The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth  (Read 16085 times)

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« on: 24/03/2007 22:57:01 »
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth

Hi all,

I suppose the following is what would be called a rant:

All systems tend towards equilibrium. The monetary system is, well…a system. The flow of water can be thought of as a system. The system describing the flow of water will tend towards equilibrium and thus naturally tends towards the lowest energy state available to it as defined generally by its distance from the ground.

Now, in order to get water on one side of a wall to be a lot higher than the other, one would have to put energy INTO the system. Thus, one has to CAUSE an unequal distribution of water on opposite sides of a wall; it does not come to exist of its own accord. And so, you have a dam.

Using similar logic, the system describing the flow of wealth or money will tend towards equilibrium and thus naturally tends towards the lowest societal level available to it as defined generally by the relative difference in wealth between the wealthiest and poorest human beings on this planet.

So, in order to get “40% of world's wealth [to be] owned by 1% of [the] population” (http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/12/05/globalwealth.html), one would have to put energy INTO the system. Thus, one has to CAUSE an unequal distribution of wealth among the individuals that make up the population at large; it does not come to exist of its own accord.

Even so, clearly, the system describing the flow of water is in no way similar to the system describing the flow of wealth. This is because for one to be similar to the other, 40% of the entire world’s water (not just fresh water, but the other 99% too) would have to be put behind dams and be in control by a few.

The level of inequality in the distribution of wealth that human beings have decided to inflict on fellow human beings and the extent to which our species runs full sail in opposition to the forces of all equilibriums is very likely to be unmatched in finding an equivalent situation anywhere in the universe; a testament to the effects of implementing man-made systems in place of the single and natural system.

What is this single and natural system? Well, for those that have agreed with anything I have said so far, hopefully you can consider what I am about to say in conjunction with what I have already said. Furthermore, it is regrettable that what ever credibility I may have built through logic will be destroyed for some who find nothing credible in those who mention anything approaching what can be considered to be a ‘religious understanding’.

Simply, everything I have stated above is firmly grounded in Quranic teachings. I am a Muslim. What kind of strange Muslim am I you may wonder? Well, the answer to that can be found at http://www.ourbeacon.com/phbb2, or even the base site which contains links to some interesting books.

Thank you for your time
« Last Edit: 24/03/2007 23:47:20 by neilep »


 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #1 on: 24/03/2007 23:11:59 »
Welcome back Hd and Good luck with your search. Long time no see. If you need some help don't hesitate to ask. Looks like you are doing fine though! Enjoy the new forum..

You are a complex person with some rather complex questions which always leave me really in a contempletive pondering mode . I have to really think about your questions and thoughts before answering them. I will think on it though and really try to understand your thinking thus far.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2007 23:18:35 by Karen W. »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #2 on: 24/03/2007 23:13:41 »
Is this really a ' General Science ' topic ?
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #3 on: 24/03/2007 23:15:34 »
Thanks Karen, much appreciated. And so far as the topic is concerned, feel free to move it, I got fed up with trying figure out where this should go.
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #4 on: 24/03/2007 23:19:03 »
Thanks Karen, much appreciated. And so far as the topic is concerned, feel free to move it, I got fed up with trying figure out where this should go.

Good on ya...what a great person ewe are...YAYYYYYYYYYYY !! (meant sincerely)
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #5 on: 24/03/2007 23:24:16 »
WHat you think Neily Theory or what?
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #6 on: 24/03/2007 23:25:08 »
WHat you think Neily Theory or what?

I haven't a clue !!..I was just merely thinking out loud really !!
 

Offline Karen W.

  • Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *****
  • Posts: 31653
  • Thanked: 5 times
  • "come fly with me"
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #7 on: 24/03/2007 23:41:12 »
It kind of boarders on a philosophy I think so where would we put it, Physiology or Theories! I am not sure yet either as I need to read it several times before I can decide.. If you can move it with better knowledge that would be cool.
« Last Edit: 24/03/2007 23:56:41 by Karen W. »
 

Offline neilep

  • Withdrawnmist
  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 20602
  • Thanked: 8 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #8 on: 24/03/2007 23:46:36 »
Well we don't want to turn this thread into a debate  about where this thread should be so I'll move it to new theories and see what happens.
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #9 on: 25/03/2007 00:12:55 »
Well we don't want to turn this thread into a debate  about where this thread should be so I'll move it to new theories and see what happens.

LOL, too funny...now you see why I had a hard time decided where it should go. Although, I'd rather not have it moved once again, I think that a disclaimer is necessary:

THIS IS NOT A THEORY! (please don't be offended by the screaming font neilep ;D)

This is simply an application of already well known ideas (namely thermodyanamics) to something not so well known (application of thermodynamic priniciples to stately affairs) from whereof I go on to make a conclusion that you can choose to [insert what ever you choose to do here].
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #10 on: 25/03/2007 05:25:35 »
A system that is in equilibrium is without the capacity to change, and such a system is for all practical purposes, a dead system.

Yes, we could consider a hypothetical economic system that was in its lowest energy state, but such a system would have no dynamic, and thus be useless as an economic system.

In order for a system to perform work, it must have a dynamic, and thus must not be in a state of minimum energy where no more useful work can be done by the system.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #11 on: 25/03/2007 11:27:37 »
Any systems that involve people must take into account human nature. Admittedly, human nature is a false label - it should really be human nurture. We normally grow up with the values & morals dictated by our environment. As such, if these societal norms were static then that aspect of society would be in equilibrium. In practice, that isn't far from the actual state of things.

It takes a lot of effort to change the general opinions of society at large. There was a social revolution in the west during the 1960s when the younger generation became a lot more liberal than its forebears. But, in general, the opinions of society at large change very slowly.

This societal equilibrium holds true for most cultures I can think of. At various points in history certain societies have been subjected to massive outside influence - more often than not with disastrous consequences (I'm thinking of Africa and North & South America in particular).

Anyway, I digress slightly. Societal equilibrium in the western world dictates that the economy should work in a certain way. To put not-too-fine a point on it, it is based on greed (ambition is only greed with a different head on) & survival of the economically fittest. Money = power etc. It is outside of our social equilibrium to help others to the extent where we ourselves suffer. Yes, we give billions to charities each year - but each individual, in general, only gives a small percentage of what they have. Not many people with, say, only £100 to their name would give 9 people with nothing £10 each to equal things out a bit.

Even left-wing politicians who are forever expounding the virtues of equality still draw salaries from the state that are far higher than the average income. I certainly can't remember a member of parliament saying "No, I don't want £60,277 pa, a staffing allowance of £86,276 so I can pay my wife an exorbitant amount for making my tea, office costs of £53,446, incidental expenses of £20,440, plus travel, food & entertainment expenses . Just give me £12,500". (Incidentally, Stephen Timmins - the minister responsible for deciding how much unemployed people get in benefits - has a salary of £136,677pa plus all the extras listed above)

It is for this reason that your theory of worldwide economic equilibrium could not work without many decades of social engineering - and that, in itself, is contrary to your theory that it is a natural state. Communism was supposed to achieve it but failed miserably because it didn't take human nurture into account.

P.S. Sorry about my rant against politicians' salaries in the middle  [:I]
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 11:49:34 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #12 on: 25/03/2007 13:20:06 »
Hi another_someone,

Quote
A system that is in equilibrium is without the capacity to change, and such a system is for all practical purposes, a dead system.

This is a meaningless statement as far as context is concerned. This "dead" system would entail equality for all human beings.

Quote
Yes, we could consider a hypothetical economic system that was in its lowest energy state, but such a system would have no dynamic, and thus be useless as an economic system.

Consider my original post again and notice how I specifically did not repeat the part about "lowest energy state" as part of the analogy; the reason being that energy is not as relevant to the context of a state as is societal levels. And considering societal levels instead of energy makes the critical difference.

Quote
In order for a system to perform work, it must have a dynamic, and thus must not be in a state of minimum energy where no more useful work can be done by the system.

Again, I specifically did not mention an economic system being in a state of minimum energy, let alone an economic system as they have nothing to do with the argument. Can you even qualitatively describe to yourself what it means to have high or low energy states in an economic system? Anyway, I was talking about the monetary system, not economic systems which use the monetary system as a medium through which wealth is transferred. As such, this is not so much a critique of capitalism as it is a critique of man-made systems (but I suppose that delves into a topic of its own).

I made no comment with regards to gathering resources that act as the raw material for economy. Of course new raw material will always enter the economy, this much is assumed. However, the manner of distribution of the user-end products developed from this raw material is subject to the functioning of the monetary system. And it is this equilibrium that I specifically mentioned; not an economic equilibrium, but rather a monetary equilibrium. And my basic argument is that the forces naturally generated via this monetary equilibrium cause wealth generated from the economic system to be equally distributed across all individuals; however, we humans have the unfortunate history of running all our efforts counter to the effects of this equilibrium.

(phew)

Now on to Dr. Beaver’s reply,

Much of what I said so far applies to your post as well. However, I believe that you misunderstood what I meant when I said “natural state”. I was not referring to the “state of things”, but rather to an actual nation state. I assume from this misunderstanding you came to understand that I believe that such equilibrium is the natural state of things. Although I did not make this argument, I would argue that all species except humans would support such an equilibrium “naturally”. Ultimately, from the reference of the Quran I gave as well as from what history has to tell, I only meant that the nation state as described in the Quran is the natural state with respect to implementing a socio-economic system that maintains the equilibrating effects of the monetary system on wealth. Thus, when you said:

Quote
It is for this reason that your theory of worldwide economic equilibrium could not work without many decades of social engineering - and that, in itself, is contrary to your theory that it is a natural state.

Well…obviously I do not mean to say that an entire nation state can be built over night. In fact I made no claim to any length of time or how long it would take for the establishment of such a state to affect the monetary equilibrium.  Thus my “theory” (rather critique) is not falsified for this reason.

Thanks to both of you for taking the time to reply


P.S. If you’re current thought process reflects something along the following lines:

"This guy can’t actually be arguing that Islam, that strange religion that oppresses women and generally promotes violence to all non-Muslims could actually have anything productive to give to humanity at large, could he?"

Well, indeed I am not arguing this, since that Islam is not the Islam that I follow. In fact we (at the ourbeacon website) refer to that Islam as N2I or Number 2 Islam (similar to counter-fit medicines in south Asia). Yes, I did just say that the vast majority of those who consider themselves Muslims in the world are following a strange religion that has hijacked the title of Islam.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #13 on: 25/03/2007 13:26:08 »
I think there's a problem with the assertion "Using similar logic, the system describing the flow of wealth or money will tend towards equilibrium and thus naturally tends towards the lowest societal level available to it as defined generally by the relative difference in wealth between the wealthiest and poorest human beings on this planet.
".
I offer (without proof, but with some anecdotal evidence) the counter-theory that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
That means that, without some external influenece all the money ends up in one place and that is what causes the problems of inequality.

BTW, As Prime minister M Thatcher famously didn't take all of the sallary she was entitled to. IIRC she only drew the sallary of an MP rather than a cabinet minister. Of course, it's a whole lot easier to make that choice if your husband is a millionaire.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #14 on: 25/03/2007 14:03:24 »

Now on to Dr. Beaver’s reply,

Much of what I said so far applies to your post as well. However, I believe that you misunderstood what I meant when I said “natural state”. I was not referring to the “state of things”, but rather to an actual nation state. I assume from this misunderstanding you came to understand that I believe that such equilibrium is the natural state of things. Although I did not make this argument, I would argue that all species except humans would support such an equilibrium “naturally”. Ultimately, from the reference of the Quran I gave as well as from what history has to tell, I only meant that the nation state as described in the Quran is the natural state with respect to implementing a socio-economic system that maintains the equilibrating effects of the monetary system on wealth. Thus, when you said:

Quote
It is for this reason that your theory of worldwide economic equilibrium could not work without many decades of social engineering - and that, in itself, is contrary to your theory that it is a natural state.

Well…obviously I do not mean to say that an entire nation state can be built over night. In fact I made no claim to any length of time or how long it would take for the establishment of such a state to affect the monetary equilibrium.  Thus my “theory” (rather critique) is not falsified for this reason.


I know you didn't specify a timescale, but that isn't what I was arguing against. My point was that if something is built it cannot be natural. Therefore if you engineer a particular state in cannot be a natural 1. To move from 1 social condition (I'll use that word instead of "state" to avoid confusion) to another takes a lot of effort and would not be a natural process.

If you were to bring down the entire economic edifice and leave things to themselves I don't think even that would produce equality. There would still be some who wanted more and would get it at the expense of others.

If everyone had exactly the same as everyone else the whole system would stagnate. There would be no incentive to "better oneself". Ambition would disappear and you would end up with a world full of apathy. Wealth does not naturally trickle down and I believe it is wrong to think that it does.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 14:13:39 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #15 on: 25/03/2007 14:04:07 »
Quote
without some external influenece all the money ends up in one place and that is what causes the problems of inequality.

Water and wealth can't think. I only meant that the laws of nature dictate that things in the high would seek things in the low; just as pockets of gas in high concentrations would equilibrate with the lower concentrations around it. These phenomenons don't think about what they should do, they "do" exactly what should occur "naturally". As such, the natural laws dictate that the flow of wealth, as in the flow of water, would equilibrate from high to low.

If this seems like a difficult concept to grasp, than consider this: wealth or money is a representation, ultimately, of the raw material originally obtained through economy from the Earth. If we humans did not exists, than this raw material would have been equilibrated with all members of all species; the very reason that life at such a grand scale can even exist so naturally. In this "grand" view of things, it is the efforts of humans that run counter to this monetary equilibrium that all other species follow unconsciously (edit: I should not have said "willingly or unwillingly").

As such, what you are arguing is not the affects of the monetary equilibrium, but rather the affects of human nature (or nurture as Dr. Beaver advises). I have only argued that humans run their efforts counter to this natural equilibrium, whether this counter-intuitive behavior also occurs “naturally” and on a grand scale or not are not a subject of this argument.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 15:14:42 by namaan »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #16 on: 25/03/2007 14:21:16 »
But there are plenty of examples of inequality in nature.

Animals will fiercely guard their territory, their hunting ground. They don't care if the animal next door starves to death. Their only concern is themselves and their immediate contacts (family, pack, troop etc). Therefore if 1 group has rich hunting and good diet then it will become stronger than its neighbour whose hunting grounds are sparse. The stronger an animal is, the better able it is to protect what it considers to be its own, and the better able it is to reproduce. Animals from poor hunting grounds will be weak and less able to reproduce. They become easy prey to the stronger, fitter predators. Therefore even in nature "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

I can't remember who it was (it may have been Richard Dawkins in his book "The Selfish Gene") who said that a person's priorities are - in descending order of importance - family, friends, neighbourhood, village/town/borough and that very few are truly concerned about others on a national, let alone a global, scale.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 14:39:00 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #17 on: 25/03/2007 14:28:22 »
Coming back to your analogy with equilibrium of fluids for a moment.

I don't think it's right to say that because water flows downhill wealth will trickle down from the rich to the poor. There is a false premise in your assertion. A lake with surface area x could be fed by water from an area thousands of times greater. So in that respect the water is not equalling itself out; it is concentrating in a smaller area. Surely, that is exactly what happens with wealth? A business owner's wealth is fed by all those who work for him. He is the lake, his workers are the surrounding terrain - the money (water) flows naturally from them to him.

P.S. I like this kind of debate. Thank you for raising it.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #18 on: 25/03/2007 14:34:41 »
Incidentally, I know what you mean about N2I. Unfortunately it is the extremists who grab the headlines and thus fuel the misconceptions. I have known many Moslems over the years (most of my friends when I lived in East Africa were Moslem) and some of them I consider among my closest friends. They have invariably been amicable and hospitable in the extreme.

Salaam rafiki
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #19 on: 25/03/2007 14:46:40 »
Quote
If everyone had exactly the same as everyone else the whole system would stagnate. There would be no incentive to "better oneself". Ambition would disappear and you would end up with a world full of apathy. Wealth does not naturally trickle down and I believe it is wrong to think that it does.

There is a big difference between being able to work for extra wealth and 1% of the world's population owning 40% of economic wealth don't you think? I am not a supporter of socialist principles where everyone should be forced to have exactly equal wealth. In Islam, there is room for ownership, running a business and generating profit and all that good stuff, the only difference being that Muslims are commanded to give back to the community "all that is in excess" via the central government.

Quote
But there are plenty of examples of inequlity in nature.

I am having some difficulty separating the idea of the tendency of wealth in the high to seek the low and from how animals actually behave. Regardless of what humans want, even if we put up a damn, the water still “wants” to seek lower ground. Regardless of how humans behave, I argue that wealth still “wants” to seek the lower societal levels. When I said:

Quote
If we humans did not exists, than this raw material would have been equilibrated with all members of all species; the very reason that life at such a grand scale can even exist so naturally. In this "grand" view of things, it is the efforts of humans that run counter to this monetary equilibrium that all other species follow willingly or unwillingly.

I was not referring to the action of any species. The animals can’t exactly think about how to best distribute the available resources to each other. I only meant that the natural processes of earth dictate that the manner in which resources are made available to members of any given species is equal for all the species. Thus, regardless of what any animals (including humans) want, water and food will in general be made available to all members of all species.

Again, I’m talking about the tendency of events to occur (such as the equilibration of wealth) with respect to the laws of nature, not the nature or nurture of humans or other animals.
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #20 on: 25/03/2007 14:59:25 »
Ultimately, the reason I bring all this up is mostly because I am tired of hearing the idea that the inequality across the world is a natural phenomenon and that achieving equality among all humans (in term of have the basic needs of life met; not the socialist ideals of forced equality of wealth) is idealistic thinking of the worst kind and completely unpractical.

Following from the argument I have made thus far, I would argue that it is the current model of extreme accruement of wealth among a small group of individuals that is idealistic and unpractical as it runs counter to natural effects of all equilibriums.

I appreciate all the feedback that I have received.  [O8)]
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 15:02:42 by namaan »
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #21 on: 25/03/2007 15:54:06 »
I still cannot agree that equality of wealth is a natural state. With your example of a dam – yes, the water will still try to follow natural laws and seek the lowest point but the physical end result of the dam being there will be different. The ecology above the dam will change. The watercourse could be altered further upstream. This means that even were the dam removed the original state of affairs may not be re-instituted. And the dam may not necessarily be a man-made structure. An avalanche can have a similar effect to thousands of tons of concrete.

Also, the behaviour of water can be fairly simply explained and predicted – there are only a few rules involved. To try that with a society is impossible. We can say that a particular cause is likely to have a particular effect, but it cannot be guaranteed as human behaviour is so complex. Many governments have discovered that.

If you look back through all of recorded history you will see numerous examples of societies – or groups, tribes etc - wishing to impose their will on others. Animals behave in the same way. It could therefore be argued that this is the natural way of things where sentient, and not-so-sentient, beings are concerned.

Also, you say that the Quran states that you should give away that which is excess. So why do some Moslems have huge houses and drive expensive cars while others have next to nothing? I think that demonstrates the true nature of humans. We are naturally greedy and want more than our neighbours. Yes, it could be argued that this is a result of a man-made hype about status symbols etc but I believe it goes deeper than that.

Humans are competitive by nature. That is how we had to be in pre-historic times to survive and the natural instinct is still there. Society has evolved as a result of human instincts and man-made laws (although some would argue that God – or Allah, or Manitou, or Zeus or whoever – played a hand in it). Instinct and societal mores have shaped each other over the centuries to the extent that it is difficult now to work out which has had the larger effect.

To expect that, left to its own devices, wealth would distribute itself more-or-less equally is, in my opinion, wrong. Some kind of social engineering would need to be involved and that would mean that it would not be a natural state of affairs.
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #22 on: 25/03/2007 16:23:17 »
I guess I failed to make the argument clearly; I lost a handle on it and so I can barely recognize your post as a reply to my post. I do not believe that the analogy I gave can be extrapolated beyond what I specifically mentioned and still remain accurate. In other words, I think you're looking too deep into the analogy. I only used it to link the idea of natural laws governing a familiar concept (flow of water) to a not so familiar concept (flow of wealth).

I believe that you have yet to recognize the distinction I made between the tendency for certain events to occur via natural laws and what actually happens as a result of the behavior of animals. In effect, I am saying “wealth tends to equilibrate among individuals”, not “wealth is actually equilibrating among individuals”. It’s like saying that the sun tends to send light to the earth, one may choose to go inside a bunker with no windows and thus receive no sunlight, however, this does not change the fact that the sunlight tends to reach the earth.

I guess part of the reason why recognizing this distinction is difficult is because it appears to leave a rather pointless argument. You may think, “So what? What does wealth tending to equilibrate matter when it’s not actually equilibrating?” Well the reason I am making a seemingly pointless argument is to provide a different lens for viewing the unequal distribution of wealth; to possibly change the form of discourse regarding this issue. So to me, it is the unequal distribution of wealth that is unnatural, unpractical and idealistic thinking that will eventually fail since it will leave the vast majority of world in perpetual poverty.

Also, let me just comment that Muslims do not define Islam; even if 99% of the 1.4 billion "Muslims" in the world were terrorists and killed all non-Muslims, this still would not define Islam. The meaning of what it means to be a Muslim is defined in the Quran. Regardless of what any Muslim does around the world, this is in no way to be a judgment of Islam if their actions run counter to Quranic teachings. So in response to your question:

Quote
why do some Moslems have huge houses and drive expensive cars while others have next to nothing?

The simple answer is that they are not Muslims. When the KKK went out in the name of Christianity and brutally lynched and terrorized the black population in the US, should I use that as a judgment of Christianity even though I am sure that their actions are spoken against in the Bible? So when a suicide bomber, the infamous “jihadist", goes out and blows himself up to kill innocent civilians in “the name of Allah” (disgusting), what right does anyone have of judging Islam based on the actions of these people?

Incidentally, the word “jihad” is seldom used in the Quran, and probably only once or twice for military reasons. Every use of the word refers to struggle in the cause of Islam which almost always means to help your fellow human being.

Muslims aren’t an alien species; they are merely human beings who have accepted the Quran as Guidance from a Supreme Being. The fact that the Islamic State is not firmly implemented on earth is not a failing on its part, but rather a failing of humans. Are you willing to spend of your wealth, life and security for your fellow humans? It is not an easy undertaking, but for anyone who has read any shred of accurate history between the Greco-Roman Era and the Era around the 1300's (which is mysteriously missing from Western history textbooks), you will find that not only was such a system implemented, but it worked phenomenally well.

P.S. Please don't ask "if this system is so great then why did it fail" because although I can provide an answer to this question, it would take too long for my liking and would go off topic. You can either trust me that there was a good reason or find out for your self at www.ourbeacon.com.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 17:15:48 by namaan »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8646
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #23 on: 25/03/2007 17:05:09 »
I still don't think that the idea that wealth should spread itself evenly is valid.
Things don't do that, they go to the place where the engery is lowest. If I knock over a bowl of sugar it falls to the floor, it doesn't distribute itself evenly through the whole volume of the room. I suspect that wealth too tends to congregate in a limited number of places. That is why many religions and many governmental systems support the idea of redistribution of wealth. Christianity did it by tything, Islam too says that you should contribute to the community and most governments have some form of welfare state. If wealth naturally spread out, none of these would be needed.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 17:09:36 by Bored chemist »
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #24 on: 25/03/2007 17:14:39 »
Hi Bored chemist,

Quote
Things don't do that, they go to the place where the energy is lowest.

Replace "place where the energy is lowest" with "the lowest societal level" and you will notice that this is exactly what I am arguing.

Quote
I suspect that wealth too tends to congregate in a limited number of places. That is why many religions and many governmental systems support the idea of redistribution of wealth. Christianity did it by tything, Islam too says that you should contribute to the community and most governments have some form of welfare state. If wealth naturally spread out, none of these would be needed.

I agree, but I never said that wealth is going to equlibrate to infinity. I just said that it tends to equilibrate (presumably as opposed to some non-equilibrated state).

The point of all this is to be able to say that the unequal distribution of wealth around the world is unnatural, unpractical and idealistic. And further more any system that supports the natural tendency for wealth to equilibrate (such as the Islamic commandment to return all excess profits to the central government for redistribution to the poor), will be sustainable in the long term.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2007 17:19:32 by namaan »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Systems, Equilibrium and Wealth
« Reply #24 on: 25/03/2007 17:14:39 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums