GENIUS FORUMS

It is the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved if businesses simply possessed the consciousness to only cater to human desires that are deemed necessity, and not luxury.

Moreover, only catering to desires that are deemed necessity would reduce the overall workload for each individual, allowing for a less hellish work environment. If some of the rational CEOs began to take on this mindset, in despite of the lavish desires of the masses, then they could change their inventories to better reflect their values. Moreover, many CEOS report that material possessions no longer give them any the same satisfaction as in the beginning of their initial financial success. And afterwards, they simply desire to give something back, to serve humanity somehow, but perhaps the best way to serve humanity is to educate them through example, and by showing that one can be powerful in a mental sense, without a large arsenal of excessive possessions, while altering their product lines at the same time.

A companies profit margins may suffer a bit, but a companies worth should not solely be defined by profit yields alone, but by the value of the product in contrast to how the existence of that product affects the lives of people - either in a positive or negative sense.

And in conjunction to minimalist economic theory, companies and the general public could promote the advancement of cheaper energy, more minimalist homes, and smaller more efficient vehicles. And in conjunction to those economic advancements, philosophers could continue to spread rational thought in the more foundational psychological tradition. Meanwhile, enlightened economists could attack the policy makers, the politicians, and the CEOS at the high levels of power.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved if businesses simply possessed the consciousness to only cater to human desires that are deemed necessity, and not luxury.

Businesses cannot possess consciousness.

Moreover, only catering to desires that are deemed necessity would reduce the overall workload for each individual, allowing for a less hellish work environment. If some of the rational CEOs began to take on this mindset, in despite of the lavish desires of the masses, then they could change their inventories to better reflect their values.

Of what value are your 'if's'? Other than mental masturbation..

Do they help guide your own personal corporation of one?

Moreover, many CEOS report that material possessions no longer give them any the same satisfaction as in the beginning of their initial financial success. And afterwards, they simply desire to give something back, to serve humanity somehow, but perhaps the best way to serve humanity is to educate them through example, and by showing that one can be powerful in a mental sense, without a large arsenal of excessive possessions, while altering their product lines at the same time.

Imaginings of the idealist.

I think it is guilt, ego, and tax shelter which drives a lot of the late in life giving.

A companies profit margins may suffer a bit, but a companies worth should not solely be defined by profit yields alone, but by the value of the product in contrast to how the existence of that product affects the lives of people - either in a positive or negative sense.

'If's' followed by 'shoulds'. Lexicon of the idealist.

And in conjunction to minimalist economic theory, companies and the general public could promote the advancement of cheaper energy, more minimalist homes, and smaller more efficient vehicles. And in conjunction to those economic advancements, philosophers could continue to spread rational thought in the more foundational psychological tradition. Meanwhile, enlightened economists could attack the policy makers, the politicians, and the CEOS at the high levels of power.

And the 'could's', which are only slightly better. Still, not much in the way of active verbs.

Again, hope some of this world visioning is translating to inner action within you, Ryan, the corp of one, where the rubber meets the actual road.

Carl G wrote:

Ryan Rudolph wrote:It is the idea that the greatest good for the greatest number would be achieved if businesses simply possessed the consciousness to only cater to human desires that are deemed necessity, and not luxury.

Businesses cannot possess consciousness.

Moreover, only catering to desires that are deemed necessity would reduce the overall workload for each individual, allowing for a less hellish work environment. If some of the rational CEOs began to take on this mindset, in despite of the lavish desires of the masses, then they could change their inventories to better reflect their values.

Of what value are your 'if's'? Other than mental masturbation..

Do they help guide your own personal corporation of one?

Moreover, many CEOS report that material possessions no longer give them any the same satisfaction as in the beginning of their initial financial success. And afterwards, they simply desire to give something back, to serve humanity somehow, but perhaps the best way to serve humanity is to educate them through example, and by showing that one can be powerful in a mental sense, without a large arsenal of excessive possessions, while altering their product lines at the same time.

Imaginings of the idealist.

I think it is guilt, ego, and tax shelter which drives a lot of the late in life giving.

A companies profit margins may suffer a bit, but a companies worth should not solely be defined by profit yields alone, but by the value of the product in contrast to how the existence of that product affects the lives of people - either in a positive or negative sense.

'If's' followed by 'shoulds'. Lexicon of the idealist.

And in conjunction to minimalist economic theory, companies and the general public could promote the advancement of cheaper energy, more minimalist homes, and smaller more efficient vehicles. And in conjunction to those economic advancements, philosophers could continue to spread rational thought in the more foundational psychological tradition. Meanwhile, enlightened economists could attack the policy makers, the politicians, and the CEOS at the high levels of power.

And the 'could's', which are only slightly better. Still, not much in the way of active verbs.

Again, hope some of this world visioning is translating to inner action within you, Ryan, the corp of one, where the rubber meets the actual road.

Instead of an equal-opportunity mocking reply...

Ryan seems to be one of those 'covers all the bases' windbags, who leaves exit doors available (wiggle room) should somebody call him on his generalizations.

But then again, maybe not. However... blah, bla

.

Carl,

Businesses cannot possess consciousness.

But a business is run by people, so what are you saying? That people cannot possess consciousness.

Imaginings of the idealist.

An idealist is simply someone who can see how things ought to be, and how things ought to unfold if humanity becomes more rational.

Lexicon of the idealist.

Any rational philosopher is an idealist to some degree, meaning they prefer things to be different than what they currently are. They have a conscious vision for humanity to travel.

Everyone is an idealist in some way. It can not be escaped. What matters is that we choose the ideals we value wisely.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Carl,

Businesses cannot possess consciousness.

But a business is run by people, so what are you saying? That people cannot possess consciousness.

No, I am trying to teach Ryan to be more specific and accurate in his postings, and thus in his thinking.

Imaginings of the idealist.

An idealist is simply someone who can see how things ought to be, and how things ought to unfold if humanity becomes more rational.

So? A single act of doing is worth more than a thousand 'ought to'. We can 'ought to' all day and it won't amount to a thing.

Lexicon of the idealist.

Any rational philosopher is an idealist to some degree, meaning they prefer things to be different than what they currently are. They have a conscious vision for humanity to travel.

Preferring "things to be different" is what I consider useless thinking. As for "a conscious vision for humanity to travel," so what. That and a dollar fifty will get you a cup of coffee, unless it is translated into personal change. Gums flapping in the wind will not do it, no matter how reasoned. That is why I asked Ryan if he is applying his theory to himself.