work overload and burn-out. These are work issues as well as quality of life and the plotting of such by those who are future planners seems to me to be as important in the final scheme of things as what kind of funding source there will be. I'm reminded of those state of the art low income housing projects in St. Louis that created ghettos and caused environmental illnesses (a recent school in LA has similar problems with the environment). After 30 years they blew them up, the school in LA has been stopped as well. Cole makes a good point about the social and economic benefit to the society of the drugs that relieve the stress and slow the burn-out. A better answer would be a more humane society, economics that consider the human condition and soul as much as the bottom line and futurists that considered quality of life from the very beginning in the planning of new projects that will be with us for the next fifty years.
Jack Cole wrote:
(snip)
I wonder what results would occur if we
considered the value transactions that are/are not taking place in our
environments (social, religious, psychic, economic, political, play, etc.)
in terms of complete systems of which we are a part and then consider what
our part is and how the way we play it renders us "dysfunctional." (snip)
but when environments cause pain, that pain is
telling us something. At least it tells us that what causes pain should
receive attention or perhaps an alteration in the way the relationship to
environment and others is being played out.
Maybe our relationships with all of these environments should receive some
attention and a dialogue could occur about how one navigates various paths
through them in a healthful manner.
I'm not sure the latter suggestion, of how one does it, fits the
future of work, but knowing the past, understanding how it
is played out in the present and being able to project with mastery on
the future seems well within the mission of this list as I read it.
That does not in any way mean that I disagree with Arthur and Sally as
to the tone of what I've read, and sometimes write myself. I can
be rude, just ask Harry or Chris! But the issue
for me, and I don't think Jack answered it, is whether we can get past
the subjectivity of our personal experiences or our theraputic credentials,
(I have them as well) and contemplate the problem from a place of observation
and an analytic mind. (God no, I don't like Rand, I think she
is a cartoon!) Hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings.
REH
