The linkage of work and income has to be undone. Free lunches are the means to achieve a sustainable future. People need handouts not hand ups. If a basic income is paid to all, then we can reduce consumption. Likewise of we apply a inclusion framework which establishes a wealth ceiling so that the ratio between the top income quintile of the population is three times that of the bottom quintile. By delinking sustainable income from paid work we establish the basis for both a gradual repositioning of effort as well as a ecologically sound conservation. The means to constructing this strategy is the reconfiguring of the political will that sees economic inclusion of all as the means to cohesion and congruence of purpose. The critical test is what is surplus in terms of wealth. Once this is assessed the "morals commission" would expropriate it and distribute it to those in need. The criteria of a civilisation is it's capacity to reduce wants in order to address need. For those who we would say but how do we assess need, we would refer them to the pedagogical principles inherent in a morality/ ethic of expropriation of surplus to fulfil need. Be Well David Tolich
Please note, In public view, everyone seems to have it wrong! The left and the right now seem to agree that jobs are the only acceptable way to dole out money to the masses. Yet, when we create nearly full employment our powerful technology and out large supply of workers will always waste too far too many resources to be a sustainable mode of operation. On TV there is no confict between expanding the economy to make jobs and contracting the economy to conserve resources. Whether our goal is to preserve the present pecking order or to help improve the lives of the poor, we must have a sustainable system for anything to really matter to anyone. Excess growth is the cause of our high consumption, and high consumption is the reason our economic system is not sustainable. Growth is the common problem of all classes! True conservation cuts consumption and that cuts production and that cuts real paying jobs and profits. No one supports a sustainable economy. Without true conservation we can continue to squander scarce resources to exercise all our surplus labor. Without conservation we can have our giant SUV. That is our plan, left or right. Is is Zero-Vision. I doubt that pro-growth positions should be called radical, or different, or anything other than conventional parrot talk, even when it is a socialist talking. A stable population could use a general increase in durability to cut its consumption to sustainable levels while maintaining high living standards. Consumption is not use. Use is not consumption. Barry Brooks
