Re: Are we doomed yet?

From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 03:16:59 MDT

  • Next message: Samantha Atkins: "Re: [Somewhat IRAQ/POLITICS] Commentary on the life of Michael Kelly"

    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    inefficient and outdated ways of doing things in very different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