Interesting piece. I agree with parts of it (particularly those which I
think are pretty commonplace such as the automation bits -- I (and, Arthur
and zillion others) were making those projections 20 years ago.
I disagree with the suggestion that that extrapolition still makes sense
after 20 years. In fact I think we are seeing the beginning of a new
post-automation paradigm--sometimes referred to as the "maker"
revolution--where the capacity to make/remake items at whatever level of
aggregation (from the world (or worlds) to the genetic and probably beyond)
is opening up a huge new range of "opportunities" (risks) and a future (or
more likely futures) which no one I've read really has a good grasp on. What
does the future look like when we can build/make our own food from the
genetic level up as individuals, or build our cars from kits of software and
silica, or remake the planet to make it sunnier (or cooler, or to provide a
good wind for the Round the Cape yachting billionaires. I've no idea.
BTW, I agree there are strong patterned similarities between Darwin and Marx
but not the ones you point to. Marx would have been horrified at the
Larmackian/Lysenko-ish notion that working in factories somehow impacted at
the genetic level. Darwin and Marx are united in their belief in some sort
of historical teleology, that there are deep structures ("historical"
forces--for Marx, natural selection for Darwin) which guide and eventuate in
that teleology, and that their discovery of these deep structures/historical
laws was of a deeply scientific nature.
That Darwin is classified as a "scientist" and Marx as an "ideologue" is
rather more in the nature of the winners writing history than any useful
assessment of the contribution of eitther IMHO.
Best,
M
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Keith Hudson
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2012 9:24 AM
To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, , EDUCATION
Subject: [Futurework] A brand-new economy is inevitable
It's a pity that Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) never
met -- which they could have done so easily. For one thing, they shared 64
of their years. For another, for much of their lives they lived little more
than a modest hackney drive from each other. They could have had a
fascinating conversation because, each within in his own sphere and
expressed in his own terminology, they had reached exactly the same
conclusion. The environment is all-important. This is that, in Darwin's
ecological view, it is the (climatic) environment that's the major player in
selecting the more efficient genes* and thus, subsequently, in the overall
choice and balance of species on earth. In Marx's economic hypothesis, it is
the (widescale factory) environment that shaped the genes* that have to do
with rank-ordering and thus, subsequently, the class structure. (*In their
time, of course, neither Darwin nor Marx were aware of genes as
deterministic entities. Mendel was nearest to understanding genes at that
time but his discoveries were confined to an obscure journal.)
In retrospect, we can easily see the Gargantuan changes that took place over
the course of the industrial revolution during which 80% of the population,
leading wretched, under-nourished lives in the countryside migrated to the
growing cities where, ultimately, prosperous factory workers of the 1960s
were then able to enjoy the sort of consumer products and the lifestyle that
only royalty had experienced in previous times. But it was too early for
Karl Marx to see those changes clearly in his time.
However, since the 1960s a new crop of Gargantuan changes had been
burgeoning. These were quite a different crop that Marx, or even Keynes (60
years later), could never have possibly foreseen. Software-led automation
had already arrived in commerce and was already nibbling into job numbers.
In every year since then, automation has bitten deeper and deeper into the
economic machine, whether it's in extractive jobs or transportation,
manufacturing or retailing. Because each new 'generation' of automation is
more energy efficient and thus creates profits for further investment, it is
impossible to guess just where and when it will end. We are only seeing the
beginnings of it so far. In due course, every conceivable repetitive job,
whether physical or mental, will be replaceable by machinery. No employer
would dream of delaying automation in the slightest for fear of being pipped
by another firm.
Critics may protest that with declining work-forces there'll be declining
consumer markets and thus declining profits and thus declining investments.
However, because of its software nature, automatic machinery is able to be
profitable with shorter and shorter production runs. Investment machinery
doesn't have to be larger in incremental size or number. So long as the
software algorithms are able to become smarter than ever, then the machinery
can be versatile enough to produce profitable single items (and to turn
immediately from one product or service to another).
Critics might also protest that incentives will be taken away from 'greedy'
entrepreneurs (or, today, bankers!) who will therefore be deprived of great
wealth. But 'greedy' individuals are not Dickensian caricatures who start
businesses or operate there merely in order to count up his earnings at the
end of the day. No, they are individuals who have strong creative needs, or
who have been given a lucky opportunity and decided to run with it, or who
wish to be wealthy in order ro be able to pick among the best experiences
and products that the world has to offer, or who desire high social status
(not necessarily in wide public view).
The consumer market had already begun to shrink 30 years ago quite besides
the onslaught of automation. Increasingly in Western advanced countries,
parents have already been deciding on less than replacement sized families.
For this reason alone populations will be declining very steeply well with
two generations. Within three or four generations, we will be heading for
extinction.
But will we want to go extinct? It's most unlikely. The lower the population
becomes, and the more the natural world re-beautifies itself, the more
enjoyable it will become for the smaller numbers of those who remain. And
among those will be the designers of automatic equipment, backed up by
equally gifted and educated specializations. In this new economy, all is not
at all likely to be perfect. There'll be competition and trading between all
the different highly skilled power groups and political differences, too.
But this time, being all the more dependent on one another they'll be more
content with modest differences in wealth and income differentials as they
occur and not the outrageous ones of today. Each of tomorrow's specialized
services would have the power to veto any assumption of privilege that
militarists, industrialists, politicians and, most recently, bankers, have
been able to do throughout history so far
Keith
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
