Excellent answer Samantha. My views exactly.
At 01:01 PM 21/07/2001 -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
>Lee Corbin wrote:
> > John Grigg candidly admits
> > > I love the idea of a minimal guaranteed annual income.
> > > Largely because I tend to be a lazy person unless I
> > > simply must take action for survival! lol
> > Okay, it's time for me to confess to that also---I would be
> > very pleased if I didn't have to work, and could write email
> > and read books all day long (sigh).
> > But the real question is, "do you in good conscience advocate
> > it as public policy?". Although I've pretty much given up on
> > the United States ever becoming a nation, or at least one that
> > I could whole-heartedly identify with, I still must state what
> > I think best for a society or a nation, when the relevant
> > questions come up.
>Yes. I in good consciience advocate it. I do so because I
>believe it is essential to our long term wellbeing and
>thriving. Now, the hard question is how to successfully get
> > > I think even in a society of guaranteed income, we would see
> > > most people working to better themselves.
> > That depends on the people! Your statements apply to some
> > sets of people in history, but very, very few. In the current
> > United States, I don't think that the number of people who
> > would continue working would be adequate, because too many have
> > very dull, routine jobs, and too many (like me) have better
> > things to do with their time. The memes of industriousness,
> > hard work, prudence, and self-reliance would have to be a hell
> > of a lot stronger than they are now to make a go of it at the
> > present time.
>We hamstring ourselves both when we ignore history and when we
>think that tomorrow is a repeat of yesterday of necessity. The
>conditions of a truly abundant society of free and open
>information are very different than anything that has goine
>before. In a society where all the physical necessities of life
>are already present and where there are ample and open
>opportunities to explore and grow there is nothhing left to do
>but better yourself or simply hang out. The latter eventually
>gets pretty boring.
>Hard work? I work the hardest for things I truly love, not to
>express some meme. Why should it be considered "hard"? Why not
>deeply focused and joyfully engaged in? Prudence? There will
>be some reasons for care but the danger of falling into economic
>ruin will not be one of them. I bit that danger adieu as
>joyously as I bid sickness and death adieu. Self-reliance? We
>are all in this together. Self-responsibility is one thing but
>the notion you can only rely on yourself or that your own caring
>and responsibility extends only to you and the few you claim to
>love is simply not an essential aspect of existence as it is nor
>is it necessary for a healthy and vibrant people. Of course it
>depends on what you mean by the term.
> > > I think it will be an incredible world when because of A.I. and
> mature nanotech
> > > we see homelessness, poverty and lack of good medical care wiped
> away. I would
> > > like to see housing, power and food become very cheap so that people
> > > even fathom the way 20th and early 21st century have-nots lived.
> > Yes, that'll be great.
> > > And I do not see this destroying the traditions of personal
> > > People will just move up on Maslow's pyramid to achieve higher needs
> and wants.
> > > As I have already written here, the desire for status will do us well
> in the
> > > coming age of incredible prosperity.
> > I think that you're still talking about people like you
> > and the people you know. A majority of people will just
> > non-stop party when their ship comes in.
>I think a lot more people "like us" would be created in that
>kind of world. Non-stop party gets boring eventually. Those
>that want to do that can do it to their hearts content with
>little consequence except the boredom and meaninglessness of
>it. They will burn out on it eventually.
>Now, there is a question in such speculations. And that is what
>to do with the people who don't want to live in such relatively
>paradisical situations. Should room be left virtually or
>actually for those who simply insist on living a life where most
>of their time and energy is spent anxiously maintaining a
>"living" and chasing after many things of the "good life" that
>are by design either not obtainable to all or that can
>dissappear so easily as to keep up anxiety levels to make them
>more productive and "industrious"? Should we keep room for
>those who wish to "make a living" rather than living a life?
Q. What is the similarity between an elephant and a grape?
A. They are both purple... except for the elephant.
Virtual Reality Association http://www.vr.org.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:51 MDT