Barry,

This is somewhat related to your "Why men succeed at work." 

The question, then, becomes whether it is possible to engineer a society 
in which people are rewarded for non-capitalist and/or non-power seeking 
(referring specifically to negative forms of power) behaviors. And, if 
so, what would such a reward structure look like? 

Below is my view of what such a reward structure would look like.

Barry


Good engineering uses evolution.  Consider the Japanese 
car designs that are improved, not replaced, whenever better designs are 
available.  It's not one or the other.  In fact no clear lines can be drawn between 
evolution and engineering.

Or, maybe I should have said, we can't wait for nature to guide us; planning is 
required.
Yet, we should take advantage of the good things we already have.  But, which features 
of 
our present economy should we keep?

Here's an outline of goals and policies that I advocate.  We have the components of a 
successful 
economy, as I define it below, already in place.  Thus, no revolution will be needed. 

In my humble opinion we want our economy to provide sustainability, an abundance of 
goods and services, economic security for everyone, and leisure. These goals are 
synergistic and are hard to separate or rank.

Various economic arrangements could provide those wants, and the economic designers, 
who ever they are, must choose between those alternative arrangements.  That is the 
hardest part of the design process.

The easy part is knowing the things that can not work.  To be sustainable an economy 
must not need growth in scale, because any rate of growth in scale will finally make 
that economy un-sustainable.  All the sustainable alternative economies will not need 
to grow in scale.

Also, leisure will require the acceptance of automation into every possible part of 
the economy.  Economic arrangements that don't use technology can't meet the want for 
leisure. All the alternative economies will use technology, and they will not need to 
grow in scale.

Economic security requires some arrangement to provide basic food and shelter to 
everyone without qualification.  Pure market capitalism, private charity, and 
"opportunity" will not provide that.  Some form of transfer payments will be part of 
any economic arrangement that provides economic security.  All the alternative 
economies will use technology, they will not need to grow in scale, and they will care 
for the poor.

Caring for the poor in an economy that values leisure will not focus on making jobs 
for them.  Wage dependence leads to the need to make jobs, the need to compensate for 
automation, and the need for growth in scale. Unearned income is basic to capitalism, 
but it's not democratic capitalism when most people are dependant on wages.  A 
guaranteed income could be adjusted to stabilize wages in an economy that doesn't need 
its full productive capacity. 

The need for growth and waste of our consumer economy will finally make providing an 
abundance of goods and services impossible.  When we make jobs and tolerate waste to 
be busy, or to avoid the need to provide welfare, we are in denial about the power of 
today's automation to replace human labor, and where we going.  The waste of the 
consumer economy will not provide abundance, security, or leisure; not for long.

If it weren't for politics even today's economic arrangements could work, for a while. 
We could stimulate demand so effectively that our wants for abundance and security, at 
least for workers, could be meet.  That's why our want for sustainability is 
important. It's not enough to nurture the market, to end corruptions, to implement the 
most advanced policies in pursuit of unsustainable levels of  hyper-activity.  The 
short-term fix is not a long-term fix, but any long-term fix applies now.  For 
sustainability the long-term fix is to cut resource consumption, not to increase it.

When we combine the known requirements of our engineered economy we get something that 
would seem unworkable without consideration of additional details.  For example, an 
economy that doesn't grow requires a stable population, and an economy that is 
sustainable avoids waste.  So, if we make all products long lasting many goods can be 
provided by inheritance.  Long-lasting houses combined with population stability will 
provide houses without much labor, without economic growth,  without excessive 
resource consumption, and without a need for large income.   Security, abundance and 
leisure are all supported by such arrangements.  

Last time I checked no revolution will be needed to institute inheritance, or family 
planning, or automation, or even transfer payments.  We already have those things in 
our society.  It may take a revolution to get the message out about how those things 
can be used to provide the things we really want.

Barry Brooks




_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to