Confederation?

[Kitch]

You are right we didn't cut you off. Why the diatribe about 'business types'?

I apologize. You are right. It's not fair for me to generalize business types as the ones possessing the characteristics that I am berating.

As a teacher I would hope you encourage your students to question people who drop thoughts they consider to be 'a given', if they feel it isn't necessarily 'a given'. Not ridicule mind you, just fair and honest questions.

You are making a huge assumption that economic growth cannot be sustainable. Not all economic growth uses large amounts of natural resources. Look at all the wealth created by the high tech industry. Programming, microchips, etc. etc. Have all pumped tons of money into the North American economy in a pretty sustainable way.

Science (which I don't expect you to be familiar with... and I'm not criticising you for it) is all about questioning everything. Nothing is ever taken or accepted as a given. Read a scientific article (they're boring as hell though!) and you'll see how thoroughly things are explained. So, yes, I plan on encouraging this level of critical thinking.

No, not all economic growth is unsustainable. However, you are making the even larger assumption that it IS sustainable. Are high tech industries sustainable? I don't know. Perhaps some other endeavours are as well. An increasing human population is not though... in any respect. The more people, the more land needed to house them, to grow food for them, and even though it is POSSIBLE that a lot of our products could eventually be made from recycled materials (I don't see that happening to the point of sustainability for a lot of products, ever) there will be more products needed because of the increased population and thus, more natural resources needed (but, again, recycling and reusing materials COULD resolve this particular flavour of exploitation of resources).

The resulting reduction in biodiversity, as well as the air pollution we cause with our machines, are pretty serious problems. Since economic growth (along with our inconsiderate and ignorant view that human life is 'special') is a significant cause of these problems, it is bad for everyone.

As for the BMW. Well you chose your career, and had to know a BMW probly wasn't part of the equation.

It's got to do with the facts that your political viewpoints, which are far from the mainstream and hopefully outside of the curriculum you are paid to teach, should not be the basis for your teaching. Because you are being paid by tax payers and are thus a civil servant.

Have I made it a little clearer as to why I included that last line?

I could absolutely afford a BMW on my salary... eventually. I choose not to own one. I'll take the bus to try to help reduce air pollution.. and if I did decide to buy a car it would be hybrid or electric car (when they're made available again, or when I learn to convert a gasoline car on my own). Either way, I wouldn't buy a BMW because I could easily buy a car for a fraction of the price that serves the exact same purpose. I don't care to show off my 'wealth' since I don't include my account balance as a measure of my wealth.

After all, thank you, Michael for engaging in this conversation. You seem to have actually read what I've said and debated me with legitimate arguments, even though your views are very different from mine (and pretty narrow in my opinion, no offense intended, but I'm sure it will be received). Indeed, I am from the school of thought that life would be better without a monetary compensation system... meaning, the ideal society, to me, is Marxist. However, I totally understand how unlikely such a society is... because it would never work. I also understand, though, that an entirely free market, capitalist society is just as unlikely. What are the chances that all or even most businesses won't take advantage of their power? It happens now in Canada in our mixed market!

Anyway, that wasn't what I wanted to finish with here. I wanted to say thank YOU for the conversation since none of these other conservative clowns even attempted to take my words seriously. Perhaps my views are not the mainstream, but neither are yours! Most people don't even think about things that are discussed on this forum. There are many people who conservative and many who are socialist (as though those are antagonistic ideologies... or ideologies). So speaking of mainstream doesn't do you any good. Even more dangerous than my ideas (they're only dangerous to people who perceive them to threaten their ability to become stupid rich) are those who won't even allow themselves to think outside of their narrow understanding of the world.

Clearly, if anyone was intelligent enough to understand what I've said on teaching, they would have seen that my REASON for teaching is to produce critically thinking citizens who are exposed to many ideas and will know how to make up their own minds with regard to their political views. AGAIN, for the third time... I'll be a SCIENCE teacher, leading to probably no opportunity to talk about politics! You conservatives can relax and go jerk off your shot guns. I'll be happy to take your tax money and raise your kids for you since you'll only limit the scope of thought their minds are capable of comprehending.

[August1991]

I'd like to see us keep everything local... manufacturing (of things that we actually need rather than things companies want to sell us, that sometimes make our lives easier but simultaneous make us weaker and increasingly dependent on 'things' not essential to life). We can still maintain friendly relationships even though we're not governed by the same organisation. I mean, I like my neighbours, but we don't have to pool our money and pay for our expenses jointly. That's not to say that I don't want to share my money. I'd just much rather a society in which money isn't so important to individuals as well as society.

I disagree strongly.

I think that it's wonderful that we live in a world where we can co-operate with people on the other side of the planet - and if you will, scientifically speaking, I'll call our planet an "organization".

The broader one's opportunity to co-operate, the richer one is.

Money? Money is just mathematics applied to co-operation. Indeed, mathematics were created to foster co-operation.

I too see no true value in a united Canada. Being from Toronto, I suppose that's the expected stance. We are supposed to think of ourselves as the centre of the universe, after all. But since I'm no business buff (and 'anti-corporate'), I could care less about economic reasons for separating. However, I am fully on board when you say that we are a regionalised country with diverse interests. I would love to see each province (for example... I really don't know where the lines would best be drawn) become its own country.

I disagree here too.

I have often used this image as an accurate representation of North America. A society is in fact a complex nexus of connections - individuals united through various contracts with other individuals. Such is Canada.

Canadians wisely created a federal state and our federal government should ideally join us on issues of common concern, but no more. Our governments should provide links to join us when no other institution can achieve co-operation.

Edited August 13, 2007 by August1991

[M.Dancer]

Wow. The most ignorant thing I think I've ever heard. Ever hear of native Indians? African bush people? There are even people who live on the streets who are very happy with their lives. I wouldn't be, but they are. None of these people have a penny. Open your mind a bit bud. Your life isn't the only way to live.

You want to hear something really ignorant? First you will need a tape recorder......

Yes native indians are so darned happy they're suicide rate is through the roof....and the San are so darned happy they are virtualkly on the road to extinction ......

[M.Dancer]

There will always be a need for teachers. Especially if people like you reproduce. Who would be so stupid to think that life could exist without money!? It's been around for the entire history of the world, right?

Having a need for teachers and having the money to pay for them are two completely different things. Yes money has been around for quite awhile....but having ready money....money in everyone's pocket...that is rather new.

Perhaps if you were actually getting an education instead of claiming you have one, you might aleady know these basic facts.

[Borg]

You want to hear something really ignorant? First you will need a tape recorder......

Yes native indians are so darned happy they're suicide rate is through the roof....and the San are so darned happy they are virtualkly on the road to extinction ......

Wow - this guy Kitch needs to get out of TO and travel a bit.

Fortunately my kids are out of school - so they will not be subjected to this type.

Pray for the future if this is an example.

Borg

Edited August 13, 2007 by Borg

[Kitch]

You want to hear something really ignorant? First you will need a tape recorder......

Yes native indians are so darned happy they're suicide rate is through the roof....and the San are so darned happy they are virtualkly on the road to extinction ......

Don't bother commenting on the other groups I suggested... you'll have nothing to say about them I suppose. I was referring to the natives before Europeans came... it's kind of how native tribes who haven't been disturbed by us live. They're happy.. without money.

To all you other people talking trash about me being a teacher... and this M.Dancer clown, living at Bathurst and St. Clair (a pretty rich neighbourhood if I recall... indicative of your closed minded, elitist views if it is) talking about my education... well, I'll teach your kids well. They'll understand views like mine and yours and choose their own paths, whatever path that may be. And MY education, in molecular biology, has far more intrinsic value than any business degree.

VERY few of you have actually tried to refute my ideas. You've only tried to poke fun and ridicule. Could it be because you CAN'T??? Or don't know how?? Give it a go!

[M.Dancer]

. I was referring to the natives before Europeans came... it's kind of how native tribes who haven't been disturbed by us live. They're happy.. without money.

Happy, yes by God they were happy skinning and burning each other alive....happy to starve in winter.....happy campers......

To all you other people talking trash about me being a teacher... and this M.Dancer clown, living at Bathurst and St. Clair (a pretty rich neighbourhood if I recall... indicative of your closed minded, elitist views if it is) talking about my education... well, I'll teach your kids well. They'll understand views like mine and yours and choose their own paths, whatever path that may be. And MY education, in molecular biology, has far more intrinsic value than any business degree.

Sure it is. You come off so well educated......

VERY few of you have actually tried to refute my ideas. You've only tried to poke fun and ridicule. Could it be because you CAN'T??? Or don't know how?? Give it a go!

See? That what I mean. You're "ideas" were completely refuted, yet, because your hold on them is so vacuous, you can't begin to see how legless you are.

[Kitch]

Happy, yes by God they were happy skinning and burning each other alive....happy to starve in winter.....happy campers......

Sure it is. You come off so well educated......

See? That what I mean. You're "ideas" were completely refuted, yet, because your hold on them is so vacuous, you can't begin to see how legless you are.

For a look at how tightly I personally hold onto 'my' ideas, take a look in the morals and religion section of this site under the thread "why god". Another dude debated me very well and I conceded that I must re-evaluate my stance on the issue as a result of one of his examples. So your thoughts on the width with which my mind is open are unfounded and evidently incorrect.

How were my ideas refuted? One guy said that I made the assumption that economic growth was not sustainable. A valid point, which I replied to. All the rest of you have said is 'I hope you don't get the opportunity to discuss politics with your students...', and 'your views are self destructive since your salary will be ensured by economic growth', or something along those lines. So how have my thoughts been refuted? You haven't disproved what I've said. You've done little more than attempt to ridicule me (ad hominem... a common logical fallacy among conservatives).

So, my salary will be paid by tax payers. Let's assume that you are correct in that economic growth will benefit me with either higher pay or higher probability of getting/keeping a job. Well, that economic growth will have all the other consequences that I've spoken of... reduced biodiversity (which I'm positive you don't understand the significance of, or understand the concept at all), air pollution, cultural pollution (I haven't explicitly talked about this, but it includes our consumption of manufactured desires). I'll have a job, but these things will affect my life, and EVERYONE else's (all forms of life). Thus, economic growth (as we know it... which was part of the original statement) is bad for everyone.

You are going to question MY education while making such a ridiculous error? The idea that economic growth will benefit my occupation does NOT refute the idea that economic growth is (ultimately) bad for everyone. Perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary and learn what the word 'refute' actually means. You and others have DISPUTED me, but only one has attempted to refute. Your capacity for logical thinking as well as your vocabulary (and grammar... "Sure it is. You come off as so educated"... SHOULD read "Sure it has...") have failed you. Try again.

[Michael Bluth]

How were my ideas refuted? One guy said that I made the assumption that economic growth was not sustainable. A valid point, which I replied to. All the rest of you have said is 'I hope you don't get the opportunity to discuss politics with your students...', and 'your views are self destructive since your salary will be ensured by economic growth', or something along those lines. So how have my thoughts been refuted? You haven't disproved what I've said. You've done little more than attempt to ridicule me (ad hominem... a common logical fallacy among conservatives).

There have been some valid criticisms of your points and interesting questions asked in return.

But when you posted the following you lost all claim to the moral high ground. It was trolling plain and simple.

You conservatives can relax and go jerk off your shot guns. I'll be happy to take your tax money and raise your kids for you since you'll only limit the scope of thought their minds are capable of comprehending.

[Kitch]

Happy, yes by God they were happy skinning and burning each other alive....happy to starve in winter.....happy campers......

Your ignorance is blinding. Hahahahah burning each other alive!?!? How are we different from them in that respect? Assuming you're correct in your statement? How does this speak about their 'happiness' anyway?? Money would have prevented these things? I suppose under that logic, the natives here would be happy about their situation after we introduced our way of life to them... makes sense. Read something not found in the globe and mail, there's still hope for ya!

[Kitch]

There have been some valid criticisms of your points and interesting questions asked in return.

Yours only.

My other comment, while probably not my greatest move, was in response to the things others have said. I suppose I should be the 'better man' and not 'stoop to that level' huh? Ya well, I've yet to meet anyone here (other than yourself... and a few others that posted earlier in this thread) that can comprehend anything more sophisticated. I'm not shy from engaging in intellectually useful discussions or dimwitted battles of insults. I'll save the former for those able and willing though.

[M.Dancer]

(ad hominem... a common logical fallacy among conservatives).

I don't know what to say except had you said anything that remotely smacked of intelligence, you would get a better response. As it is your posts have been insult and nonsense filled. One could get more substance from reading the back of a cereal box.

Saying economic growth is bad for everyone without demonstrating it is just silly. Starting off your diatribes by saying you know nothing about business only underscores the fact that your posts are just gobshite. You apparently know bugger all about economics and history, but are willing to repeat what ever touchy feely slogans happen to pop in your brain.

Your best comeback is implying that my address is affluent and that somehow discredits me. Well so, your posts are some what impoverished....and does nothing for your credit score either....

[M.Dancer]

Your ignorance is blinding. Hahahahah burning each other alive!?!? How are we different from them in that respect? Assuming you're correct in your statement? How does this speak about their 'happiness' anyway?? Money would have prevented these things? I suppose under that logic, the natives here would be happy about their situation after we introduced our way of life to them... makes sense. Read something not found in the globe and mail, there's still hope for ya!

So you think maybe we have come some way since then? You think a little prosperity has lessoned the hardships? You think constant tribal warfare was recreational or because the competition for food and resources was critical?

Tell you what...compare the infant mortality rates of the San to any western nation and see if you can extrapolate which may be happier......

[Kitch]

So you think maybe we have come some way since then? You think a little prosperity has lessoned the hardships? You think constant tribal warfare was recreational or because the competition for food and resources was critical?

Tell you what...compare the infant mortality rates of the San to any western nation and see if you can extrapolate which may be happier......

Advances in medicine are POSSIBLE, maybe not likely in our current society, in the absence of an abundance of money. The profit motive does lead to a lot of it, but I'm sure there are people out there who do the work not for their own financial benefit. For example, the people that I worked with at the University of Toronto performing research on Alzheimer's while making little more than 30 000 annually... with PhD's!!! We're still at war as 'developed' nations. Little has changed there except for who the soldiers are, who decides what constitutes justification for war, and the sophistication of killing apparatuses.

[Kitch]

I don't know what to say except had you said anything that remotely smacked of intelligence, you would get a better response. As it is your posts have been insult and nonsense filled. One could get more substance from reading the back of a cereal box.

Saying economic growth is bad for everyone without demonstrating it is just silly. Starting off your diatribes by saying you know nothing about business only underscores the fact that your posts are just gobshite. You apparently know bugger all about economics and history, but are willing to repeat what ever touchy feely slogans happen to pop in your brain.

Your best comeback is implying that my address is affluent and that somehow discredits me. Well so, your posts are some what impoverished....and does nothing for your credit score either....

I responded to insults with insults. Call me childish.

I didn't demonstrate, as well as I can on an internet forum, that economic growth is bad for everyone? Did you read ANY of my posts? Take this from the very post that you're replying to here:

"Well, that economic growth will have all the other consequences that I've spoken of... reduced biodiversity (which I'm positive you don't understand the significance of, or understand the concept at all), air pollution, cultural pollution (I haven't explicitly talked about this, but it includes our consumption of manufactured desires)."

Demonstrated.

Your address doesn't discredit you... I never meant to attempt to say so... it would be a logical fallacy on my part to say so. What I did intend to show was that there is a reason for your views. People with money tend to like to keep it and get more of it and oppose anything that hinders their ability to do so... even if it is detrimental to other people and living beings. Your address is nothing more than a plausible reason for your views. But that's all a below the belt shot that has nothing to do with the topic... a topic which you have yet to even attempt to refute.

[NovaScotian]

So you think maybe we have come some way since then? You think a little prosperity has lessoned the hardships? You think constant tribal warfare was recreational or because the competition for food and resources was critical?

Tell you what...compare the infant mortality rates of the San to any western nation and see if you can extrapolate which may be happier......

We cannot judge the 'happiness' of a people eons ago based on our modern standards.

[M.Dancer]

We cannot judge the 'happiness' of a people eons ago based on our modern standards.

Why? Don't people feel in the same ways as they did 1000 or 2000 years ago. Would you think that siege and sack of Jerusalem in the 1st century and the preceding years of turmoil can't be understood by people today? Would highways lined with crucified prisoners not illicit the same emotions then as they do now?

Do you suppose that losing your child to a fever was any easier to bear 600 years ago than today?

Our standards for happiness haven't changed. Hunger, disease, war and death sucked then too....

[M.Dancer]

Advances in medicine are POSSIBLE, maybe not likely in our current society, in the absence of an abundance of money.

I can assume then you have no idea what the investment actually entails.

The profit motive does lead to a lot of it, but I'm sure there are people out there who do the work not for their own financial benefit. For example, the people that I worked with at the University of Toronto performing research on Alzheimer's while making little more than 30 000 annually... with PhD's!!!

Then maybe you should ask them what the operating budget of their department is. Give you a hint, it's a lot more than 30k. The equipment alone in a modern research lab at a pharma can approach the 10 of millions plus...plus plus for the giant pharmas.

We're still at war as 'developed' nations. Little has changed there except for who the soldiers are, who decides what constitutes justification for war, and the sophistication of killing apparatuses.

That and we don't creep into villages at night and dash the heads of children on the rocks in front of their parents......

[M.Dancer]

I responded to insults with insults. Call me childish.

I didn't demonstrate, as well as I can on an internet forum, that economic growth is bad for everyone? Did you read ANY of my posts? Take this from the very post that you're replying to here:

"Well, that economic growth will have all the other consequences that I've spoken of... reduced biodiversity (which I'm positive you don't understand the significance of, or understand the concept at all), air pollution, cultural pollution (I haven't explicitly talked about this, but it includes our consumption of manufactured desires)."

Demonstrated.

That is an unsupported statement, it is not a demonstration.

Want to see me refute it in the same way?

Economic growth does not have those consequences.

Your address doesn't discredit you... I never meant to attempt to say so... it would be a logical fallacy on my part to say so. What I did intend to show was that there is a reason for your views. People with money tend to like to keep it and get more of it and oppose anything that hinders their ability to do so... even if it is detrimental to other people and living beings. Your address is nothing more than a plausible reason for your views. But that's all a below the belt shot that has nothing to do with the topic... a topic which you have yet to even attempt to refute.

To all you other people talking trash about me being a teacher... and this M.Dancer clown, living at Bathurst and St. Clair (a pretty rich neighbourhood if I recall... indicative of your closed minded, elitist views if it is) talking about my education... well, I'll teach your kids well. They'll understand views like mine and yours and choose their own paths, whatever path that may be. And MY education, in molecular biology, has far more intrinsic value than any business degree.

Never let it be said I don't suffer fools glady. Not only do I suffer them, I humour them. Want here a joke?

[Michael Bluth]

And MY education, in molecular biology, has far more intrinsic value than any business degree.

VERY few of you have actually tried to refute my ideas. You've only tried to poke fun and ridicule. Could it be because you CAN'T??? Or don't know how?? Give it a go!

Why does your degree have more intrinsic value than a business degree?

There needs to be some engine driving the economy that can pay for medical research at a high level. We have seen centrally planned economies fail repeatedly on that count.

Without business graduates the economy falls off the tracks, ergo no wealth created to pay for research.

Without medical research living standards/life expectancies decrease, ergo earlier deaths of people and slowly declining standards of living.

Do explain how your degree has more intrinsic value than any business degree...

[Kitch]

That is an unsupported statement, it is not a demonstration.

Want to see me refute it in the same way?

Economic growth does not have those consequences.

Never let it be said I don't suffer fools glady. Not only do I suffer them, I humour them. Want here a joke?

I've explained why it has those effects. You choose not to 'believe', for whatever reason. It does indeed have those consequences, and AGAIN, I did explain why... you did little to disprove any of my examples. Michael Bluth did try. And by try I don't mean to sound arrogant... just that you didn't even attempt. You simply commented on the perceived problem with my views given my chosen occupation. Not a single comment on any of my examples. Thus, you disputed, but did not attempt to refute. Here, something that might help:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/refute

[Kitch]

Why does your degree have more intrinsic value than a business degree?

There needs to be some engine driving the economy that can pay for medical research at a high level. We have seen centrally planned economies fail repeatedly on that count.

Without business graduates the economy falls off the tracks, ergo no wealth created to pay for research.

Without medical research living standards/life expectancies decrease, ergo earlier deaths of people and slowly declining standards of living.

Do explain how your degree has more intrinsic value than any business degree...

Well, I suppose it's nothing more than a subjective and biased opinion based on my underlying views of the world. The way I see it, a stock broker, for example, does little to benefit society (except for make their client rich, which does have its own effects). Whereas, a biologist, for example, strives to learn more about the natural living world, which provides everyone with knowledge (valuable for its own merit) which we can use to make all of our lives better while reducing the negative effects we have on other living things. However, as I said, this is a subjective and biased opinion since someone with a specific business degree could very well come up with an example of a business endeavour that benefits us and other living things as well.

You see, I understand that in our current society, we need money... more and more money to fund these high level medical research projects. But in my opinion, and as a scientist who has worked in a research lab (and benefited from sitting in on seminars given by some of the world's most renowned scientists), the profit motive is not the ideal driving force for medical research. For example, I worked at the CRND at the University of Toronto where we did molecular biological research to learn about Alzheimer's disease. We were attempting to characterize the disease so that we could possibly find a cure. We didn't receive the big funding for this research though... even though this is what would benefit society most in the long run. The labs with the most funding (received from pharmaceutical companies) did research to find therapeutic drug targets. With this goal, it is possible to find short term solutions more quickly (the speed is no more likely than with general characterization). The point is that the companies want to sell drugs, not cure Alzheimer's. This is just one example, but the profit motivation leads to less benefit for all of society than does the pure motivation to seek knowledge. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending scientists as a whole... there are plenty driven by money).

That's the best I can explain my view, but I should definitely not shut the door on the value of other fields of study.

[White Doors]

1. 
   

Driven by money?

What is wrong with that? The biggest funding will go to the most promising research.

There is nothign inheritently evil about money. It is merely a device that appropriates societies desires.

If your research isn't receiving much money I would say that's because the research isn't very promising.

the rest of your claptrap is a very young, nieve view on the world.

You just need to spend a few years on this planet to acquire some wisdom.

but I should definitely not shut the door on the value of other fields of study.

What a benevolent master you are.

Edited August 14, 2007 by White Doors

[Michael Bluth]

Well, I suppose it's nothing more than a subjective and biased opinion based on my underlying views of the world.

You see, I understand that in our current society, we need money... more and more money to fund these high level medical research projects. But in my opinion, and as a scientist who has worked in a research lab (and benefited from sitting in on seminars given by some of the world's most renowned scientists), the profit motive is not the ideal driving force for medical research.

That's the best I can explain my view, but I should definitely not shut the door on the value of other fields of study.

Yes, a pretty subjective view indeed. Are you sure your underlying view isn't going to influence your teaching?

Maybe the profit motive isn't the best source of motivation for a scientist, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't lots of fields where it is the best motivation.

Seems to me that a business degree is the best training ground for people with that motivation. I've studied with, and taught, lots of nasty, self-centered, conniving little b*stard undergrad biz knobs. But you encounter those types everyday in the business world so you might as well learn how to cope with them while in school.

[Kitch]

Yes, a pretty subjective view indeed. Are you sure your underlying view isn't going to influence your teaching?

Maybe the profit motive isn't the best source of motivation for a scientist, but that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't lots of fields where it is the best motivation.

Seems to me that a business degree is the best training ground for people with that motivation. I've studied with, and taught, lots of nasty, self-centered, conniving little b*stard undergrad biz knobs. But you encounter those types everyday in the business world so you might as well learn how to cope with them while in school.

Well, I don't plan on my political views influencing the way I teach science/biology. If I'm asked personal questions outside of the classroom, perhaps I'll be honest. But despite my forceful method of conversing here, I have grown to believe that NOBODY has the right to determine how I ought to live my life, and conversely, I too have NO right to determine the way others ought to live. So no, I wouldn't allow myself to have that type of influence on my students. However, I will absolutely teach my students to (I'll TRY to at least) use the scientific method (as much as is applicable) in everyday life. All that means is understanding that anything is possible until demonstrated to be impossible , and that you must evaluate as many variables as you can to understand the truth of a matter, as far as it is comprehensible and knowable.

Would it be fair for me to hope that teacher's with views that oppose mine wouldn't influence their students as well? If so, why is that?

I agree that sometimes the profit motivation is beneficial to all parties involved and not involved (if that's what you mean by it's the best motivation... if not, please explain). That is partly why I must concede that my opinion on the science vs. business education is nothing more than my humble opinion. However, I would also say that when such a wide spread benefit is experienced as a result of a profit motive, it is not (always) the intended effect. It's just a happy coincidence that everyone benefits. If that places any less value on the said motive, I don't know, I'm not in a position to say for sure. (All I can say is that I personally don't like it. I'd rather a society that isn't 'dog eat dog'... a more considerate, empathetic... egalitarian... generally altruistic society... that's just what I'd like, and for some individuals, not all, the profit motive opposes that).