I think the disagreements between Douglas and Howard are more profound and fundamental than it appeared by the end of the conversation. I think Douglas failed to press his point forcefully out of politeness or friendly affection. But I think such politeness is counterproductive in making a case for a radical change. Without meaning to be disrespectful to Howard, I would like to say that is dangerously wrong. He kind of action he is proposing is very apoltical and hinges on individual conscience and altruism. While those are extremely noble qualities to practice, any substantial improvement in the material and spiritual condition of humanity would require structural change – complete dismantling of capitalist ideology and institutions. Capitalism may have brought many benifits to humans, but they were merely by products. Capitalism by definition serves capital first and all else later. As long as we call it capitalism, the dominance of capital over all else, including human being would persist. So, let’s come up with a different name… socialism, communism, humanism, whatever. Let’s come up with a system in which capital function merely as an instrument for promoting other grander goal – family, happiness, community, nation, humanity, etc. Let’s reject the system in which we serve merely as instruments for increasing capital. There is no possibility of human freedom under capitalism.

I agree with Kabir that Howard did not argue his case very well, and that this idea that individuals within the system will humanize or change it. The problem is that the system dehumanizes those who participate in it (which I think is a central argument in Life, Inc.). Also, I don’t agree that capitalism is the best system that nature created– human choices created it and there are plenty of examples of historical cultures that were sustainable, healthy and advanced. Western culture is cannibalistic and opportunistic which has perpetrated the worse holocausts in human history, in particular against women. I tend to agree with Leonard Shlain that literacy has made us a little schizophrenic, and that the abstractions of debt that current finance deploys is the left brain gone amok. I’m not against literacy or writing, but I do think the answer, aside from political organizing, is to encourage alternative cultural modes that celebrate creativity, connection and love (music, art, celebration, communion). I don’t know what would motivate Monsanto to decommission itself or de-alienate its world outlook, but I doubt someone from the inside will “fight like hell” to change its view of the world.

BTW, what was that really nice ambient music at the end of the show?

I do, too. I tried to give him every chance, but Howard always digresses into his old stories about John Cougar and Prince. When he’s in a bad mood, it’s Pakistan and nuclear submarines.

I do think there is a case to be made for what he is saying in his book – I just couldn’t get him to make it. I tried making it for him: that we have already wrecked the planet with chemicals and that the only way out is more chemicals, better chemicals – not a reversal to organic farming. Or that capitalism does require growth, but that we can get off the planet and keep growing – that we must do so in order to thrive and expand like any species (say ants) that find new nesting grounds.

But he just wouldn’t talk too much about the economics or underlying assumptions that I wanted to engage with. I have to admit that I often take the other side, myself – not so much in discussions with people, but in discussions with myself late at night when I question my own resolve and perspective. So I really do believe there’s a discussion to be had.

Wow, Douglas, I really appreciate your candidness about the potential for discussion. Haven’t heard the show yet and only know some of your positions, but I tend to think that looking at the perversions of American society are phenomenological of complex roots including extreme individualism (possibly produced because of our need for early colonial self-reliance) that only interacts with capitalism detrimentally to produce selfishness and narcissism, etc. In other words, capitalism wouldn’t necessarily be the problem, but is just one of many post-modern scapegoats, which people ought to be more self-aware about generating. I tend to be sympathetic to Howard’s views in how they generally cut deep to complicated roots for humanity. And as I said, I haven’t heard the show yet, but hearing a debater acknowledge that the other side may have an argument, no matter how tentative or limited, is intellectually light years ahead than most people are capable of. Kudos, hats off to you sir, and look forward to listening to your debate now.

Incidentally, to the gentleman above, humans are produced by nature, i.e. human choices are produced by nature, i.e. capitalism is natural. I only make special comment because I personally dislike this fallacy. It supposes that people have made a rational separation from our animal roots and that we are now consciously in control. Indeed, ideology is not conscious nor rationally-controlled or else people would be able to resolve our deep barriers of assumptions or better question them. Rather, people operate as great cultural experiments, holding one ideology or another to adhere to one group or another, amounting to one natural experiment or another.

I tuned Bloom out as soon as he made the silly error of thinking that, because average life expectancies were so much lower in the middle ages, people were just dropping dead at age 35. Wrong, wrong. Take away infant mortality and the average life was more like 60 to 70 years. Your 18 year old today only has a slightly longer life expectancy than your medieval 18 year old.

Please repost a download link for this.