On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 12:47:27AM -0500, maru wrote: > Correct me if I'm wrong Trent, but isn't the whole point of modern > society, technology, science, and liberal democracy to reduce the > amount of physical misery, mental anguish and sheer drudgery/work a > person has to go through
I wouldn't go so far as "the whole point", but it is an important part, yes. > I mean, I am not an economist, but when I see the wealth figures > heading really far north to the point where the wealthiest person > can have 90 billions (up from mere millions not that many centuries > ago), I cannot understand how anybody could begrudge a person wanting > a modest sum of in the thousands, which would suffice to keep bones > together after all too many years of toil. A modest sum in the thousands? Like, say ten thousand dollars? Per year? For 30 years? Increasing at 2% per year for 70 years? Multiplied by 100 million people? $119,986,746,685,453? About 120 trillion dollars? The numbers rapidly become rather immodest, don't you think? > With all the wealth and production of goods, Trent, I ask you why > people should be forced to spend their best 'healthy' years doing > things that in the final analysis they really don't want to do Why should anyone be forced to work? Why can't everyone just go around doing whatever the hell they want? > Why do we continue to work so hard when machines work so well? Until we can make self-replicating, self-powering moderately intelligent machines to do ALL the drudge work, how can we avoid doing some of the drudge work ourselves? -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
