From: Adrian Tymes (wingcat@pacbell.net)
Date: Wed Apr 09 2003 - 12:11:04 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> A great change becomes possible in our economic
> institutions.
> The limit of our ability to create and enjoy
> whatever we wish is
> not the limit of our salary. Salary becomes
> superfluous because
> there is no need to put fences up in such an open
> and boundless
> commons. There is no need to say that you can only
> produce X if
> you pay me because I originally figured out the
> pattern for the
> nanobots to make an X. So what? What need have I
> for salary or
> for charging you and thus requiring you to have a
> salary when we
> both can produce whatever we want using the
> technology once it
> exist upon the common knowledge base of humankind?
> Why on earth
> (or off it) would we play silly joy/salary games in
> such a
> world? It seems to me we can think up a lot more
> interesting
> and fun games to play. Having thought of those
> better games, is
> there any need for policing me to insure I don't use
> what you
> figured out without paying you?
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.
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.)
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.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 09 2003 - 12:20:14 MDT