From: Spike (spike66@comcast.net)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 13:37:48 MDT
> Robin Hanson wrote:
> >> I just came across this thought-provoking future speculation by
> >> Geoffrey Miller, author of "The Mating Mind":
> >> http://psych.unm.edu/faculty/moral_vision.htm
> >> There's something broken about this idea, but its hard to say
> >> exactly what it is...
I can say exactly what it is. Miller presumes
everyone's sense of ethics matches his own. It
would have made more sense if he had postulated
that the entire world read The Mating Mind, then
fell prostrate at the biologist's feet, begging
for guidance in how to invest according to
Miller's sense of morality.
Examples:
"...[newly ethical investors suddenly began] demanding that their
pension funds and mutual funds divest from any producers of armaments,
alcohol, tobacco, gambling, pornography, or abortifacient drugs. Within
a few months, 450 million Catholics controlling about 2 trillion dollars
in equity had followed his advice. Lockheed and Penthouse went into
receivership..."
So Miller believes abortifacient drugs are worse
than abortion? That alcohol, which in at least
some forms such as wine, has been shown to increase
lifespan, is immoral? That communications satellites
are unethichal? That investing itself is not a
form of gambling? That established companies depend
in some way on their stock prices? Absurdities, all.
"...India and China went straight for subsonic light-rail public
transport, microgenerator networks, and genetically self-optimizing
crops..."
Again Miller projects his own values onto the
entire population of the world, presuming that
public transport is morally superior, even tho
it is universally rejected when populations are
offered a reasonable alternative. I think he
would also find a very large segment of the
world's population that would object to
genetically self-optimizing crops, even if
they had not the foggiest clue what that was.
Im not sure I know what he meant either.
"...The fad for hiring professors of moral philosophy as CEOs was
short-lived though: academics obsessed with the internal consistency of
ethical systems were unsuited to judging the protean moral dilemmas of
business..."
This was perhaps the most remarkably insightful
comment in the essay. I would extend the comment
to say professors of biology are generally unsuited
for commentary on ethichal investing.
As much respect as I have for Dr. Miller's insightful
book The Mating Mind, I am appalled at the arrogance
of his presumption that all investors' sense of
ethics would match his own, or each other for that
matter. Investors already generally steer clear of
companies that violate their moral sensibilities.
I see no reason to do otherwise, as there are plenty
of companies to choose from.
Miller's essay is a form of Hollywood Effect, where
movie stars are granted inappropriate credibility because
of their skill in entertaining, even tho the great
collective Hollywood Incorporated has demonstrated
no unusual insightfulness in political matters.
Neither should we be surprised when a truly outstanding
biologist demonstrates that he has no special
insights into investing or ethics.
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 13:43:52 MDT