Zero Powers wrote:
>
> >From: "Emlyn \(hotmail\)" <emlyn_oregan@hotmail.com>
>
> >I
> >think that Zero's point that socialism can work well in an abundant future
> >has merit. Certainly capitalism will also "work", as in continuing, but
> >measuring it along any metrics related to equity are going to show enormous
> >shortcomings, more so as technology provides more surplus without the need
> >for human labour, because the surplus produced by technology is just not
> >going to get around.
> >
> >I'm hoping marxism doesn't get a run, unless someone can postulate a
> >dynamic
> >variant. The self-organising power of dynamic social systems is well
> >demonstrated by capitalism, nasty beast that it is, and that's something I
> >wouldn't like to see lost.
>
> If/when we reach the stage where material wealth is equivolent to
> information then, finally, there will be universal abundance. With that
> will come the end of the need to work for one's living. This would lay the
> ground work for practical Marxism.
>
> However, at that point there will be no practical difference between "rich"
> and "poor." When we have the nanotech to effortlessly and cheaply create
> haute cuisine from raw sewage, and diamonds from dirt, there will be no need
> for human production. This will lead to its own problems for us humans who
> have a need to feel useful and productive. But at that point there will be
> no difference between a "capitalist" and a "communist." There will be a
> universal leisure class searching for purpose and meaning in their otherwise
> effortless and uncomplicated lives. Utopia? Perhaps not. But IMO better
> than poverty, illness and hunger.
Everyone rub blue mud in your bellybuttons and pray.
When everyday challenges of putting food on one's plate is no longer a
challenge, those people will do what we do now: Find something new.
Those that don't, well, evolution in action.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:13:21 MDT