Two problems:
Boredom
Provincialism
Boredom will create despair.
Provencialism will create prejudice.
Remember Jay, the complexity that arises from the modern situation is
no different that Everest. It becomes simpler with exploration but not
appreciably less dangerous as Huxley pointed out in "Brave New World."
REH
Jay Hanson wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ray E. Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >Interesting but what would you do about initiative? That has been the
> >problem with all of the "job" oriented labor in the communist and socialist
> >countries or so goes the propaganda here about it. In my culture it is
> >the Sacred, the family,
>
> I propose to put 95% of the people on welfare -- the society of sloth.
> Here is a snip from http://dieoff.com/page168.htm
>
> --------------
> Step one would be to establish a global government of some sort with the
> authority to protect the global commons – our life-support system – as well
> as protecting universal human rights. This government would also oversee the
> "clean" manufacturing of "repairable" and "reusable" energy-efficient
> appliances and transportation systems. It would also insure the sustainable
> production of staples like wheat, rice, oats, and fish.
>
> Does this new global government sound repressive or restrictive? Not at all.
> A great deal of freedom is possible – in fact, far more than we have now.
>
> eMERGY CERTIFICATES
> Step two would be to replace the organizing principle of "avarice" with the
> principle of "sloth"; break out of the money-market-advertising-consumption
> death trap. The Society of Sloth would not be based on money because that
> would be inherently unsustainable. Instead, it would be based on "eMergy
> Certificates". [37]
>
> Global government would determine the "needs" of the public, set industrial
> production accordingly, and calculate the amount of eMergy used to meet
> these needs. Government would then distribute purchasing power in the form
> of eMergy certificates, the amount issued to each person being equivalent to
> his pro rata share of the eMergy cost of the consumer goods and services.
>
> eMergy certificates bear the identification of the person to whom issued and
> are non-negotiable. They resemble a bank check in that they bear no face
> denomination, this being entered at the time of spending. They are
> surrendered upon the purchase of goods or services at any center of
> distribution and are permanently canceled, becoming entries in a uniform
> accounting system. Being non-negotiable they cannot be lost, stolen,
> gambled, or given away because they are invalid in the hands of any person
> other than the one to whom issued.
>
> Lost eMergy certificates would be easily replaced. Certificates can not be
> saved because they become void at the termination of the two-year period for
> which they are issued. They can only be spent.
>
> Insecurity of old age is abolished and both saving and insurance become
> unnecessary and impossible. eMergy Certificates would put absolute limits on
> consumption and provide people with a guaranteed stream of "needs" for life.
>
> With modern technology, probably less than 5% of the population could
> produce all the goods we really "need". A certain number of "producers"
> could be drafted and trained by society to produce for two years. The rest
> can stay home and sleep, sing, dance, paint, read, write, pray, play, do
> minor repairs, work in the garden, and practice birth control.
>
> SELF-DETERMINATION
> Any number of cultural, ethnic or religious communities could be established
> by popular vote. Religious communities could have public prayer in their
> schools, prohibit booze, allow no television to corrupt their kids, wear
> uniforms, whatever. Communities of writers or painters could be established
> in which bad taste would be against the law. Ethnic communities could be
> established to preserve language and customs. If someone didn’t like the
> rules in a particular community, they could move to another religious,
> cultural, or ethnic community of their choosing.
>
> In short, the one big freedom that individuals would have to give up would
> be the freedom to destroy the commons (in its broadest sense) – the freedom
> to kill. And in return, they would be given a guaranteed income for life and
> the freedom to live almost any way they choose.
>
> For the references, see http://dieoff.com/page168.htm
>
> Jay
