From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 03:16:59 MDT
Adrian Tymes wrote:
>
> It is interesting that you call these games, for that
> is, in fact, the counter to this problem that human
> nature provides. If there is no more incentive to
> produce that which improves the human condition, at
> least beyond the improvement you yourself gain, many
> people will find that insufficient and instead choose
> to spend their time in unproductive entertainments.
So what if that is the case? Do we need these people having
some kind of forced (if they want to eat) make work in order to
have all that we need in a truly abundant high tech economy?
No, by definition. People eventually get bored.
>>From a strictly utilitarian point of view, humanity is
> no better off for having had another Super Bowl, as
> opposed to having spent the same money (as spent on
> player's salaries, advertisements, et cetera) on, say,
> researching bionics that could give any human the
> strength and dexterity of the best football players.
> Society has been aware that this choice could be made
> for many years now, and see what choice it has made
> every time; clearly, strict utilitarianism for the
> greater good is not the guiding mindset. (Whether
> this is rightly so is another debate, but I'd say it
> is their choice to make.)
>
"Society" is not something alive than can choose. It is a
collection of individuals. Individuals can certainly choose
inefficient and outdated ways of doing things in very different
and new circumstances. That is fine as long as they cannot
significantly impose their choice on others. Often the new is
not chosen simply because most people do not understand that our
new circumstances bring new possibilities to choose among. Most
of us get caught flat-footed using unexamined assumptions that
are no longer [fully] valid.
> It is not a danger of active mischief, but merely of
> neglect of that which needs to be done, that has
> felled capitalism's alternatives.
What needs to be done in a society of abundance? Isn't it
whatever some of the people find interesting and
fruitful/entertaining/etc to do? Do you believe that no one
would find any such things important and interesting enough to
do them? Do you believe that would be true of you or most of
the people on this list?
Capitalism as we know it rests on a series of assumptions about
the relationship between human wants and resources. In areas
where that relationship becomes seriously modified capitalism as
we know it may not be a reasonable choice. Perhaps more
clearly, why charge a price for that which is nearly infinitely
abundant without serious depletion or even net increases with
use? Particulary if doing so actually decreases the value of
that which is in question? Why impose this model where there is
no gain and actually loss in doing so?
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 03:19:28 MDT