I will put my law in their inward parts,
And in their hearts will I write it…Jeremiah. Jeremiah 31:31-34. 2008. 21 May 2008
<http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-bible-text/Jer-31.html>.
One of Abraham Maslow’s chief complaints with modern technocracy was that it is, as a rule, value-neutral. When we examine spreadsheets, jiggle test-tubes at eye level, or plan the production and distribution of widgets–which now, oddly enough, exist–we often think in zero-sum, mathematical precision. Our system of economy, under-girded by a corporate structure which is motivated by shareholder value, exacerbates value-neutrality by using the market as a god-like measurer of worth.
The “market” is a good metaphor, because people with empty bellies do not write good code. A robust market generally makes for a dynamic population; yet, even though this useful abstraction encourages the production of “wealth,” it behooves us as decent people to consider for what ends we accumulate wealth, and by what means we do it. Do riches per se constitute the greatest good? Our current narrative shouts back a resounding “Hell yeah!” But the story feels false, contrived.
In the modern sense, Humanist, like Liberal, has become a dirty word. Blame sullied humanism on the special pleading of some conservatives and an embrace of the word by people who stink of patchouli. And yet, because the word can aptly describe people of good faith, religious or not, its revival, and a revival of the concepts it represents, can give context to market-oriented solutions to social and economic problems. A shared conscience of universal, healthy values, channeling the energies of regulated capitalism, could give meaning to our labors.
Maslow asked us to consider, as a matter of science, what it means to be human, and to what extent a person can develop, and how might that ultimate creature be effective in improving the world. Perhaps the ultimate aim of a capitalist society should be the full development of the individual: by considering the uselessness of value-neutrality, and correcting it with a baseline of moral “best practices,” we might find that de-regulation occurs naturally, as people take to heart the lessons of kindergarten, which are probably natural to upper primates anyhow: work hard, help others if you can, mind your own business, and keep your hands to yourself.

Keep it clean? Good god with this exclusivity, Marlowe - you ask for miracles from the get-go
Maslow would concentrate on the ‘or not,’ but I can’t get started on him, especially with the word science being thrown around. But, really, has Humanist become a dirty word or a lost word? Shouldn’t we feel bad for reading Gawker? Aren’t we embedding ourselves into the reflection of Hollywoodland star gazers? The problem I have is, whose fucking side are those people on? I don’t get it, but they make me laugh. That’s what I’m here for I suppose. To laugh. My point is - with best regards to enjoyheinekenresponsibly.com (those sell-outs) - what can we argue about?