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."
I guess one of the great conundrums of complexity is that the simple
explanation becomes unacceptable. But there really, truly and absolutely is
no way around the two propositions:
1. technology is labour-saving.
2. available resources are finite.
What this means for us is another question. Just because the sun will burn
itself out in a few billion years is no reason to throw away our bathing
suits. On the other hand, if we're ten feet away from the edge of the cliff
in a bus travelling at two hundred miles an hour it's not going to do us a
lot of good to slam on the brakes.
I believe we're somewhere in between those two scenarios (it's just a
belief). We're close enough to the limits that the consequences are being
felt by billions of people and by the natural environment. But the potential
scope of action remains vast. If we could just stop doing some of the
stupidest things -- weapons buildup, government subsidies to encourage
environmental destruction, tax policies to promote wage inequality -- we'd
have plenty of time left to figure out how to stop the bus before it goes
over the cliff.
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
#408 1035 Pacific St.
Vancouver, B.C.
V6E 4G7
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(604) 669-3286
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
