DiscussMormonism.com

Is Richard Feynman arguing against claims of class warfare on a global scale? Droopy?

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I'm telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we're doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we're all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.

The next day one of the guys in our group said, "I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference."

I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there's only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn't take into account the real reason for the differences between countries--that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn't the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn't understand it. They didn't understand technology; they didn't understand their time.

(Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman "Is Electricity Fire?")

asbestosman wrote:Is Richard Feynman arguing against claims of class warfare on a global scale? Droopy?

There was a special dinner at some point, and the head of the theology place, a very nice, very Jewish man, gave a speech. It was a good speech, and he was a very good speaker, so while it sounds crazy now, when I'm telling about it, at that time his main idea sounded completely obvious and true. He talked about the big differences in the welfare of various countries, which cause jealousy, which leads to conflict, and now that we have atomic weapons, any war and we're doomed, so therefore the right way out is to strive for peace by making sure there are no great differences from place to place, and since we have so much in the United States, we should give up nearly everything to the other countries until we're all even. Everybody was listening to this, and we were all full of sacrificial feeling, and all thinking we ought to do this. But I came back to my senses on the way home.

The next day one of the guys in our group said, "I think that speech last night was so good that we should all endorse it, and it should be the summary of our conference."

I started to say that the idea of distributing everything evenly is based on a theory that there's only X amount of stuff in the world, that somehow we took it away from the poorer countries in the first place, and therefore we should give it back to them. But this theory doesn't take into account the real reason for the differences between countries--that is, the development of new techniques for growing food, the development of machinery to grow food and to do other things, and the fact that all this machinery requires the concentration of capital. It isn't the stuff, but the power to make the stuff, that is important. But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn't understand it. They didn't understand technology; they didn't understand their time.

(Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman "Is Electricity Fire?")

He appears to be arguing against the adolescent fantasies and sanctimonious moral self congratulation of leftism, although he's doing it from a rather technocratic perspective, which does have a place in the debate, although I don't think its primary.

Droopy wrote:He appears to be arguing against the adolescent fantasies and sanctimonious moral self congratulation of leftism, although he's doing it from a rather technocratic perspective, which does have a place in the debate, although I don't think its primary.

So what do you think is primary, and does the threat of nuclear war play a part?

ETA: I mean, if someone has his finger over the nuke button, wouldn't it make sense to tread nicely so he isn't angry or jealous about you? I don't know about you, but I'm not too fond of the idea of him slamming down his fist on the button in a fit of rage. Mutually Assured Destruction might not be much of a deterrent when the other guy doesn't think his present life is worth living--or that the afterlife makes the gamble somewhat less costly.