ERE VS capitalism
Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:19 am
The following is a self-dialogue. ERE believes in self-sustainability: being able to grow one's food, be financially independent, etc. On the other hand, there is CIG (Capitalism Is Good), who prefers division of labor, perhaps capitalism in general.
===
ERE:
I like to be self-sustainable one day. That entails: be financially independent, being able to grow my own food, being able to repair my own stuffs, etc. I see that as a healthier lifestyle: doing a bit of everything forces you to grow a lot, both physically and intellectually. Leaving consumerism is better for the environment too. Living in this lifestyle, I have more control over my food, tools and home.
CIG:
You cannot be good at everything you do. Practically speaking, it is impossible to do everything on your own. Even you adopt ERE lifestyle, you will need to purchase / acquire tools made by someone else.
Hong:
I think it is a matter of balance. Division of labour is essential for every human. But overly rely on that, you lost independence, survival skills, and ability to adopt new life situations [for example, earning income on a highly specialized skill can be risky because demand on a skill can fluctuate].
CIG:
In capitalistic society, you have control over your food, tools and home as well. Simply do your research and choose a goods / service provider that aligns with your views.
ERE:
The so-called "research" are met with marketing propaganda. If I grow my own food, I know everything about it. I know exactly what I am putting into my mouth. In cases where products don't matter much, getting a standard M3 screw for example, it is totally feasible to simply buy it. ERE doesn't mean "doing everything on our own", but "having a fund enough to be self-sustainable, AND knowing what to buy".
Hong:
It seems the problem lies on where to draw the line on "being self-reliant" and "rely on others". Let's pick some specifics to discuss. Visiting restaurants instead of cooking. Yes or no?
ERE:
Cooking is healthier, it teaches you a great deal on food. You have full control on cooking, hygiene, etc. Treating it seriously, your skill level improves with time. That also makes you a more interesting person to talk to. Restaurants often charge a lot more than what a dish is worth. To attract customers, a lot of them use too much oil and salt. Eating at home allows quiet private conversation, to get similar environment in restaurant can be costly.
CIG:
(1) Certain dishes are too complicated for laymen to make. Chefs are professionals who spend their waking hours thinking how to improve cooking. Individuals can hardly beat that. ERE, you have to admit that some restaurants are worth the experience.
(2) Customers visiting restaurants save a lot of time and mind. They can use this resources to more value-added activities, something he is good at doing. Overall speaking, this division of labour improve the living standard [in this example, food quality] of everybody.
In capitalism, no one forces customers to make certain choices. Options are offered to customers. A health-conscious customers can choose restaurants that align with his preference. If nothing in market satisfies someone, he can as well starts a business based on that niche.
Hong:
The best choice probably lies between two extreme: a combination of cautious eating-out and cooking. In any case, a dose of mindfulness is required to avoid mediocrity.
ERE:
(1)(2) holds IF businesses are honest and seek excellence. This is far from the truth. In modern times, businesses that seeks every ways to maximize their profit tends to flourish and dominate, but an extreme pursuit of profit is harmful to both employees and customers. Cost-savings are applied in places where customers do not notice (e.g., whether the sauce used contains controversial food additives).
Generally speaking, consumers are passive service / goods receiver. As a result, consumerism tends to shape a mediocre, standardized taste in customers. CIG, this is an anti-humanity development.
Hong:
Summarizing this argument, perhaps I can conclude that:
(A) Everybody is better off, if division of labour / business is honest. Capitalism should be re-designed so that corporations are founded on principles that promote humanity.
(B) If standardized commercial packages can satisfy one's needs at a reasonable price, then it's fine to just go for it, and note the danger of acquiring a standardized taste. It is always a good idea to actively try new things and reflect on "default choices" one frequently make in life.
(C) It helps to stay curious and investigate the truth behind simple-looking goods / service.
===
ERE:
I like to be self-sustainable one day. That entails: be financially independent, being able to grow my own food, being able to repair my own stuffs, etc. I see that as a healthier lifestyle: doing a bit of everything forces you to grow a lot, both physically and intellectually. Leaving consumerism is better for the environment too. Living in this lifestyle, I have more control over my food, tools and home.
CIG:
You cannot be good at everything you do. Practically speaking, it is impossible to do everything on your own. Even you adopt ERE lifestyle, you will need to purchase / acquire tools made by someone else.
Hong:
I think it is a matter of balance. Division of labour is essential for every human. But overly rely on that, you lost independence, survival skills, and ability to adopt new life situations [for example, earning income on a highly specialized skill can be risky because demand on a skill can fluctuate].
CIG:
In capitalistic society, you have control over your food, tools and home as well. Simply do your research and choose a goods / service provider that aligns with your views.
ERE:
The so-called "research" are met with marketing propaganda. If I grow my own food, I know everything about it. I know exactly what I am putting into my mouth. In cases where products don't matter much, getting a standard M3 screw for example, it is totally feasible to simply buy it. ERE doesn't mean "doing everything on our own", but "having a fund enough to be self-sustainable, AND knowing what to buy".
Hong:
It seems the problem lies on where to draw the line on "being self-reliant" and "rely on others". Let's pick some specifics to discuss. Visiting restaurants instead of cooking. Yes or no?
ERE:
Cooking is healthier, it teaches you a great deal on food. You have full control on cooking, hygiene, etc. Treating it seriously, your skill level improves with time. That also makes you a more interesting person to talk to. Restaurants often charge a lot more than what a dish is worth. To attract customers, a lot of them use too much oil and salt. Eating at home allows quiet private conversation, to get similar environment in restaurant can be costly.
CIG:
(1) Certain dishes are too complicated for laymen to make. Chefs are professionals who spend their waking hours thinking how to improve cooking. Individuals can hardly beat that. ERE, you have to admit that some restaurants are worth the experience.
(2) Customers visiting restaurants save a lot of time and mind. They can use this resources to more value-added activities, something he is good at doing. Overall speaking, this division of labour improve the living standard [in this example, food quality] of everybody.
In capitalism, no one forces customers to make certain choices. Options are offered to customers. A health-conscious customers can choose restaurants that align with his preference. If nothing in market satisfies someone, he can as well starts a business based on that niche.
Hong:
The best choice probably lies between two extreme: a combination of cautious eating-out and cooking. In any case, a dose of mindfulness is required to avoid mediocrity.
ERE:
(1)(2) holds IF businesses are honest and seek excellence. This is far from the truth. In modern times, businesses that seeks every ways to maximize their profit tends to flourish and dominate, but an extreme pursuit of profit is harmful to both employees and customers. Cost-savings are applied in places where customers do not notice (e.g., whether the sauce used contains controversial food additives).
Generally speaking, consumers are passive service / goods receiver. As a result, consumerism tends to shape a mediocre, standardized taste in customers. CIG, this is an anti-humanity development.
Hong:
Summarizing this argument, perhaps I can conclude that:
(A) Everybody is better off, if division of labour / business is honest. Capitalism should be re-designed so that corporations are founded on principles that promote humanity.
(B) If standardized commercial packages can satisfy one's needs at a reasonable price, then it's fine to just go for it, and note the danger of acquiring a standardized taste. It is always a good idea to actively try new things and reflect on "default choices" one frequently make in life.
(C) It helps to stay curious and investigate the truth behind simple-looking goods / service.