Theoretically, it's all so easy, isn't it? I have no doubt that our present global productivity and resources are sufficient to supply even our oversized population with secure subsistence; as Neil defines it, "enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, education, health care, honest policing and legal protection." The current contrast between useless superfluity and want is often obscene. http://www.manetti.it/web/eng/edible/bin/
The problem is getting from here to there. Francis On 9 Dez., 09:46, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the concept of karma is > not valid. Otherwise all those people would already have > metamorphosised into cockroaches. Or perhaps they have, on the > inside ... not Gabby, but from a Guardian blog. > I have seen a lot of material over the years on getting rid of > poverty. 'Critical Perspectives in Accounting' has produced a few, > including a penny on income tax as enough (a Foucauldian perspective). > There is a critical side to this kind of dream and I wouldn't engage > with it to knock the dream. The first horrible fact is that > interventions have produced a great many more people in poverty simply > through the use of medicine, decent water supply (not always so > decent) and improved agriculture. It would have been more sensible to > cap the population back in the 1950s. We haven't grasped this nettle > even now. > Our general notion of improving matters is more of the same through > consuming capitalism - this means our thinking is that of idiots. > I like the idea of enough to eat, shelter, warmth, collectivity, > education, health care, honest policing and legal protection - and > that these should come 'free'. They should be free in the sense of us > contributing what we can to all this as a 'responsibility' (all of us, > with no exceptions - this raising problems with disability, but not > insurmountable ones). Freeriding should not be possible either by > scrotes or through wealth. This should be national (international) > service - something we all do (do, not just pay for). > What we do that is more than this should not wreck the world. > > Even at this stage there are many objections that can be raised. What > would motivation be in such a society, what grim bureaucracies might > make things worse, what sadness might we cause for those wanting > massive numbers of children and so on? Would we crush the very > creativity we need or create more space for it? I'd want to limit any > earnings or establish a potlach to allow personal kudos in > accumulation, but one that comes to a collective end. Would this > destroy the world because bweankers (this sort of describes bean > counting and the onamism of bankers) could not be bothered to do > anything without motivational bonuses? > > On 9 Dec, 07:57, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > This is the position we need to be working from Orn. I was at a > > session for self-employed people yesterday and BS aside you could feel > > that people present wanted to contribute not just scrabble for cash. > > Yet sadly this was what the session was about. My own desire not to > > work for anyone else is driven by a desire not to be part of quite > > dreadful conditions in employment that deny my integrity (flawed as I > > accept it is) and almost any chance to be human. I sort of want > > something a bit like the 'free table' of Plato or Aristotle, though am > > nauseated by any thought of a slavery base for this. I like Kibbutz > > ideas. There are deeper, wider issues though. > > I feel privileged when you bring matters such as this to our table > > mate. And when Chris brings reminders that there is an industry of > > such. By the time I've done my thinking on the ideal, I recognise > > there is much organisation to be done and that we do not reach an > > ideal. Sooner or later issues like population control enter and one > > realises the ideal brings practical responsibilities. This should not > > stop us. > > > On 8 Dec, 14:18, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > A very interesting view: > > > > ... > > > MUHAMMAD YUNUS: I believe that, totally, poverty is not part of human > > > being, that is my first premise, so if it not part of human being the > > > real human being will emerge some day, it is the stupidity of human > > > being that created poverty, so stupidity can not go on, the real > > > creativity of human being will take over the stupidity and it will > > > completely eliminate it and this is the century when it will happen. > > > And it can be done, it's not a, a kind of a pipe dream or some > > > fantastic thing, it's possible because it's us who make the difference > > > and if we can create the structures to do that; people will raise > > > themselves out of poverty, just like that. Human beings created to do > > > much bigger things than struggle with food and clothes and some tiny > > > little thing. These are matters of past, these are pre-historic thing. > > > Real history will begin when there are no such things. > > > ... > > > > The entire interview is > > > at:http://www.abc.net.au/tv/elders/transcripts/s2757468.htm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
