Actually Tom you didn't understand what I said.    I spoke not only to the
heading which I disagree with but to the argument about "productivity" and
could have spoken to the disaster of the rise of the middle class for both
the complex cultural products, families and personal competence arising out
of Technical Rationalism and the rise of the "Professions."   What I'm
saying  is that "scalable" systems like "economie of scale"  "education of
scale" etc. are built around a core value that is the opposite of "Leave no
one behind" and the value of each and every individual.   That may not be
just humans as well.    

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christof-koch/consciousness-is-everywhere_b_17
84047.html?utm_hp_ref=science    

 

When you have winners and losers rather than potentialities, systemic growth
and the value of the individual, constituting the success of the system, it
will always be narrow self interest rather than reaching beyond one's self
to a greater potential.    In other words the problem is the goals of the
capitalist system itself.    

 

We could call it the garden versus the wilderness, [Laissez Faire] or we
could call it the individual craftsmen versus the assembly line, etc. etc.
What to an Englishman was a typical uncontrolled English forest was to an
Iroquois a controlled and tended garden fired twice a year and planted over
fifteen year cycles for the good of all of the nations, including humans.
See Chapter 9 and 10 of Charles Mann's book  1491.    I contend that the
"self interest"   winner/loser model is inept and doomed to chaos and
licentious non discipline.    The only thing that makes the individual seek
beyond the banal is intrinsic motivation based in growth and the passion for
discovery.     Have you read George Miller's old article on human limitation
called "The Magical Number Seven plus or minus Two?"    I would recommend it
as a grounding in the fact that we are all inadequate and that the local
loser may actually turn out to be the seminal figure of the age that makes
idiots of us all.    Happens all the time in the Arts.     Jerome Rothenberg
demonstrated it in Theology when he went around the world studying religious
poetry and found that Indigenous Priests were the most complex of religious
thinkers and the purpose of religion in human Domains.   He termed the book
of their poetry "Technicians of the Sacred."      It is never about freedom
of the individual or groups but "Freedom to do What?"    Without the clarity
of purpose and the Ultimate Values of that purpose we are perpetual slaves
to our ignorance.    War is so inviting because in war everyone knows that
they need everyone else or they don't survive.   Peace is much more
difficult and susceptible to who tells the best story.     Even tempting us
to forget that we only really know that which we have personally
experienced.   Everything else is a story to be enjoyed but not considered
worthy of emulation.    My experience is that theories are just theories
until we experience the success or failure of their action.   But involving
other people in the exploration of a theory requires both agreement and some
kind of insurance lest we become criminal in our actions.   The article that
I read about Robotics and that I personally experienced in my youth and in
the destruction of the performing arts in America by film, recording and
television, is now being followed by the regular industrial sector.    We
didn't find anyway out of the heavy metal pollution and the destruction of
family jobs.    The Arts found solace from automation only through the
amateur structures of religious music and the adolescent commercial
entertainment that accompanied the technology.  The result, as I said, was a
98% decline in the labor force as a result of economies of scale through
automation.   As for productivity.   I'll say it again.   It's a fraud,
just a way of transfirring money from the competent to the speculative. 
Economics, as an Art form,  has not evolved yet so they think people are
"throwaway able."     

 

I believe that it is a stupid suicidal culture that thinks in such a short
term manner.      I think that Baker's beginning is inaccurate.    Your
environment teaches you and carefully preparing your environment  is the
only way we have of controlling our future.     Robots are the same math as
cheap slaves.     They are even called "slaves"   in the music business.
But if your slave doesn't bankrupt you and frees your labor to human
creativity, you can be Greece in the classical era.   Otherwise you are
Greece in the 21st century.    Better living through capitalism.  (joke)

 

REH


 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:37 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker

 

Ray,

I'm afraid you haven't read Dean Baker's response carefully. He's not saying
all that bad stuff won't happen. What he is saying is that it doesn't have
to happen. It isn't the inevitable result of technology but the result of
bad policy that responds inappropriately to the technology.

On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Ray Harrell <[email protected]> wrote:

Nonsense.   Robotics destroyed my home town and destroyed the families and
the culture in the hometown.   It destroyed the culture of the Arts in
America while making capitalists rich.   There is a 98 % decline in jobs in
the Arts business.     I make less than half what I paid my teachers in
1970 dollars and I'm at the top of my profession.    Productivity is a
mirage for people to hide behind while they steal the competent blind.
They are doing it now to the teachers in the schools and returning teaching
to the ghetto it was on the Quapaw reservation before my father changed it.
I don't know where you get this stuff Tom.     I've lived through it several
times and the NYTimes is correct. 

 

REH

 

From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walker
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2012 12:19 PM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com: Skilled Work, Without the Worker

 



Dean Baker's response to that article is excellent:


Robots Don't Cost Jobs, Bad Economic Policy Does

 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-ba
d-economic-policy-does/print> 

 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-ba
d-economic-policy-does/print>  

 
<http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robots-dont-cost-jobs-ba
d-economic-policy-does/print> 

-- 
Cheers,

Tom Walker (Sandwichman)

_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to