
    > "Quality of life" is an elusive concept, and since most, if not all of
    > such ratings are corporate driven, they are questionable. What is the
    > criteria used? Whether a home has a television set, and if so, how many?
    > A telephone? A computer? Access to a MacDonald's or a shopping mall?
    > Does a more highly evolved technology translate into a higher quality of
    > life? Does someone with the latest megabyte PC enjoy a higher quality of
    > life than someone who is able to buy a peach in a neighborhood market
    > that actually tastes like it did before it became just another
    > commodity? Does someone with four bathrooms in their home enjoy a better
    > quality of life than the parents who knows their young child can play on
    > the street without the fear of their being kidnapped, molested or
    > murdered by some psychopath. Or that their children can go to school
    > without the fear that they will be gunned down by one of their
    > classmates, or that the killer won't be their own child, who
    > communicates on his own PC with others of a similar mindset, and drives
    > his very own BMW or Chevy to school?
    >
    > Has the quality of our own lives in the US really improved with the
    > technological advances that have taken place in our life time? As I
    > asked once before, does living longer mean living better? Has the
    > medical care provided for the majority of people, both in America and
    > worldwide, shown improvements that corresponds to the development of new
    > profit-making drugs? Do those growing old have less to fear and more to
    > appreciate than did their counterparts three decades ago? Has technology
    > made us a more or less sociable society? Would someone 40 years ago have
    > understood the meaning of "road rage" or "gridlock"? What does it say
    > about the quality of life in a society where tens of thousands of people
    > spend a minimum of 3 hours a day driving to and from work, part of which
    > is to pay for that very transportation?
    >
    > In evaluating "quality of life," these are the kind of questions that
    > need to be considered.
    >
    > Jeff Blankfort



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jul 14 2000 - 23:58:11 CUT