Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 14:40:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Nicholas C. Arguimbau" <nicka@well.com>
To: "Van Zant, Peter J" <Peter.VanZant@PSS.Boeing.com>
cc: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK <ppn@csf.colorado.edu>
Subject: RE: Overconsumption vs Overpopulation?
In-Reply-To: <51792E5D4B6ED011B7DB00805FBE3836040EC0BF@xch-evt-06.ca.boeing.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.981119142841.284A-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Van Zant, Peter J wrote:

> 
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Nicholas C. Arguimbau[SMTP:nicka@well.com]
> > Sent: 	Thursday, November 19, 1998 9:26 AM
> > To: 	Van Zant, Peter J
> > Cc: 	PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK
> > Subject: 	RE: Overconsumption vs Overpopulation?
> > 
> > How about the profit motive with 100% taxes on estates?  That would give
> > everyone a "level playing field" at birth.  The problem with the profit
> > motive is that it requires less motive for more profit if you are
> > initially wealthy, and ultimately converts a democracy into a "one dollar,
> > one vote" society.
> > 
NA -
I'm not particularly happy about selfishness as a way of getting things
done, but agree that it may be a necessity.  However, how much
monetary profit will motivate Bill Gates' son or daughther to do a lick of
work, and where is the individual motivation in a global corporation, and 
how does the profit motive discourage overuse of the commons?
It's not that profit motivation is bad per se, but that it distorts
values, both individual and societal. 
> 
>