Good morning, Ed, I don't have a lot of time unfortunately for posting today, but I do want to suggest that maybe you are being overly pessimistic. I see a quite bright future, one in which intellectual contribution, aesthetic contribution, innovation, enterprise, experimentation, structural flexibility and adhocracy are the dominant characteristics.
Yes, as it now positioned, much of our population won't be able to make its way to this. Too many people today are stodgy, unattracted to eduction, stasis-oriented, entertainment-seeking, and physically unfit. They would have a very hard time making it in a world of change, action, and initiative. But here is the point that I think a lot of the postings here may not appreciate: that these changes will happen over time and that people -- and populations -- will adjust to the new problems and opportunities. They won't of course change in perfect sync with the changing world: all of us tend to be lazy and somewhat reactive, at best (and there are good reasons for this). So there is a lag, and it is in that lag that people experience uncertainty and some experience fear and failure. But by and large, populations adapt to new realities. And, in my view, those realities will be very friendly to those who embrace change, action, and initiative. Of course, these new realities won't happen all at once; indeed, as the eloquent comments on this list reflect, they started some time ago, and they will take decades and centuries to become fully evident. And this brings me to the societal function of death. In the end, a significant part of the process of change depends on the death of older people. They take with them old habits, old demands, and old attitudes to the grave. They clear out space for younger people, younger ideas, and expectations. Death creates space for innovators, experimentation, and change. It is also true that death deprives us of a certain amount of often hard-won wisdom, and, I suppose, we will be ever rediscovering wisdom that was lost as older people die. To the extent that wisdom is contextual, this is not bad, but not all wisdom is contextual.... So, for me, the future does not look at all bleak: it looks exciting, inviting, freeing, and demanding. Those who don't 'get it' will not see it this way, and I understand that. What I hope we don't do is drown ourselves in a swamp of despair, and I see some of the posts here doing that, or contributing to that. Not only does this tend to leave people at their worst -- is despair and inaction -- but it also saps the energy of youngsters when it comes to their addressing their own futures. It is the opposite of pollyanish thinking, and both are equally destructive. Unfortunately, a lot of well-meaning activists have fallen into the trap of thinking that if they scare people enough, people will change. These activists thwart with this view the very goals they hold, and in the thwarting they themselves sink into despair and anger, and so become themselves useless to the processes of healthy change in society. I hope these notes are of interest. Cheers, Lawry On Jul 14, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Ed Weick wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Ed Weick > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:08 AM > Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff > > > The main trends I see are continuing population growth, continued > urbanization (see Mike Davis's Planet of Slums for example), reduced > employment per unit of output (increasing efficiency in production), a > continuing shift of production to the low wage world, and the increasing > importance of the financial sector as opposed to the goods producing sector > in the advanced world. All of this means an exacerbation of the unemployment > problem we have now. I don't think that the world we're moving into will be > a pretty place. > > A little over a decade ago I spent a month in a vast slum of Sao Paulo, then > a city of 20 million people. Many, perhaps most, of the families of that > slum were migrants from the countryside who had lost jobs on plantations > because machinery had replaced them. They were stuck; there was no way that > they could go back to the land and grow their own food. The people I worked > with lived in a third stage favela (slum). Accommodation consisted of very > crowded but solid brick-block buildings. People in second stage favelas > lived in shacks cobbled together out of whatever wood and tin could be found. > First stage favelados slept in cardboard boxes under overpasses. > > People did whatever they could to stay alive. Quite a few worked in hotels > downtown, others ran local shops, but many sold drugs and turned to petty or > even major crime. Standoffs and shootings between the police and drug > dealers or criminals were commonplace. > > I'm not suggesting that our situation will be like that of Sao Paulo, but > given the kinds of changes now apparent, we will go some distance in that > direction. Our kids won't have the kinds of opportunities we had, and it > will likely be worse for our grandkids. We increasingly hear the word > "deflation", which suggests a prolonged slump and falling prices because > people cannot or will not spend as they did before. Paul Krugman argues that > if people are not spending, the government must, but governments already have > high debts and their powers to tax are diminishing. > > Sorry that this posting is a downer, but I'm not an optimist so I might as > well say it how I see it. > > Ed > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: balfourarch > To: [email protected] > Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 11:11 PM > Subject: Re: [Ottawadissenters] Fw: More dismal stuff > > > Ed > > That kind of scenario cannot play out; post oil food if not raised locally is > not coming from afar. > The economy that allows the city state to exist collapses. The dregs cannot > exist if the flotsam above has sunk; the folks will be busy trying out how to > raise a little food inner city wise or moving to the hinterland to take over > the monoculture abandoned fields. Or die. > As in the latter day urbanization as saviour days are not sustainable. The > inner city has nothing to trade for the food from the hinterland. They have > to get their hands dirty..... > No room left for the drug culture. > rb > > On 2010.07.12, at 3:14 PM, Ed Weick wrote: > >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ed Weick >> To: Keith Hudson >> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 5:40 PM >> Subject: Re: More dismal stuff >> >> Keith, I understand what you are saying, but I'd still maintain that the >> world has changed greatly over the past half century. Production takes >> place over a much larger part of the globe, container ships and aircraft >> move what is produced around much more rapidly, communications are instant >> and America and Europe have lost much of their economic clout. Because >> production has become more efficient it needs fewer people per unit of >> output and yet the global population continues to grow and its growth is >> expected to continue. I see the question of how increasingly urbanized >> populations will make a living as a major problem. Increasingly via drugs >> and crime probably. >> >> Ed >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Keith Hudson >> To: Ed Weick ; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION >> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 1:45 PM >> Subject: Re: More dismal stuff >> >> Ed, >> >> At 11:34 12/07/2010 -0400, you wrote: >> >>> There's been a lot of discussion, too much in fact, on Keynes and Hayek on >>> the list recently. I recall reading them, and others like Friedman, a very >>> very long time ago. They understood the world from the perspective of >>> their times, but now they're all dead. Well Krugman, essentially a >>> Keynesian, isn't dead, but the kinds of things he keeps saying in his >>> columns, which I've characterized as "spend, spend, spend", seems out of >>> place too as belonging to a past era rather than now. >>> >>> What kind of a world do we live in now and how might we think about it? >>> One of the greatest differences between the worlds of Keynes and Hayek is >>> the extent of globalization. >> >> There was as much, if not more, globalized trade (as between many different >> importers and exporters in different countries)(as a percentage of total >> world GDP) in the 1870s/80s as now. A very great deal of globalized "trade" >> today is the shifting of components and sub-components within and between >> large corporations. >> >>> Economic decisions and actions that are now made a very long distance >>> from us can have a huge effect on our well being. When Keynes and Hayek >>> lived, and thought, unemployment in a particular country was seen as caused >>> by a fall in effective demand in that country or by market imperfection >>> such as too much monopolization and too little competition. I don't think >>> that is the case now. Many Americans for example are unemployed because a >>> large chunk has been ripped out of their economy and shipped off to China. >> >> But it's still the case that most high-value components (with higher profit >> margins) are made elsewhere and only assembled in China. Even so, Chinese >> wage rates are rising rapidly now -- just as they did in Japan and Korea in >> the 1960s and the 1980s respectively -- and will be equivalent to ours in >> the not too distant future. Chinese firms will then start to move to the UK >> and the US just as the Japanese and the Koreans have done. >> >>> Another major difference between the world of Keynes and Hayek and our >>> world is that of the efficiency of the productive process. Even if >>> production has or has not been shifted to China and the BRICs, the >>> productive process employs far fewer people than in would have in Keynes' >>> and Hayek's day. But because of population growth there are far more people >>> needing work. Even the production of an increasing proportion of consumers >>> goods in China has done little to increase the proportion of the Chinese >>> population that is employed. And globally, while the efficiency of >>> production has increased greatly, so has the proportion of the global >>> population needing employment. In 1950, global population was >>> approximately 2.5 billion; by 2000 it had increased to over 6 billion. And >>> a much larger proportion of global population lived in cities where they >>> would be less able to fend for themselves if they did not find jobs. >>> >>> Yet another major difference between our world and that of Keynes and Hayek >>> is the greatly expanded role of the financial sector, which can play a very >>> large role in global economic illness or health, as the US subprime >>> mortgage debacle has demonstrated. Yes indeed, as James Galbraith argues, >>> catch the bastards, incarcerate them, apply tough laws, etc., but will that >>> stop them? Hardly, given the vast number of hiding places that electronic >>> communications now provide them. >>> >>> So, let us nod respectfully in the directions of Keynes and Hayek and >>> earlier economic thinkers like Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say, David >>> Ricardo, etc., but let’s not forget that we live in a very different world >>> than they did. >> >> But the basic nature of economic transactions remains exactly the same as >> then -- and probably the same as in 75,000BC when sea-shell necklaces were >> traded over long distances. >> >>> My greatest fear is that our world of growing population, job shrinkage, >>> and the growth of nefarious practices could, in a couple of decades, >>> resemble the world portrayed in Soylent Green, a very classic movie about a >>> world gone totally out of kilter. >> >> All the signs are that when people are in Soylent green scenarios -- as they >> surely will be in many regions of the world -- then fertility rates go way >> down. There'll also be a huge amount of starvation but, within a generation >> or so, the world population should start to sink. I think the basic >> technologies will be extremely sophisticated by then so the big issue within >> the advanced countries (not necessarily those of today) will be whether they >> can educate their children up to a standard to be able to force job sharing >> on the adults with interesting. >> >> Keith >> >>> Ed >> >> >> Keith Hudson, Saltford, England >> >> > > balfourarch > [email protected] > > > > > > __._,_.___ > Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic > Messages in this topic (3) > RECENT ACTIVITY: > Visit Your Group > MARKETPLACE > Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get > the Yahoo! Toolbar now. > > > Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. > > > Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new > interests. > > > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use > . > > __,_._,___ > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
