Re: No revolution will be needed to...

I respect Barry  Brooks' sentiments and share his hope for a world based on
profits, not people. But there's the reality of the
rich/wealthy/elite/capitalists (call them what you will) and their
governments, media, schools, and military. They just "might" consider using
force to prevent that evolution......as they did in Indonesia, Chile and a
hundred other places.

Just a thought:

People often say (to me and others) that egalitarianism/marxism/communism/
(call it what you will)---a system that tries to institutionalize human
well-being-------- would be a nice system if it could work, but it is
unrealistic because politics will always lead to conflict and problems. What
I ask is:  But really, does capitalism work any better.......would a system
that institutionalizes cheating and violence somehow be able to work?

Alan Spector






----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Brooks" <durable@earthlink.net>
To: <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 9:20 AM
Subject: No revolution will be needed to...


>
> Good engineering uses evolution.  Consider the Japanese car designs that
are improved, not replaced, when better designs are available.  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.  Small changes
can make a big difference.
>
> 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 any 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.  With a little bad luck anyone
can end-up needing help, and automation will finally cause widespread
unemployment. Pure market capitalism, private charity, and "opportunity" can
not provide economic security.  Some form of transfer payments (welfare or
guaranteed income) 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 media
to explain how those existing social features can make the goals of
sustainability, an abundance of goods and services, economic security for
everyone, and leisure a reality.  If  we could agree we could just use the
internet and forget the corporate media.
>
> Barry Brooks
>
>
>
>