
A Debt to Education - scott_s
https://www.plough.com/en/topics/justice/social-justice/economic-justice/a-debt-to-education
======
scott_s
The publication, Plough, is a Christian publisher, and the author is a
Christian pastor. The end of the essay has a call to action to the Christian
community for how to consider debt and treat people with debt (more humanely,
of course). I am not a Christian, but I found the author's framing of how
society at large treats debt useful and insightful.

~~~
lcusack
Just for some further context. Plough is a publication of the Bruderhof
community which is Christian but in a much more radical sense than mainstream
Christianity (no private property, radical non-violence, etc.).

I've visited their community in upstate NY and really enjoyed it.

------
ocfnash
This article includes the assertion:

"Think, for instance, of the common idea that individual recycling can stave
off climate change – this in spite of the fact that one hundred companies
produce 71 percent of carbon emissions."

Rather shocking if true.

~~~
alexgmcm
It's 'true'.

But those companies are largely oil companies that aren't polluting for
giggles - but are responding to consumer demand.

So if consumers demand less fuel, plastics etc. it is possible there would be
a 'trickle-up' effect.

FullFact had a good analysis: [https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-
causing-71-carbo...](https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-
causing-71-carbon-emissions/)

"This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were
subsequently used by their customers."

~~~
claudiawerner
It's also clear that simply fulfilling a demand does not mean that we
shouldn't be aware of what needs changing, and indeed some things which are
demanded in society should not be fulfilled. It seems disingenuous to paint
these small number of companies as simple mediators between demand and supply
when _they 're the ones supplying_. It's also the case that the tastes and
preferences of consumers are influenced heavily by advertising and certain
amenities which are today only possible through these polluting businesses.

The majority of various populations has demanded truly grotesque things
throughout human history, including but not limited to mass murder and
injustice. I am skeptical of the argument that the ones (i) manufacturing this
'consent' (ii) agreeing to supply it (fully aware of the mechanisms through
which the desire is produced) are innocent.

Consider this: if the only way to prevent such large scale pollution is to
modify the desires of the demand side (an idea which I see no reason to be the
case anyway), it could also be justified for a government to force such
companies to conduct mass-advertising showing just how harmful the effects of
production are.

I'm yet to see a realistic proposal for coordinating a reduction in demand,
and I am yet to be convinced that the individualization of the problem is
helpful to the goal of an eco-sustainable society. On the other hand, if your
goal is to prioritize the ability to make profits (no matter how harmful) then
you could continue to appeal to solutions which have consistently failed to
gain traction on a national or international scale (such as "consumers
demanding less" or boycotting).

------
hootguy
Reading something from a specific, embodied religious tradition (Christian,
Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu) provides a refreshing set of justifications
and perspective to the secular mindset that we exist within that we rarely
consider it from the outside. Like a fish discovering oxygen in air.
Interesting article.

~~~
jerf
You may also find this Usury faq interesting:
[https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-
or-...](https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/usury-faq-or-money-on-
the-pill/)

It's from a Catholic perspective, but to a large degree the primary impact of
that is just to take a step away from modern ideas and draw from a historical
position not well studied or understood by other people. There is not very
much "bible" or "pope" in it.

It is also directly related to the topic at hand; student loan debt is
considered as a form of usury.

I'm not Catholic, for what it's worth. Whether being a Protestant impacts my
opinion of the topic matter... well... "it's complicated", as the social
networks say. But I still found it to be a very interested intellectual case,
and there are plenty of non-Catholic and non-Prostestant cultures over the
millenia that have considered usury a crime as well, too. I wouldn't be _that_
surprised our culture will yet make it on to the list of cultures that
discover it's a bad idea as well, on its own merits, regardless of who
notices.

Also, I think a lot of HN will actually find the ideas quite appealing even
so. A lot of financial shenanigans that draw a lot of complaints on HN are
covered by this conception of usury.

~~~
Kalium
What's most interesting about the article is that it manages to completely
skip over why it was _extremely useful_ for medieval notions of usury to not
apply to Jews. Specifically, anti-Semitism was so widespread that it was
socially acceptable for someone powerful to borrow money and decide to kill or
expel their counterparties afterwards.

Which is to say notions of usury served to legitimize theft from outsiders.
The rest is a shocking amount of window-dressing and apologetics.

~~~
jerf
In a way, that's not relevant to the point being made. "X is a sin/bad thing"
is not made less true by "X has occurred", "X has been used by political
powers", or "even people who agreed X is a bad thing have put great effort
into finding ways to do it anyhow".

I posted this because in the modern world, "usury is a particular and bad
thing" is a fresh viewpoint, and yet, one that a lot of people here may find
themselves quite sympathetic to. The idea that student loans are really
getting into "indentured servitude" levels of exploitativeness is in the air,
and it turns out that rather than a novel observation, it's actually an
ancient one, and it can be helpful to "cheat" on some of the debates and
understandings by reading the end of the book instead of trying to start from
scratch.

~~~
Kalium
You're absolutely right. Usury as sin is not in any way a novel idea. You are
also unquestionably correct that it can be helpful to learn from the past on
the subject!

Is it perhaps possible that some might opine that the historical context of an
idea _is_ worth knowing as part of reading the end of the book? It just might
be worth considering that the historical implementations of policy around
usury could not be divorced from the abstract reasoning.

In a way, it's like discussing historical Communism and Communist thought
while pretending Stalin, Lenin, and Mao never existed. They all form part of
the historical context that really needs to be considered an integral part of
the whole.

Again, you're completely correct. There's a great deal to be learned from
history!

