A Small Collection of Short Essays
Table of Contents
On Advertising and Aggressive Marketing
The Case Against Television Advertising
If Advertising Runs Its Course
Its Relation to Competitionism
Suggested Policy for Gradual Reform
Purchases of useless or harmful articles
On the Purchase of Useless or Harmful Objects
I shall restrict my indictment to advertising on television except to note that junk mail is a fairly serious social evil for all the obvious reasons and the same is true of any advertising that is false or deceptive or that encourages excess consumption and the concomitant waste of natural resources. Newspaper and magazine ads are less annoying than television ads, except for the advertising of items with astronomical prices in magazines like The New Yorker that are read by people who will never be able to afford these items and, more importantly, people who don’t think anyone should be able to afford these items, which, if they are as good as advertised, should be in museums, but they suffer from all of the other evils of advertising. Print advertising consumes enormous quantities of biomass (paper) and other resources; it seduces many talented people from the fine arts; and it promotes consumerism in a scarcity situation. It is probably just as deceptive as television advertising, but I haven’t studied it. Perhaps, someday I will.
Television advertising is guilty of a host of sins: It is the opposite of free speech; it is purchased speech. It insults our intelligence. It is unaesthetic – even obscene. It assumes uniformity of taste at the lowest level. It perverts the taste of the simpleminded and the unwary. It attempts to sell us something in the inviolable space of our own homes. It results in purchases that are useless, wasteful, and generally harmful. It increases the cost of products by at least the cost of advertising with its inflated salaries and fees. It exploits women and sex in general. It encourages fallacious reasoning, tells lies, and encourages dishonesty in others, especially children. It pays high wages to parasites. It mixes commerce improperly with serious human endeavor thus cheapening that which formerly was noble, cf., science. It reduces our concentration span while wasting our time. It encourages overspending, conspicuous consumption, envy, crime, and competitionism. Also, it has monopolistic tendencies because the cash-rich companies can afford massive media blitzes to consolidate their holds on particular market niches. This is taking place in the beer business. Incidentally, television advertising is often used by capitalists to convert power to fame as the owner of Wendy’s junk-food restaurants has done.
In a natural economy one could consult a data base that listed every product and service with accurate descriptions to facilitate picking out those which fulfill one’s requirements. The evils of advertising can be avoided by making such a data base available to everyone. Actually, this is all that stands between us and the elimination of retailing! In the movie Bananas, Woody Allen ridiculed a machine that could measure a person for clothes optically and send that data directly to the manufacturing process, which would then return perfectly fitting clothing. This technology can be made to work properly and could be enhanced with appropriate computer simulation software that would permit the consumer to see himself modeling his proposed addition to his wardrobe. I believe it has already been done for swimsuits. It costs much less energy to move a suit of clothing to a consumer than to shuttle the consumer back and forth to stores and tailors. Probably, a clothing manufactory could be part of even the smallest communities without compromising economy of scale. I don’t know if the same conclusion applies to textile manufacture.
Since trade secrets wouldn’t exist, quality would be nearly uniform and the fundamental concern (after the concern to consume as little emergy as possible) would be ease of availability, which in many cases would turn out to be proximity and nothing more. But, because of competition, trade secrets do exist and each enterprise depends crucially upon people selecting its products or services over those of its competitors and, in addition, consuming as much of its products or services as they can be induced to consume. The managers of the enterprise or their toadies inevitably tell terrible lies and employ every conceivable trick and deception to achieve this wicked goal. The situation would be even worse if it were not for the role played by government to limit the extent of cheating by relatively severe policing. This results in all sorts of expensive government bureaus and an undesirable sort of socialism. However, if one has capitalism, one must have socialism as well to curtail dishonest practices as much as possible. A look at my essay “On Television” in the first collection of my essays shows with how little success these socialistic efforts are met.
Clearly, advertising, with its attendant increase in the cost to the consumer, the concomitant excess consumption, and its other negative characteristics (interrupting TV shows and increasing the weight of magazines and newspapers, besides proliferating ugliness in its most tasteless manifestations] is caused directly by competitionism itself; so, we will classify it as a primary evil. What gets me is the self-confidence of the parasites who are engaged in advertising as a business. They seem to have no idea how loathsome they are. I’m thinking of the couple in the movie Kramer Versus Kramer. How can I enjoy the movie when the two principqal characters make me sick!
Lately, a new outrage is being perpetrated upon the American (world?) consumer. Formerly, advertisers lied only about their products and those of their competitors. Recently, a new trend (at least I have just begun to notice it) has begun. Advertisers are offering incorrect philosophical positions to the world. Gatorade, a sports drink, which replaces vital body minerals lost during active sports, is saying “Life is a sport.” This is even acted out as though it were the wisdom of the East. As discussed in this essay, if life were a sport, it would be a game as well. (Is there a sport that is not a game?) But, it would be an improper game. In particular, the score is not tied at the start of play and not all participants start at the same time. Life cannot be a sport – at least it ought not to be a sport. It is very bad philosophy to say that life is a sport without further disclaimers as to its intrinsic unfairness. It strikes me that an unfair sport is not very sporting.
Advertising involves falsity almost by definition and geophagy because it encourages consumption. It is a very great evil. We might begin by limiting the advertising on TV to 10 minutes per hour and reduce it from there. This would be included in our plans for delegislation.
Agressive marketing shares all the faults of advertising and, indeed, contains it as a subclass. In addition, I wish to comment on the reprehensible practice of telemarketing. By the time this is published, perhaps, telemarketing will be illegal or fruitless because of Caller ID technology. I quote from my essay on computers:
[T]housands of telemarketers and telephone surveyists are tampering with the minds of humans by calling them on their private phones and attempting to sell them something or extract information from them, whether it's in their best interests or not, i.e., without considering their interests, and possibly interrupting important activities, which might be sleep, bathing, eating, recuperating from an illness, or even having sex! I think it is indicative of the relative importance that we place on computers and human beings that tampering with a computer's “mind” is regarded as a crime and tampering with a human mind is regarded as a legitimate activity. (Clearly, I don't want my files purged by a hacker, but I don't need someone waking me up to find out whether I favor more airports or more highways, since I favor neither and many respondents will imagine, falsely, that they must favor one or the other.)
Of course, many marketing schemes are plain fraudulent and we can dismiss them from our discussion for now.
Most television advertising is deceptive. I made extensive notes over a relatively short period. Regrettably, many of my readers will not remember these ads, but an hour spent watching a commercial channel should be ample time to produce one’s own list. The following list is an attempt to cover some of the less obvious forms of falsity. Chapter 8 of On the Preservation of Species and my essay on television provide additional examples.
Excedrin. This is supposed to be a headache remedy. Its a painkiller, however it contains the powerful drug caffeine, which is not mentioned in the ad undoubtedly because the marketer knows that many consumers are trying to avoid caffeine. Now, many headaches are caused by withdrawal from caffeine (that’s one of the drawbacks of the drug), so it will ameliorate those headaches. In addition, the additional physiological energy catalyzied by caffeine will help the borderline tension headache victim to overcome tension that he can’t control because of fatigue, but the side effects are undesirable and, in the case of caffeine-withdrawal headaches, the symptoms are merely postponed. Finally, why not have a cup of coffee and an aspirin and reduce one’s medical expenses. Clearly, it is deceptive not to mention the caffeine and to withhold the information provided here by me.
Budweiser. “Nothing beats a ‘Bud’ .” This is hyperbole. Everyone knows that lasting peace and prosperity beats a Bud, but what’s wrong with excessive use of hyperbole in advertising? The point is that Budweiser is not even a particularly good beer. (You will not see beer listed as a social evil by me.) Routine falsehoods don’t fool many people, but they set a bad example for children and child-like adults, who will incorporate similar exaggerations in their everyday communication. After all, they do it on TV and no one minds, so it’s OK? Right? Wrong, as we all know.
Midas. “Nobody beats Midas. Nobody.” I very much doubt. I had a muffler and tailpipe replaced by Midas and the tailpipe rusted with unfortunate cosmetic consequences within a week or so. Definitely cheap steel.
Pizza Hut. Giving away toys for children but for a limited time only thus preying on common childhood fears.
Army. “Be all you can be.” But, no warning, as on a cigaret pack, that this might be hazardous to your health. What is common knowledge is not a good excuse.
Classical music advertised on a Turner station. None of the selections is complete, therefore they are not selling the compositions they claim to be selling but rather abortions, which, by the way, is not permitted by the rules of good taste and decency. In addition, they plays parts of pieces in their ads as well. This is reminiscent of payola, which was taken to be illegal when it first arose. (The radio station plays pieces it is paid to pay on the principle that the benighted listener will grow to like anything if he hears it enough. The criminal is relying on the “catchiness” of the melody.)
MONY. This insurance company ran an ad that implied that having life insurance in and of itself can enhance the quality of life, which is not true. One requires, in addition, a mind that is susceptible to delusions.
Ads that promise cash back when one purchases an automobile on credit provide an incentive to go into debt, which may be catastrophic for anyone who is swayed by the easy access to cash but neglects the difficulty of making the payments. Many ads offer a number of articles free if you buy the featured article. What actually is occurring is that they are selling more junk than they say they are selling.
I can think of only one ad that is true, namely, the ad for Metamucil, which leads to the question of taste.
The colors in the Metamucil ad are harsh and discordant. This is the case in many cheaply made ads. The content is painful to the observer and listener on other aesthetic grounds as well. This is in contrast to some ads whose images are of exceptional and striking beauty, but which are invariably false. Fifty years ago my own father pointed out to me the large number of pleasant images used to sell products that are likely to harm the consumer, e.g., the two dogs in a whiskey ad. Obviously, this is not a new phenomenon. But, it is the many ads that are offensive to the eye, ear, and intellect that I wish to point out here. The reader can easily compile a list of his own. (I do not complain about the ads that border on pornography. Whereas I realize that the producers of such ads are not completely innocent, I enjoy the indignation of the prudes – whether real of feigned.)
Suppose for a moment that we are engrossed in a panel discussion concerning a life-or-death social issue. A participant is about to make a salient point, this in itself an extraordinary event for television. At that moment, the moderator announces the precedence of the obligatory commercial break. We change channels instantly to avoid the agony of hearing or even seeing the commercial regardless of its cost to the consumer. When we return, the point has been made, disputed, and dropped in favor of fresh material of little or no relevance. What an incredible nuisance!
We have 45 seconds to play in the seventh and deciding game in the series of basketball games between the two finalists that will determine the champion. We are subjected to not five, six, or seven, but ten commercials before the game ends. Next year I’ll read about it in the newspaper. It’s not worth watching on TV.
I like to think that a special fate awaits the manager of the television station who increases the rate of commercial interuption asymptotically as the movie draws to a close. Will we ever see the ending? In any case, I won’t – not on that station – not now, not ever.
This list could fill volumes, but what’s the point in belaboring what everyone knows. The thing that I don’t understand is why some people watch the commercials even though they are holding the “remote”.
The most significant evil inherent in advertising, and, indeed, in every aspect of commerce and capitalism, is the tendency to cause unnecessary and, in many cases, obscenely excessive consumption – particularly of our high-grade energy reservoirs, e.g., petroleum. This is unconscionable and may well result in the extinction of nearly every species of plant and animal on earth. I have discussed this abundantly and it is my strongest point.
Advertising is becoming more and more insidious and dishonest. It is perverting the minds, tastes, and lives of whole generations around the globe. It has played an important role in forcing would-be communist governments to dabble in the evil and dangerous market systems. This is the road to catastophes of horrifying proportions. Like the man said, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” How about nine billion people starving to death over a short period of time if market systems and excessive consumption are not abandoned by a human race that has undergone a profound spiritual awakening. I believe the proof of this in my book [%] should convince any reasonable person – except those who practice the technique of “belief by tenacity” as discussed by Peirce [%].
It is difficult to imagine competitionism without advertising. Advertising is extremely effective in achieving the goals of the perverted minds that engage in commerce and the money game. Corrupt scientists are continually developing new and more insidious means of seducing consumers with their hypnotic messages full of promises that will never be kept and around which entire lives are informed with shallow and worthless goals. If a seeker of wealth and power eschews advertising, he will be supplanted quickly by a more demonic competitor.
Omitted as of 6-1-96.
Omitted as of 6-1-96.
Conspicuous consumption is an attempt to gain prestige by spending exhorbitantly under highly visible circumstances. One flaunts one's wealth because competitionism teaches that those who are able to acquire the most wealth are the winners in a game everyone should– and must – play. The perpetrator, or rather the victim, supposes that the more he is seen spending, the greater the likelihood that people will assume that he is winning the game. Often this is not a good assumption and, instead, the conspicuous consumer is on the road to poverty. Even if highly visible spending doesn't destroy the spender, it certainly permits him to entertain a false picture of himself while inciting envy among his friends and neighbors, hardly a desirable state of affairs. Often, the purchases contribute only marginally to the spender's well-being and constitute a waste of resources if they don't actually end up on the scrap heap.
The argument that conspicuous spending or “keeping up with the Joneses” is good for the economy won't wash because, as pointed out previously, the success of a rational economy can be measured by the benefits to humanity divided by the costs in human effort and the deterioration of the environment. We should be trying to consume less, not more. The consumption of material wealth that does not bring us genuine benefits, as opposed to imaginary benefits, is harmful. The final tragedy is that the conspicuous consumer is only making a fool of himself in the view of any intelligent person and often all he is getting for his money is scorn and pity.
We can put a damper on conspicuous consumption by ridiculing it in our works of art and our popular entertainment. We could prohibit certain forms of advertising, eventually all TV advertising, as I shall discuss below, and boycott manufacturers and merchants who cater to conspicuous consumption. For example, I have no objection to the Rolls-Royce automobile – in a public museum or public driving park, but it would be helpful if people would avoid purchasing expensive automobiles (eventually all automobiles) – even if they can afford them. Whatever else you may think of Nelson Rockefeller he certainly did not flaunt his wealth publicly. If the owner of a business you patronize drives a Mercedes 300SL, simply take your business elsewhere.
Again, when the acquisition of wealth is viewed as the scoring of points in a game, many people purchase useless or harmful articles as discussed above. The result is that natural resources are wasted, human effort is wasted, the efforts to earn the money that is spent is wasted, and whatever harm is done by the purchased object accrues unto the sum total of misery in the world. Consumer activism and conspicuous expressions of disapproval might help.
Cronyism is practiced to secure an advantage in business, thus it would disappear if competitionism were abandoned. It is a violation of the Freedom Axiom and the Truth Axiom (because unfair competition is passed off as fairer than it actually is due to the collusion of cronies).
The established institutions have degenerated into clubs. We are not talking about legitimate clubs that people join to participate in a hobby or sport. “Club” in this context is a euphemism for “gang”. Recently, Ed Vetter, the chairman of the board of the Texas Department of Commerce, stated, “The world of commerce is a tightly knit club.” Although he didn't intend it as such, this is a serious indictment. Non-members do not have an equal opportunity to participate in “the game”.
Science has become a club or rather a collection of small clubs, one for each research area. Members of the colloid chemistry club have an advantage in getting funding and in publishing papers over non-members. Many publications, although posing as public forums for interchange of ideas, are really tightly knit clubs whose members are the editorial staff and their favorite writers.
The competition-for-wealth aspect of materialism leads to clubs, or conspiracies, which are a subcategory of clubs, because of of the natural advantages of cooperation and because there is strength in numbers. In order to show that economic conspiracies are unfair we may employ the concepts of proper and improper game discussed in my book.. Competition for wealth is clarly an improper game the rules of which are hidden. Players can enter into hidden or open conspiracies without the knowledge or permission of other players. If it is in their interests to do so, nothing can stop them. It is easy to show this is immoral because such conspiracies presumably give the conspirators advantages over nonconspirators and because it is a violation of the rules of fair play. Such advantages are immoral according to standard game rules even if differences in wealth were permitted on the basis of merit, which, according to Corollary 3, they are not. Clubs lead to all of the harmful effects that normally result from gradients in wealth, power, or prestige. Also, they are demoralizing to people who believe in fair play. They are unacceptable in a civilized society, i.e., a society where justice prevails. Economic conspiracies could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the most successful club, a situation that would be self-defeating since all the "losers" would change the rules and go into open rebellion. Actually, there are already laws on the books that prohibit certain types of clublike behavior, e.g., insider trading. Price fixing by trade groups is prohibited. These laws should be enforced, even though, eventually, we will wish to dispense with laws eventually.
Most people are outraged when they learn of the types of conspiracies mentioned above. They should make their indignation known and felt. A great deal can be done by individual institutions, such as technical journals, government funding agencies, etc., to prevent clubs or conspiracies from forming. For example, all government funding agencies should pick reviewers at random from the class of qualified reviewers and the proposals should be "blind", that is, give no clue as to the identity of the person seeking funds. This is the type of first step I would recommend in a materialistic society to eliminate cronyism in science, for example. Other methods should be applied where appropriate to discourage “ganging up”. (I am beginning to suspect that all organizations are bad. Two’s company; three is a conspiracy, but this incipient hypothesis should be developed elsewhere.)
The established institutions have degenerated into clubs. We are not talking about legitimate clubs that people join to participate in a hobby or sport. "Club" in this context is a euphemism for "gang". Recently, Ed Vetter, the chairman of the board of the Texas Department of Commerce, stated, "The world of commerce is a tightly knit club." Although he didn't intend it as such, this is a serious indictment. Non-members do not have an equal opportunity to participate in commerce. Science has become a club or rather a collection of small clubs, one for each research area. Members of the colloid chemistry club have an advantage in getting funding and in publishing papers over non-members. Many publications, although posing as public forums for interchange of ideas, are really tightly knit clubs whose members are the editorial staff and their favorite writers.
The competition-for-wealth aspect of materialism leads to clubs, or conspiracies, which are a subcategory of clubs, because of of the natural advantages of cooperation and because there is strength in numbers. In order to show that economic conspiracies are unfair it is necessary to discuss generic game rules. In a fair game each team should have the same number of players; the rules of the game should be stated in advance, should be the same for all participants, and should not be changed during the playing of the game unless agreed upon by all participants; both teams should start at the same time; and so on.
Baseball is a game the rules of which are known. Each team has the same number of players (9 or 10 active players, 24-, 25-, or 27-man roster). Competition for wealth is a game the rules of which are hidden. Players can enter into hidden or open conspiracies without the knowledge or permission of other players. If it is in their interests to do so, nothing can stop them. It is easy to show this is immoral because such conspiracies presumably give the conspirators advantages over nonconspirators and because it is a violation of the rules of fair play. Such advantages are immoral according to standard game rules even if differences in wealth were permitted on the basis of merit, which, according to Corollary 3, they are not. Clubs lead to all of the harmful effects that normally result from gradients in wealth, power, or prestige. Also, they are demoralizing to people who believe in fair play. They are unacceptable in a civilized society, i.e., a society where justice prevails. Economic conspiracies could lead to a concentration of power in the hands of the most successful club, a situation that would be self-defeating since all the "losers" would change the rules and go into open rebellion. Actually, there are already laws on the books that prohibit certain types of clublike behavior, e.g., insider trading. Price fixing by trade groups is prohibited. These laws should be enforced, even though, eventually, we will be able to make use of the principle that fewer laws would be even better. Most people are outraged when they learn of the types of conspiracies mentioned above. They should make their indignation known and felt. A great deal can be done by individual institutions, such as technical journals, government funding agencies, etc., to prevent clubs or conspiracies from forming. For example, all government funding agencies should pick reviewers at random from the class of qualified reviewers and the proposals should be "blind", that is, give no clue as to the identity of the person seeking funds. This is the type of first step I would recommend in a competitionistic society.
Cruelty to animals is not new. It is, however, a basic violation of Axiom 2, the Environmental Axiom; therefore, in this philosophy, it is immoral. Cruelty to animals takes many forms. Only the use of animals to test cosmetics can be linked directly to competitionism. Presumably, in a natural economy, the enormous vanity-driven cosmetics and “beauty” industry would not exist. It is not an interesting endeavor and the incentive to make women, in particular, think they ought to look a certain way would be absent. Cruelty to animals is practiced, in addition, by medical scientists, food producers, hunters and, especially, trappers, and, as far as we can see, by some pet stores, presumably because of the exigencies of competition and for no other reason.
Again, when the acquisition of wealth is viewed as the scoring of points in a game, many people purchase useless or harmful articles as discussed above. The result is that natural resources are wasted, human effort is wasted, the efforts to earn the money that is spent is wasted, and whatever harm is done by the purchased object accrues unto the sum total of misery in the world. Consumer activism and conspicuous expressions of disapproval might help.
Simply stated, the object of the materialist is to get as much money as possible, regardless of what he has to do to get it. Arguments that people are restrained by a code of morals in their pursuit of wealth do not seem to be corroborated by observations of reality. It has been said that a man with a wife and children will do anything. But, the evil done by the ordinary wage-earner, which is typically done only as an accessory after the fact, is dwarfed by the deeds of those who are really on the make. Let us neglect temporarily the crimes against society perpetrated by advertising people, the purveyors of popular entertainment, designers of school curricula, and like, who could carry out the detructive, anti-social acts by means of which they earn their living without violating any law. Let us take a look at the laws that are broken by people in search of material wealth.
The common thief, who may have no other recourse to wealth than theft because of lack of education or denial membership in one of the little social clubs, such as the realestate development club, that facilitates the earning of money by its members, nevertheless, causes a great deal of suffering in the homes of the ordinary people upon whom he preys regardless of what they themselves have done to accumulate the material ggods he relieves them of. If he is very unhappy, the thief may exercise his propensities for violence upon the unlucky members of the household he invades. If money were abolished, his excuse for this kind of activity would vanish. As it is, he imagines that he is just evening the score in his own humble way.
The big-time corporate thief, the Wall-Street crook, the con man, the mail-fraud expert, the purveyor of damaged goods, the industrial spy, the seller of useless gadgets and trinkets, e.g., home shopping networks, the professional liar, e.g., the typical car salesman, the corrupt politician, the bureaucrat who takes bribes, all of these and many others belong to an entirely different class of scoundrels. Most of these people haven't a chance to see the inside of a jail. As suggested in the Introduction to Dematerialism, I recommend busting these white-collar criminals down to minimum wage, for life or until we are convinced they are rehabilitated. Frankly, I will not be convinced that anyone is rehabilitated until dematerialism is the prevailing economic philosophy.
It is of interest to ask what sort of crime one might encounter in a society that no longer employs money as a medium of exchange. Let us suppose that we shall continue to see some crimes of passion, usually committed by a lover against one who is loved, although, as we shall see, jealousy itself requires an unnatural social context to exist. At least these crimes of passion will not occur at the terminus of a quarrel over money. Also, since racism requires economic differentials to sustain it, we should see a diminution of crimes arising from race hatred. I believe we shall have fewer crimes due to what used to be called mental illness. If society recognizes that it must adapt to variation in individuals rather than forcing all types to fit the same mold, we ought to see fewer people "going nuts". Clearly the bulk of the so-called senseless crimes committed by madmen are remarkable only by their sparsity under today's frustrating social system with which very few can be said to be able to cope without being turned into automatons.
This leaves us with crimes of greed. For the most part greed can be traced to fear, in one case, the fear of not having enough of the necessities of life, and, in the second case, the fear of individual inadequacy, sometimes the fear of sexual inadequacy or unattractiveness, that drives people compulsively toward materialistic success. The former is eliminated automatically by isopluty, while the second can no longer be assuaged by hoarding, since, if it were discovered, it would lead only to the contempt of one's fellow man. Let us imagine, though, a group of red-blooded, individualistic mavericks who have decided to betray the trust of their fellow man, who is not watching to see how much wealth people have accumulated in the privacy of their homes. These dissidents, then, compete with each other to see who can hoard the most and gloat over their successes in flouting the system. Well, now, this is pretty tame sport for the rugged individualist, a little like shooting fish in a barrel, since, until a national shortage of fishing equipment develops, the rest of us will not even notice a difference, nor will we do anything to correct it. The one thing our atavistic hero cannot do, however, is find more space to store his hoard, as real estate is something that will be accounted for by one or more central, private, scientific, nonmaterialistic institutes, so, untimately the privateer will be up to his tailbone in fishing reels and the game will end, probably with a generous impulse to distribute themn among his friends. Just as you can't cheat an honest man, you can't steal from a nonmaterialistic one; he'll give you the shirt off his back if you just look at it funny.
Materialism is the direct cause of poverty. The most pronounced feature of materialism is competition for wealth. When there are winners, there are bound to be losers. Trivially, if one's consumption of material wealth including services is independent of one's behavior, poverty cannot exist. If we prevent, by law, the important modes of acquiring wealth without producing any, at least during the transition to a nonmaterialistic society, we will make available a large pool of productive people who could not stand the stigma of doing nothing. We might begin by prohibiting the single most egregious mode of acquiring undeserved wealth, namely, the buying and selling of entire companies, or, rather, buying entire companies and selling the parts.
Epidemic disease is caused, in part, by the cost of health care, poverty, and the necessity of people to gather together in places of employment, instruction, or worship, because of the necessity of making money, the lack of individuality in instruction, which makes it so costly to fall behind one's class, which could, in turn, result in a worse job with less pay, and superstitious devotion to a deity who demands propitiation. Until health care is free and plentiful, we need a national health-care program operated by a number of private institutions and paid for, regretably, by taxes. We might also make inroads into the shortage of doctors by curtailing those activities of the American Medical Association the sole purpose of which is to limit access to the medical profession. We must likewise prohibit the cruel hazing practices, such as making interns work 30+ hour shifts, that are designed to make it difficult to become a doctor. I, personally, would rather be operated on by a person who was motivated by a regard for human life who got a B in organic chemistry than by a person who is using the medical profession to get rich but who got an A. Also, we can limit awards in cases of malpractice and permit them to be adjudicated rapidly and cheaply by another private, and dedicated, institute. This institute, or another, could then administer the malpractice insurance fees, which would be administered in congruence with the certification and recertification of physicians. Medicine-for-profit should be phased out.
Lately, we have experienced the catastrophic spread of AIDS. This has resulted from the promulgation of sexual and pharmacological prudery in our churches, schools, and elsewhere, which itself is a by-product of the attempt to control society by religion, which was necessary to maintain a materialistic economic system and to retain the power of the ruling class. As this is a main thesis of dematerialism it has been discussed at length earlier.
Now, those who wish to adjust their body chemistries instantly by injecting drugs into their bloodstreams would not choose to share needles if needles were cheaply available in bulk at the corner drugstore as they should be. They do not need to be educated. Homosexuals, who are almost certainly more intelligent than the population at large, also do not need to be informed about the risks of unprotected sex. The damage has already been done in that community by not spreading the word sufficiently fast and by causing a certain furtiveness in the behavior of inverts due to public dispproval, which results from a failure to educate the general public properly. For that matter, not enough has been done to provide special devices that could be used to facilitate the safe practice of whatever types of so-called deviant sex people may wish to explore.
Houston, Texas
Compiled May 31, 1996