-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Kurtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Thomas Lunde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: September 3, 1998 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Basic Income(2)
>Dear Thomas,
>
>I'm pleased to continue - a bit. Just to clarify where our judgements
>diverge.
>
>T 2:
> using the present moment as the
>point of reference, at this moment we are not experiencing any energy,
>agricultural or resource limitation.
Thomas 3:
I probaly should have been more location specific - in Canada.
>
>S 2:
>See the references I posted in response to Eva today. I go with scientific
>consensus that we are way beyond limitations. This is managed somewhat by
>stealing from the future; but food production cannot be geared up as you (&
>Hyman) believe - in the opinion of experts.
Thomas 3
Steve, I agree except for the comments about experts. I don't trust their
opinions or their stats. I drove through Northern Ontario this summer and
everywhere I saw farmland going back to trees and abandoned farms. They
existed for a hundred years and provided a livilihood for families and
communities. Why are they being farmed today? Because super farming has
made them uncompetitive. Are they capable of growing food and livestock -
of course. It is the economic system not the limitations of resources that
often create these shortage statistics. I was in a town in Northern Ontario
that produced iron ore for 75 years, is there still iron ore there, yep,
it's just not econically profitable because of a few cents difference in
price on transportation costs. Oh yes, they scrapped a town, government
buildings and supporting agriculture that existed because the railroad ran
through there. In Princeton BC, they have a mountain of low grade copper
that has started and stopped 4 or 5 times over the last hundred years
causing great financial hardship because of fluctuating copper prices. Now
I do not dispute that shortages are coming or that we have too many people,
but reality is often very different than a statistic or an experts opinion.
>
>T 2:
> basic income goes for basic food and shelter
>requirements and with some careful budgeting, perhaps the fulfillment of
>some goal, like a new camera, etc.
>
>S 2:
>Or alcohol, drugs.. Can't tell what people will choose to do with money.
Thomas:
You know, I don't know what's so bad about drugs, some of my best friends
use them and I've had some mighty fine experiences in altered realities.
The real problem with drugs is that society has criminalized them which has
created lots of criminals. Now, it is not only the poor who use alcohol or
drugs. When I go down to my local liqour store, it is the middle class I
see walking out with a case of beer and a couple of 26's. And I can assure
you from first hand experience that drugs are used continously in the homes
of workers and professionals. The real crime is the politicians won't talk
about it and use the taxpayers money to make the situation worse.
>
>T 2:
>Given that most of these things fall within the possibility of sustainable
>resources (with proper management), I do/did not consider resource use a
>limiting criteria to the concept of a Basic Income.
>
>S 2:
>Please research this claim a bit if you want to use it in your arguments.
>My reading has shown 100:1 on side of overshoot of carrying capacity &
>already exceeding limits.
Thomas:
Research is one of my weak spots. I often just use my eyes and then the
thinking part of my brain to ask questions. Research is a morass where
studies are done but you never know the criteria. Facts are selective and
conclusions suit the authors bais. I do that too, except I try to have as
much first hand experience as possible and as little dependence on experts
as possible. I hang out some with the poor, it's surprising how smart some
of them are.
>
>T 2:
> Do I believe that
>there are resources to provide food, shelter and basic civilized comforts
>like a TV or bicycle for the poor - I guess I do. I believe that those
>kinds of goods can still be produced in great quantities without making a
>major dent on our energy, resource base or agricultural potential.
>
>S 2:
>I lived in NYC for 27 yrs. Now, after 7 yrs in rural New Hampshire with
>fresh air, plenty of spring water, fairly healthy forests, some arable
>land, I could forget about the 5 +billions who don't have this environment.
>NH has 1 million in the whole state!
>Canada has the least density/natural resources of any country on earth. It
>is easy to develop solutions based upon local parameters that don't fit
>globally.
Thomas:
You are absolutely right Steve and if there is one glaring weakness in my
arguments it stems from the fact that I am Canadian, the second largest
country in the world, voted a number of times as the best country to live in
and on top of all those kudo's, I'm still complaining that it could be even
better for us Canadians. But on the other hand, because I have had the
luxury of technology, good librarys, access to intelligent people, I have
become what I am. I think if more people had a Basic Income, there might be
more countries like mine and more people like me.
>
>T 2:
>The question then becomes to we develop birth control from a population
>that is unstressed by poverty and lack or do we develop birth control from
>a society in which an
>individual can feel a strong sense of security?
>
>S 2:
>The latter is highly unlikely, since even with basic cash income, not
>enough food/water/fuel etc to deliver currently. Again, I believe what
>scientists report, & also see violent conflicts over habitat, illegal
>migrations to greener pastures, backlash from those already there... My
>idea is free birth control aid & *voluntary* family planning programs, and
>for those societies who agree to implement these programs, economic aid in
>the form of food, medicine, technical training, & education. I can't see
>knowingly increasing fertility (food/medical) without some strings for
>family planning.
>Women are breeding machines in fundamentalist muslim, orth.jewish, morman,
>and other patriarchal societies. I would refuse aid to regimes that
>subjugate women. I see no other choice because would reinforce their
>subjugation.
Thomas 3
Steve, I disagree with the punishment model. I believe that you get better
behavior when you reward people than when you punish them. I would not
refuse aid to anyone because in my model of the world, you have to go to
where they are and then lead them somewhere else. I don't believe in the
"do as I say, not as I do school of thought."
Well, it's been a slice but I think we have probably explored our issues
together for now. Take a read of my Basic Income Proposal which I'm posting
tonight and we'll move on to other considerations.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
>
>Thomas 2: I would argue that lack of durability, excessive consumption of
>useless items, industrial age production of tons of things that advertising
>has convinced us it would be neat to have contribute more to the decline of
>physical systems than people living moderate and comfortable lives.
>
>S 2:
>This is a social critique with which I agree. However, it can take
>generations to change societal values - barring war, plague, famine...
>apocaplyptic change. The tidal wave of materialistic values has swept Asia
>& Africa. No place is exempt. Maybe a global depression will cause some
>value shifts, but *meanwhile*??? The money god is well entrenched globally.
>
>Thomas 2: It seems on answering some of the issues you have brought up
>that
>your concern is the depletion of our natural resources. Mine too.
>However,
>I am also concerned about a social system based on work and paychecks when
>the structural system of capitalism finds it very convenient to eliminate
>paid work and to create labour surplus's that drive down the wages of those
>who do work.
>
>S 2:
>I don't think capitalism wants to eliminate paid work - as a system. Who
>would buy the goods and services which generate profits? The corp magnates
>do want to keep a surplus of skilled labor to keep wages down. But they
>need growing markets to sell to. So they, and gov'ts they control who have
>spiralling nat'l debts, need GROWTH. Problem is, growth is now suicidal, &
>is linked to population growth. The system is debt based. If there were
>surpluses - of financial & natural assets, why would gov'ts want more folks
>to share it with? It is a competition like musical chairs, with chairs
>being removed but more players looking for a seat! No easy answer, Thomas.
>But I am for socialized health, nutrition, education -- but with those
>contingent responsibilities to society & commons that I mentioned. The
>world's not ready for my proposal either; too many current sacrifices of
>freedoms and gratifications.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Steve
