RE: Things that don't evolve

My response was in reference to your statements. Primarily it is my
analysis as to the cause of the evolution from the OT type of loans and
today's current justification for interest rates. You are the one that
pointed out its evolution however. As for whether it is a tangent, I'll
defer to others opinions on that.

Don
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Gregory Arago [mailto:gregoryarago@yahoo.ca]
  Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 06:21
  To: donperrett@interstrenuus.com; 'D. F. Siemens, Jr.'
  Cc: asa@calvin.edu
  Subject: RE: Things that don't evolve

  Please excuse, I'm not following how this relates to the topic. Are you
saying, Don, that 'loans' or 'regulations' are examples of things that
'evolve' (into being or having become)? Or perhaps this connects with the
idea that George Murphy suggested a few weeks ago that ethics in the Bible
can be said to have evolved? I'm just trying to check if this isn't a
tangent following a tangent from the main topic.

  Regards,
  G. Arago

  "Donald Perrett (E-mail)" <donperrett@theology-perspectives.net> wrote:
    Intelligence of course does not directly translate to social behavioural
changes. Certainly education has been shown to have some influence on human
social evolution, but even then only marginally so. This may be more the
result of the lack of overall educational increases within the global
society. As for your comment on prohibition on interest, I take it you
refer to loans. I agree to some degree that interest is unfortunately a
integral part of the capitalist system of economics, but the regulation of
interest holdings are not what they should be a present. Unchecked this can
create a burden in the short term for those with loans, as pointed out by
Pim. In the long run high interests can be a burden on the overall economic
structure. Consumers with less money in pocket as the result of high
interest rates can be just as negative to the economy as high taxation.
There must be balance. Also in OT times much of what was recovered in the
way of debt was through direct labor not direct monetary compensation. So a
loaner would be more likely to have received a higher percentage of the loan
amount and therefore interest was not needed as a buffer for unrecovered
debts. In today's economy a much larger portion is needed to balance
unrecovered debt and therefore higher rates are needed for those with higher
risks of loan default. The downside is that frequently those with the
higher risk of loan default are those already without (the poor). There
needs to be a better system of granting loans and even perhaps corporate
grants to those of lower incomes wishing to start businesses. Partnerships
with those in lower income brackets would help to encourage self economic
development among the poorer communities.

    Don P
      -----Original Message-----
      From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of D. F. Siemens, Jr.
      Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 13:38
      To: gregoryarago@yahoo.ca
      Cc: pleuronaia@gmail.com; asa@calvin.edu; dopderbeck@gmail.com
      Subject: Re: Things that don't evolve

      Thanks for pulling these things together. However, I'm not sure that
all these matters have been thought through. For example, I read recently
that human beings are still evolving, specifically in the genes that affect
intelligence. So there is apparently greater understanding. This means
change over time in understanding--what have been called memes.

      As to morality, change in society requires different rules. Some
matters remain, like "Do not murder" (misstated as "Do not kill"). But the
prohibition on interest had to give way. Also, there was no attempt 10,000
years or so ago to protect large mammals or the environment, but ecology is
currently one of the moral imperatives that have been discussed on this list
and at ASA meetings.
      Dave

      On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:20:33 -0500 (EST) Gregory Arago
<gregoryarago@yahoo.ca> writes:
        Let me gather together some of the ideas expressed in the posts on
this topic thus far. Please excuse that I cannot keep up with the
conversation always in 'real time' since I'm in time zone GMT +3. I found
the comments interesting and helpful.

        "All aspects of the physical universe are evolving. Irreversibility
is the name of the game! ... Humans are both physical and nonphysical. The
physical aspect does evolve; however, you are right that the nonphysical
aspect does not evolve." - A. Moorad

        Conclusion #1 - non-physical aspects/things do not evolve.

        "[E]volution explains only one small slice of reality. I'd also add
the moral law" ... "angels and seraphs" - David Opderbeck

        Conclusion #2 - what evolution explains is (only) a small slice of
reality. Moral law, angels and seraphs don't evolve.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
  Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger
with Voice