Hi Charles,
At 16:49 19/01/01 +1100, you wrote (following Gail's original message):
cut to --->
(CB)
So, the challenge I set those who would like to create a better society is
"how do we get all the work done we want to get done in a way which allows
everyone to have a meaningful place (or words to that effect)".
I suggest that the answer is that we will never have "seamless" work (work
for money, or voluntary work) until we have a form of society in which, to
use a phrase I tend to use in my own thinking, an "equivalence of
transactions" takes place.
I don't believe that any individual does any work other than for selfish
reasons. By "selfish" I mean that which subjectively seems to assist the
physical, emotional or ideological state of the individual -- even if this
is at an unconscious level (such as the sacrificial activity of one
individual for another of very similar genetic make-up.)
If this is accepted, then "equivalence of transactions" need not require
instant or near-instant gratification (as in most economic transactions),
but can be very long term. However, the latter can only be reasonably
expected if there is a social structure in which there is an overall
"balance sheet" which remembers the altruistic activities of this or that
individual (as in voluntary work) and repays him or her at a later date.
If that's so, then there is little hope in our present society of the sort
of "seamless" work that Charles (and I) would like to see. We have long
left the form of tribal society in which all transactions (work) had a
likelihood of being compensated. The return of such a society may seem a
hopeless wish, but I believe it's quite possible (even probable if we
survive long enough) -- such is the strength of the evolutionary history to
which we are already predisposed in our genes.
Indeed, this is the main reason why I became interested in the Net in that,
in due course, the ability to work (economic) will not depend on where one
lives (and within travelling distance from work). The vast majority of
economic work will be achieved by distance methods (operating a robotic
factory or farm thousands of miles away, for example). People will then
want to live (a) where there is a pleasant environment, and (b) where a
community can develop.
(For example, I started a business in which a team of people working in
seven different countries -- and who have never met one another -- make
products which sell to customers in over 60 countries. I think this can be
extended in the future to almost any type of business which can be imagined.)
Such a future scenario is entirely reasonable to expect (in due course!),
except there appears to be a big difficulty. This is that a high level of
civilisation needs an educational structure that ensures that all
individuals can find their appropriate intellectual (job) niche. The
technological level is now becoming so high that mankind cannot possibly
survive over the longer term unless the overall ability level is not at
least maintained (and, hopefully, continues to advance further, however
slowly). Education, to my mind, is therefore the key to the whole problem.
Keith Hudson
> Actually, I sent this to Gail the other day.... sorry I pushed the
>wrong button and sent another message she had already posted.
>
>--
>Charles Brass
>Chairman
>Future of Work Foundation
>PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 Australia
>Ph: 61 3 9459 0244
>Fax: 613 9459 0344
>
>The mission of the Future of Work Foundation is
>"to engage all Australians in creating a better future for work"
>
>Received: by fowf.com.au (mbox cab)
> (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31a 1998/05/13) Fri Jan 19 17:43:10 2001)
>X-From_: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 18 20:05:56 2001
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from fowf.com.au (acc23-ppp112.mel.dialup.connect.net.au
[210.10.142.112])
> by entoo.connect.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP
> id B3438DD553; Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:05:54 +1100 (EST)
>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:06:45 +1100
>From: Charles Brass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I)
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Futurework invitation - I want some points
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
>
>Gail
>
>I think under netiquette rules I am too late to post a response to your
>16 January invitation to get some points (though by sending this just to
>you I severely restrict my actual capacity to gain points).
>
>My approach to the issues you raise is to attempt to (re) claim the word
>"work" for something more profound than "getting work done through
>employment".
>
>In all the dictionaries I have seen the first definitions of work are
>related to energy, or activity and only subsequently to employment.
>
>In my lexicon work means "any goal directed activity" and is essentially
>the umbrella term for doing something.
>
>I then use adjectives to describe particular types of work - paid work,
>job work, study work, home work etc.
>
>So, the challenge I set those who would like to create a better society
>is "how do we get all the work done we want to get done in a way which
>allows everyone to have a meaningful place (or words to that effect)".
>
>Some see this as just semantic, but given the powerful hold which
>economic thinking has on our collective psyche I can't see how we
>achieve some of your "supposes" without beginning with this sort of
>re-definition.
>
>Now I acknowledge that this re-definition by itself doesn't actually do
>anything - but it does permit some lateral thinking which might just do
>the trick.
>
>For example, to take your first point, economics behaves as if
>employment is the only form of valuable work (principally because its
>unit of exchange is the dollar - which is at the core of conventional
>economics). Under our new lexicon the challenge becomes how to value
>all work.
>
>Well, we have employment covered.
>
>There are also many examples of local exchange mechanisms which expand
>quite considerably the range of activities for which valuable exchange
>systems can be developed.
>
>Then analysts like Jeremy Rifkin and others contemplate ways in which
>goverments might use their revenue to support volunteer activity which
>today also suffers from a lack of its own transferable value.
>
>Instead of creating policy initiatives to buy more jobs, we would think
>creatively about how to get all the work done which needs doing.
>
>So, does this add anything?
>
>--
>Charles Brass
>Chairman
>Future of Work Foundation
>PO Box 122 Fairfield 3078 Australia
>Ph: 61 3 9459 0244
>Fax: 613 9459 0344
>
>The mission of the Future of Work Foundation is
>"to engage all Australians in creating a better future for work"
>
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
