Both Gail and Natalia have commented on various aspects of our current economic definitions of "work" and the ecological, social and human consequences of these.
Both bemoan the ways in which we currently organise ourselves to get done what needs doing. Natalia questioning the priorities which courts and governments give when they licence organisations to create 'work' and Gail questions why we seem to like factory models more than family models. These are really key questions, and increasingly serious concerns. I think both Gail and Natalia agree with me that we have 'evolved' to the point where non-reciprocal exchange based economies are not conceivably part of our future. Another way of saying this is that money and exchange are unavoidably part of our future. I know there are many who would wish this was not the case, and even some who are trying to conceive ways in which it won't be, but I for one can't see us going back to us all providing for our own needs, or providing in very small groups for our collective needs. Hence, we are stuck with money - and to large measure therefore stuck with economics (though I acknowledge the very good work being done by a number of economists to try and modernise economics). I reached this conclusion some time ago, and hence have spent much of the past few years studying money quite intensively - because I hate what our current money systems are doing to us and to our planet. This work has lead me to alternative approaches to money, to community currencies based around locally determined value systems. I am increasingly convinced that a properly constructed (and connected) system of local currencies would complement our current national and international currencies and would allow us to change the way we work (and remunerate our work). We are by no means the first to come to this conclusion. Tom Greco and Bernard Lietaer (to name just two) have been talking about community currencies for years. And there seems to be some evidence that these ideas are gaining momentum. We are currently talking with some mainstream financial services organisations about how they might get in at the leading edge of this movement. This is about the only way I can see to address the issues which Gail and Natalia raise. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: "...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darryl or Natalia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Gail Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 07, 2007 6:15 AM Subject: [Futurework] Framing Resources Hi Gail, You commented: "We don't seem to be able to develop any better way of distributing the means to survival than through processing the planet's resources, having organized ourselves more as a factory than as family, spurred by a vastly exaggerated notion of scarcity and praising our remunerated activity as "work." It seems all such a pity." Well said! I find that discussing the future of work cannot be realistically approached without present consideration for how we are using, abusing or restoring what resources we have. Too much of the future of the planet and life thereon is determined by short-term, profit seeking concerns to whom governments and the courts have usually given favour. We can discuss what manufacturers are going to do, and how their decisions will affect workers and the market, but such focus on short-term problems which usually result in the corporate concerns taking precedent fails to address the root problems we face around our immediate survival and our need for a sustainable healthy planet. I believe that if we take a hard look at what we had but a hundred years ago, realize what we've got left today, and admit and commit to what we can and cannot do in future, survival and the future of work would become far more clear. Of course, that would begin with real leadership, and leadership's acknowledgment that credible -- as opposed to Pharma-funded -- science must be consulted and respected before policy decisions are made. What science means to some may not be what many would value. Science that discredits traditional, centuries old knowledge and common sense should be rigorously scrutinized. That's why government accountability is not only an important topic, it is an urgent one. Truth has been suppressed around countless issues that impact our immediate survival, and as long as the focus is still scarcity of affordable goods for primarily N. American consumption, we will not find our way out. Maintaining the current unsustainable system and its mythical competence depends on pillaging resources of our own and other nations. How much time does that leave us? There is no future in a world based upon false hope. Far too many job markets being discussed on this list address industries of a dying breed. Everyone unemployed can get a job in the manufacturing/service/sales sectors, but involving what kind of product and what kind of service? What means are employed, and what resources and poisons are consumed or distributed to perform their jobs? How many more of these 'bright' futures are doubly condemned by growing casual work lists and dirt wages they glean? What a different world the truth would usher in. A world properly dedicated to a sustainable future, where everyone's contribution had value. Natalia Kuzmyn HUMANS USE ONE QUARTER OF ALL NATURAL RESOURCES NEW SCIENTIST - Almost a quarter of nature's resources are now being gobbled up by a single species – humans. People appropriate 24% of the Earth's production capacity that would otherwise have gone to nature, according to figures for the year 2000, the most recent available. The analysis was performed by Helmut Haberl, of Klagenfurt University in Vienna, Austria, and colleagues using UN Food and Agriculture Organisation data on agricultural land use in 161 countries, covering 97.4% of the planet's land surface. The result is a gradual depletion of species and habitats as we take more of their resources for ourselves. And things could get even worse, they say, if we grow more plants like palm oil and rapeseed for biofuels to ease our reliance on fossil fuels. By comparing carbon consumption through human activity with the amount of carbon consumed overall, Haberl's team found that humans use 15.6 trillion kilograms of carbon annually. Half was soaked up by growing crops. Seven per cent went up in smoke as fires lit by humans, and the rest was used up in a variety of other ways related to industrialization, such as transport. Haberl says that the Earth can just about cope if we meet future needs by producing food more efficiently. This could be done by intensifying production on the land used now. But we are asking for trouble, he says, if we expand production of biofuels, as the only fertile land available is tropical rainforests. http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12176-humanity-gobbles-a-quarter-of-natures-resources.html _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
