Customer Reviews

The Virtue of Prosperity : Finding Values In An Age Of Techno-Affluence

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Mr. D'Souza does an excellent job of describing the principal
arguments in favor of and against rapid growth in technology and
capitalism. He then takes on the difficult task of creating common
ground among the diverse positions, and has some success in putting
the first rope ladders across this abyss of discord. Even though the
permanent bridge remains to be built, getting those rope ladder across
is worth five stars.

The best parts of the book are his interviews
with prominent figures and thinkers in both camps. Their candid
comments and actions will often leave you laughing. If the subject
wasn't so important, this book could have easily been turned into a
satire along the lines of Candide about the optimism of
the"techno-capitalist" (today's equivalent of Dr. Pangloss
as seen in the form of people such as Ted Turner, Bill Gates, and
MichaelDell).

Mr. D'Souza clearly tilts more toward the
techno-capitalists than toward their critics, except when it comes to
applying bio technology to pick the traits of one's children. So
don't look for a "down the middle" splitting of
differences.D'Souza takes a typical economic approach in most cases of
"the most good for the most people, net of the
harm."

Techno-capitalists have their good sides as
characterized by D'Souza. They often contribute money to worthy
causes, they can improve the rate of economic development, they
sometimes create new resources for society, and they often solve
problems. In fact, being successful means that techno-capitalists
have to behave in ways that help someone else. Capitalism thus has a
self-reinforcing positive aspect to it.

D'Souza points out that
environmental damage is done by poor people, as well as by rich ones.
In fact, rich people like a nice environment and often pay to improve
it. This argument seemed a little over the top for me. The real
challenge is that the environment is a very complex systems
problem.People of all incomes and net worths are not yet very good
thinkers and decision-makers about complex systems like the
environment. Few people go around despoiling nature just to create
ugliness, filth, and bad smells! Putting a rich-poor slant on this
problem is pretty arbitrary.

The book is very effective in
describing the divisions among the cultures of the poorer people in
the U.S. and in the third world, the techno-rich, and those who are
in-between but do not live the techno-rich lifestyle. These
perceptual gaps are quite wide and do need to be closed. Otherwise,
the ability to communicate and share ideas will be lost. The
challenge here is much more difficult than simply providing
Internet-connected computers for everyone.

Clearly, the solutions
will mostly have to come from those who are creating and deploying the
new technology. At most, the other groups can help formulate the
questions. In that sense, the book's concept is flawed. It should
have focused less on the debate,and more on what the
techno-capitalists should be doing differently. . . and how they will
benefit if they do. That book remains to be written.

I think the
author also underestimates the socio-political problems that
biotechnology will bring. U.S. society is strongly and evenly divided
on the question of abortion now. The issues raised by biotechnology
will be even more fundamental, challenging, and disturbing to most
than abortion is now. Advances in and applications of this technology
could cause rending of the social fabric in a way that nothing has
done since slavery. In that part of the analogy to slavery, D'Souza
is right. Take a simple example to see my point. Assume that in the
early days of cloning, that only a few people can afford to have body
parts cloned for them. Let's assume that these people can live for,
say, three times the length of time of everyone else with good health
and normal appearance. Won't many other people want access to this
technology, even if they can not afford it? Won't they try to use the
political process to either deny it to the super rich or to require
its use for everyone? (I can certainly see this as a new health
benefit for elected officials early in the process.)What do you think?

After you finish the book, consider where else perspectives differ
and are widening. Tolerance for the religious beliefs of others is a
good example. How can we each "do good while doing well" in
these areas as well?

Embrace the differences to make a better world
for each and every one!

Dinesh D'Souza has traveled through a vast territory of ideas, arguments, worries, concerns and fears - articulating a vision for how Captalism has provided the engine for the dramatic change around us. Rather than feel guilty, or fault the weaknesses (which he illuminates in detail) of the West, Dinesh offers a promotion for the advancement of what works, why it works and how to harness the energy of the human spirit - the VIRTUES of Greed - to for the first time in human history dramatically raise the quality of life for all. Excellent book, great romp through history and wonderful calrity of vision. He's on my permanent must read list.

The American Enterprise Institute's enfant terrible Dartmouth College grad author (his 1991 book, ILLIBERAL EDUCATION: The Politics Of Race And Sex caused quite a stir), Dinesh D'Souza (born in India, became a USA citizen in 1991) has written a very interesting book titled THE VIRTUE OF PROSPERITY (2000). It's about the moral and ethical aspects of the present highly touted USA wealth "boom," and it asks the intelligent question, is all this so-called "wealth" really success?

D'Souza points out early in his book that techno-capitalism in the present age has created enormous inequalities, has undermined families and communities, and has all but destroyed many of our (previously) most cherished values. He asks the question "how can we learn to be happy with out 'success'?"

Well, being sponsored by the unabashedly right-wing, pro-capitalism American Enterprise Institute (a Washington, D.C. "think tank" dedicated to telling it the way right-wingers think it is), Mr. D'Souza doesn't really join the attack on what's happened to equality, families, communities, and values. He is rather an unabashed apologist for "aren't these great times" crowd. After all, he's been on their payroll since finishing Dartmouth in the early 80's (and prepared for it by working as a student staffer on the infamous DARTMOUTH REVIEW, then America's most famous conservative student publication).

Even so, agree with Mr. D'Souza or not, he does raise many very intelligent and interesting questions, and provides a generous amount of space in his 284 page book for the opposing side to tell its story. His book is worth buying and reading, and offers several valuable features, most especially his well organized and extensive chapter end notes (he was highly praised for similar notes provided in his book ILLIBERAL EDUCATION).

The first part of THE VIRTUE OF PROSPERITY is the best part. Dinesh D'Souza provides a well written and intelligent backgrounder to the various issues and situations surrounding the current "good times." He asks the question "What's new about the new economy?" and comes up with interesting points and answers. He points out, for instance, that the world's richest man, Bill Gates of Microsoft, was worth in 2000 a cool (or hot) $100 billion (net worth). In contrast, John D. Rockefeller at his peak was worth a paltry $17 billion in today's money. D'Souza observes that Bill Gates and his descendants could spend $10 million A DAY IN PERPETUITY and NEVER run out of money. Now that's wealth! If Bill were a country, he would be number thirty five in the world rankings, surpassing the gross domestic products of Hungary, Ireland, Israel, and New Zealand! He ranks just ahead of Finland, and just behind Greece.

An unlike John D., it didn't take him long to get where he is. The author wows us with other (many other) statistics of this sort, and in so doing, allows his book to take on the personality of sort of research scholars versions of WHO WANTS TO BE A MILLIONAIRE?

The best part of the book follows. D'Souza gets down to a serious discussion of mass affluence and its discontents in a chapter titled The Gathering Storm. He then moves on to discuss the subject of "merit," and the many people it leaves behind. He states that success must at times be regarded as a lottery, and explains who wins, and who loses.

By far, the best chapter in the book is titled Eye Of The Needle: The Moral Critique Of Prosperity. This is followed by a poignant chapter titled The World We Have Lost: Goodbye Nature, Family, and Community.

Get this book and read it. The cult of prosperity and affluence has been touted by a very self-interested lot of politicians, businessmen, and others the late H.L. Mencken would have called "wowzers." Their hidden agenda is almost unexamined in current literature or mass media, and Dinesh D'Souza's book, THE VIRTUE OF PROSPERITY comes as close as any I have read to getting down to the nitty gritty about what really has happened, and what it all means.

Dinesh D'Souza has written a very significant book in which he endeavors to find the deep, true meaning behind the euphoria, the hype, the madness that is the new economy. After a sober and methodical reassesment of the profound changes left behind in the wake of our recent prosperity, D'Souza ultimately comes down on the side of the optimists, the Party of Yeah he calls them, who embrace transformational technologies even as critics (whom he dubs the Party of Nah) charge that they threaten to uproot the old bonds of community, replacing spiritual values with purely materialist passions.

D'Souza is scrupulously balanced in forthrightly presenting both sides of the argument. The arguments themselves aren't new; the rigor with which D'Souza analyzes them quite possibly is. Does technological capitalism ultimately degrade the soul? We have all heard the liberal economic critique of the gap between the rich and poor. How does the emerging conservative critique of the social consequences of inequality stack up in comparison? D'Souza discusses these questions briskly and adroitly. Often while reading the book, I would find myself thinking of possible counter-arguments to the views presented on any given page and invariably found them echoed a turn or two of the page later.

More than most defenders of the marketplace, D'Souza does take very seriously the notion that the new prosperity may hinder our search for spiritual meaning. The case for either sides of this often demagogued controversy is clouded by the fact that one's economic good fortunes don't seem to guarantee either frustration or inner fulfillment. For every white collar criminal, there is a young man who is moved to depravity by hunger or poverty. For every example of a person with modest means contented with the simple life, there seems to be an equal abundance of millionaires who find fulfillment and happiness in their enterprise and in the educational advancement that prosperity makes possible. Perhaps this means that techno-capitalism really has less spiritual consequence (for good or ill) than we think and at best it offers unique people an outlet for their interests, much like art, science and politics. These are the kinds of questions you will find explored in this refreshing work.

D'Souza concludes his work with a life-affirming statement of the dignity of human nature as a rebuttal and a caution against those who would take technology too far in the quest for pursuits such as cloning, genetic engineering or even merging the human race with computers. Part of the beauty of techno-capitalism is that it allows for the satisfaction of human wants and desires in a decentralized environment that replicates natural processes. Naturally self-regulating, self-perpetuating price mechanisms that nobody fully understands (much less controls) have much less to do with the marketplace than command-and-control decisionmaking. Effectively, capitalism is the triumph of human nature over centralization and control. Technology is the product of pure human nature and its perpetual quest for improvement. Does the new emphasis on biotechnology, the rhetoric of "overcoming" human nature with vastly advanced, highly evolved computers, and the impetus to control nature through genetic manipulation violate the principles that have brought us such success and the Party of Yeah such satisfaction? At the very least, it is something both optimists and pessimists must think through before taking the next bold leap into the future.

I loved this book! For the past five years I have worked in Silicon Valley. It's an amazing place. I'm proud to be a part of what is happening here, and I'm tired of the people who say the wealth and the advancements are wrong, or evil.

One of my friends works for a medical robotics firm that has created a way to do bypass surgery without opening your chest cavity. The company I work for creates intelligent content delivery devices for the Internet. We are helping change the quality of people's lives.

D'Souza is right. This is the America our forefathers invisioned. The people who get to be a part of it should celebrate it, not feel guilty.

I enjoyed reading this book. D'Souza did not make the mistake of going too deeply into any of the areas he discussed in this book. He did not dive into the issues of religion, the economy, genetic technology, or others, instead he stayed on the surface - probing some experts or scholars in these various subjects for their thoughts, added some of his own thoughts and examples, and finally lets you think about it.

This book is important just to get a sense of what is ahead in the future. No one can predict the future, but I got a feeling that D'Souza has thought about this a great deal and knows what he is talking about. There are issues to think about such as the role of technology, how it affects the family as a core unit, the rise of the overclass, and genetic engineering (very scary issue).

Definitely recommend.

Bill Gates's fortune, in dollar bills placed end to end, would reach to the moon and back 6,000 times. There are five million millionaire families in the US. Hundreds of American individuals have a net worth greater than the GDP of entire countries. In the "land of opportunity," the poorest of the poor live better than 80% of the world's population.

It is with eye-opening facts such as these that India native Dinesh D'Souza, a research scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and author of The End of Racism makes his initial case: American techno-capitalism - and the computer revolution is merely the quintessential example - has succeeded. The vision of America's founders - of a society dedicated, not to the promotion of virtue in harmony with nature (the leitmotif of all earlier western cultures), but to the creation of wealth at nature's expense - is a dream come true.

To drive this point home, D'Souza offers example after example of the ridiculous levels of affluence enjoyed by members of the new "over class." Most of these he places squarely within the emerging "Party of Yeah," those who have not only benefited hugely from techno-capitalism, but who are true believers in the intrinsic rightness of technology and the driving power of the market, and in the promise of a coming techno-utopia.

D'Souza predicts that the still-nascent debate between such advocates of self-perpetuating "progress" and their opponents (the Party of Nah - progress, but at what price to serenity? to community? to family?) will replace all current political differences to become the defining struggle of the 21st century. Displaying a profound understanding of, and sympathy for, both sides, he then proceeds to make the historical and philosophical case for each and, finally, to state and defend his own position. In doing so, he makes some fascinating and deeply disturbing observations. For example, he notes that as computers become ever simpler and more reliable, the heyday of the programmer-priesthood will pass.

The future, he maintains, belongs not to the computer per se, but to other offspring of the hi-tech revolution: cybernetics, nanotechnology, longevity research and, most importantly, biotechnology.

This latter field, warns D'Souza,generates questions so vital to our collective future, so horrendous in their implications, that they must engage every thinking person. He concedes that the mastery of the natural world, though not without its painful costs, has been generally a good thing. But what of the logical conclusion to that conquest? What of the time - and that time is upon us - when the only part of nature still unconquered is human nature itself?

Is there a fundamental difference, a "red line," between the ability to do whatever we like to our own minds and bodies (something the author is content to leave to individual choice), and the ability to change all future generations without their consent?

Is there a difference between curing a genetic disease in an unborn fetus (thereby bestowing an undisputed good) and "improving" that fetus and all its descendants, thus refashioning humanity itself?

In its eloquent, thoroughly-researched, brilliantly reasoned and powerfully argued pages, The Virtue of Prosperity challenges its readers, as human beings, to shoulder our responsibility to ourselves and to our future.

It is a challenge we dare not ignore.

The theme of this book is about finding values in Techno Affluence. This
book excites you about our future. The first chapter is dedicated to the
excitement surrounding the potential for wealth borne in technology. From
there we jump into the dichotomy of the Party of Neah and the Party of Yeah.
Neah's are fundamentalists who do not believe the Internet exist and the
.com Stock Market will crash. The Party of Yeah is optimistic. They feel
that new ideas and information are a new form of capital. Imagine these
parties superseding 'Left & Right'. The idea that creativity is an act of
faith puts a techno spin on religion. The Party of Yeah asserts that they
seek to accomplish what Priests, Intellectuals, and Bureaucrats failed at:
solve the problem of scarcity. After putting Techno in the same realm as
religion and politics, D'Souza makes some claims on techno economics that
will surely raise the hair on George Sorro's neck. While D'Souza refers to
many expert authors across the span of the argument on where the virtue lay,
you gain some compassion as to why you may have mixed feelings yourself.
The book closes with a sense of balance that allows a person to be excited
about our future and at the same time maintain a sense of cardinal headings
from lessons learned over the course of mankind.

In the midst of this social conflict we are to observe the over-class
displaying their internal conflict along the same lines. Witnessing rich
folks flaunting their wealth in torn blue jeans and Porsche and NOT leaving
their fortunes to their heirs but giving the majority of their money to
charity. This sets us up for D'Souza's message. To help heal the social
division caused by the new techno-capitalism and to help reconcile what
place technology and wealth should occupy in our pursuit of the good life.

With regard to opportunity, D'Souza describes this new economy as one with a
naturally higher degree of equal opportunity. You read about the wisdom in
our Founding Fathers, proclaiming a voice for equal rights, not equal
outcomes. Furthermore, D'Souza was a middle class immigrant from India who
went to Dartmouth. His Dartmouth education was funded largely by the
private sector, an Ivy League tradition. His book is yet another way of
paying back on that loan. He does however give tribute to the social
connection of Ivy League schools and its merit towards the exposure to
venture capital. In summary I liked this quote by Sabeer Bhatia when
commenting about being a person of color; "I quickly realized that being
foreign born was no barrier, it was only a barrier in my mind."

After being primed, D'Souza delves into the crux of the matter by exploring
all angles of the question. Can you make people better by means of
technological progress? Are the Amish correct in benchmarking technology
against the focus on moral footing in land, family, community? OR can we
have it both ways? It is suggested that free market capitalism is only
one of a three-legged stool. The other two are a democratic polity, and a
Judeo-Christian social ethic.

D'Souza does a very good job drawing on quotations of famous economists,
entrepreneurs, the Bible, and philosophers to rationalize the idea that
capitalism and wealth is good. He draws from people like Adam Smith, Ayn
Rand, and George Guilder, Lockee, Bacon, Adams; summarizes each respective argument and distills a basic theme that...please do a keyword search on cigarroomofbooks.blogspot and gain more of my insight and please share yours.

I am absolutely amazed at the breadth of D'Souza's knowledge. This is my first Dinesh book and it certainly won't be the last.

After reading that he was a policy analyst for Ronald Reagan and was a member of both the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution, I expected the book to make a much firmer stance on the issues. I am pleasantly surprised at the respect that D'Souza gives to all arguments. He really considers every viewpoint before moving on.

The topic at hand I would summarize down to "the ethics and morality of capitalism and technological progress." What I found was a very intellectual (for a grass-roots type of book) work that bounced between technophile and technophobe viewpoints, liberal and conservative viewpoints, and touched upon a huge diversity of subjects such as philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, and biology, among others. By the way, I minored in Philosophy, and D'Souza seems to have a firmer grasp of philosophical concepts than I ever had! D'Souza has a deft touch that makes his book at once highly readable, intellectually stimulating, and thought provoking.

Dinesh did it again with this piece of literary genius! Well maybe it isn't genius, but it is informative and entertaining.

In "The Virture of Prosperity" D'Souza makes an argument for capitalism based around the compassion that affluence had brought to this country. This book should counter every anti-globalization textbook in the classroom in order to provide a fair and balanced view of our supper-affluent society.

Relatively short, easy to read, and full of stats and figures to amaze your friends with, this book would make a great paper-back to pick up asap!

The only shortcoming would be that it was written before 9/11 so some of the flowery imagery of our future seem a tad bittersweet.