[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) wrote:
>Victor Milne wrote,
>
>>I find Rifkin's central argument quite compelling: that the net effect of
>>technology is to reduce the number of available jobs in the long run
>
>Considering that the *purpose* of technology is to save labor, it would be
>rather strange if it didn't reduce the number of available jobs (given a
>fixed definition of 'job'). The "other side" of the argument is that new
>needs will always arise to absorb the labor released by labor saving
>technology. Those needs may even already be present but latent -- such as
>building housing for the homeless, etc.
>
>I view the "other side" as a kind of perpetual motion machine theory of
>economics. Sure, if you assume a "frictionless plane", you could build a
>perpetual motion machine. And if you assume limitless and freely accessible
>natural resources, you could build an economy based on the infinite
>expansion of needs. After all the cheap fossil fuels ran out, you'd need the
>perpetual motion machines to supply the motive force.
>
>>Possibly this is such an obvious topic that it was hashed out before I
>>joined the list, but I would be interested in reading other people's views
>>on Rifkin's theories.
>
>Your comment raises a fascinating point. No, the topic hasn't been hashed
>out but in a real sense it is *so* obvious that people can't see it. It's as
>if most of us have a little voice inside that says, "No, that would be too
>easy." or "If the matter were that simple, somebody would have already done
>something about it."
And yet, the essential points of the thesis of Rifkin's book were
discussed here in detail at least a year before the book was published.
I think it could hardly be called _Rifkin's_ theory, as it has been
around an awfully long time, being discussed explicitly, for example,
in Robert Theobald's 1964(?) book. I don't think there's any question
of will it happen, or more accurately is it happening, anymore. The
pertinent question now becomes how do we construct a society which
can function cohesively, allowing the great majority of people to
not only survive but florish, with hope of a brighter future, given
that the system we have been using for centuries is by its own success
bringing about its own demise.
This question is very much open ended, and leads us to examine economics,
politics, science, philosophy, and sociology, at a minimum, in considering
the possible avenues which might lead to answers. We stand at the cusp
of epochs, and the future available to us is more contingent on our
conscious choice than has ever been the case before in our history.
With the vast majority of earth's population under ostensibly democratic
government, we have an opportunity to define the structure of our world
for our descendants, to create the kind of world for them which can
allow them to experience the full potential of their humanity. This is
a truly momentous determination, one demanding a thorough and measured
consideration of the options.
.....Just to put this discussion in appropriate perspective. :^)
-Pete Vincent
