From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 11:43:12 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> 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.
What you say is true. However, one key issue is how
"truly abundant" the economy is. In fact, one could
possibly measure an economy's abundance, relative to
what most participants in said economy find to be an
acceptable standard of living, as the percentage of
people who must labor in productive manners - or
possibly of available person-hours that must be spent
in such labor - to support the acceptable standard of
living. Certainly, this percentage has been dropping
throughout history, despite the standard rising, but
it is still over 50% (or over 20%, if you count by
person-hours, excluding the third of the day lost to
sleep).
The problem comes when people try to rationalize
actions in the present based on the assumption of this
percentage being, say, 10%, when in fact it is much
higher. Lowering standards of living would decrease
the percentage, but this is not an acceptable solution
to most people. Of course, it is human nature to want
to be in the percentage that does not have to work.
The best course of action seems to be to attempt to
lower the percentage, no matter what it is, rather
than to assume the percentage is already low and
proceed from there. Standards of living do rise over
time, dragging this percentage up if no innovations
come up to match it (which rarely if ever happens),
but a significantly drastic increase in productivity
can significantly lower this percentage.
> >>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.
True. I was using "society" as shorthand for the net
effect of the decision of the majority of individuals.
(Not just 50%, either, but the kind of majority that
invokes, "quantity has a quality all its own".)
> > 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?
Irrelevant. Capitalism's alternatives, to date, have
not existed in societies of abundance.
> 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?
Again, that is assuming we are presently in a society
of abundance. We are not, yet. Capitalism is a good
balance for the society we are in. If and when we
reach a society of true abundance, then perhaps we can
abandon capitalism - but not until then.
In the mean time, peoples' time continues to be
valuable, so the price is an incentive for people to
spend their time coming up with the ideas in the first
place. It is not a choice between charging for info
versus having the info produced for free, but between
charging for info versus having the info available to
no one under any circumstances (free or paid).
Again, the best way to attain the goal of alternatives
to capitalism is to first put us into a society of
abundance. To assume that we already are there and
act as if we were is to fail. But once we are there,
the objections to these alternatives will melt away.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 11:52:21 MDT