> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of GBurch1@aol.com
> I think it's important when employing this kind of reasoning to
> consider that
> there was GREAT diversity in the quality of life of
> pre-agricultural people
I agree with everything you said, Greg, but I don't see what bearing it has
on what I said. Although there must have been variations in group size,
social structure, and so forth--it's highly likely that all the groups were
small relative to populations of agricultural/urban societies; and it's also
highly likely that--at least to the extent they were able to--group members
took care of other members. I wouldn't think anyone knows for sure, but
based on the evidence that's available, most people would have lived in
groups based on some form of kinship and would have expected other members
of the group to share at least some of their food and water--you'd expect
the amount of help to vary depending on resources. People living through
rough times in an inhospitable place might have a rule that a sick or weak
person should voluntarily seek death. But *most* peoople probably expected
help in times of need.
> This seems right - face-to-face social support by people one knows well
> definitely has a different "moral texture" from a bureaucratically
> administered social welfare system.
Going back to the "human nature" idea--if it turned out that the greatest
advances in technology, literature, abstract mathematics, and so forth could
take place if there were a guaranteed life-sustaining income, would most
people want it? If so, how much would they want it? Would it be possible
for a small group of very rich people to fund such a thing voluntarily? If
they did so, would they be willing to do it with no strings attached?
Recent posts to this list lead me to believe that most people would not.
They would ask that the recipients alter their behavior in exchange for
recieving the guaranteed income. It's difficult to imagine a case where some
forms of behavior modification would not be sought, regarless of who was
administering a guaranteed income program.
>... the "true abundance" idea we're discussing
>here has the potential to be "something completely different" in Monty
What would it take? Is there any way to say: "okay, once there THIS much
wealth, everyone can have a guaranteed income"?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:39 MDT