Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp
Subject: Re: FAR future programs
From: balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Eric J Bales)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:17:44 GMT
Organization: University of Cincinnati

In article <37595@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <BxD9xx.MF3@ccu.umanitoba.ca> browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Stuart Brown) writes:
>
>
>>If society can painlessly produce all the basic needs for everyone, then
>>why this obsession with how each and every person can pay for thier needs
>>and get paid for thier choice of work?
>
>Society cannot painlessly produce all the basic needs for everyone.
>In order to survive, someone must work...if you obtain things without
>working for them, someone else has worked for you. The idea that automation
>will eliminate the need for anyone to work is absurd. Someone must
>eventually keep up the machines that do the production, etc. What
>technology does do is allow people to direct production in other areas
>now that *some* (not all) areas can be handled by machines, but it will
>never bring about some state of Utopia.

This is very true.  I think what people who propose this sort of system
are counting on is a small number of people who WANT to keep the machines
up because they enjoy it.  But they don't realize how much power over
their lives this gives those people.

>>What would happen if we did away with money for most transactions in America
>>right now?  Well first of all, everyone would rush out and grab lots of TV
>>sets and fancy foods and snazzy cars etc.  So we have automated factories
>>that churn this stuff out  untill everyone  has all of the ordinary stuff
>>that they want.
>
>Ah, naivete!

Indeed!  For one thing, one can always have more.  If this stuff did become
so cheap to produce that it cost practically nothing, people would just
buy more and more of it.  They would glut on the stuff, coming up with
new uses for it.  There is the problem of limited resources, also.

>So the answer is to just "automate" industries which produce these things,
>but who will do it?

And this.  Someone's gotta get it done in the first place!  What will be
the incentive for this person to get it done?

>In this world where noone works, who will build and keep up these 
>Utopian factories?

The people who enjoy doing such things.  (But see previous comment on
this subject...)

>Build machines to keep up the machines, etc...eventually, people are
>going to have keep an eye on things, aren't they?

Definitely.  Not to mention coming up with new resources to keep these
hungry factories fed.  The earth is quite finite in resources.

>>Next, no one who hates thier job goes to work any more.  Good riddance!
>>Hopefully most of these jobs can be automated.  For those jobs that
>>still require human attention, we have to find something special to 
>>offer as compensation?  Well, there will always be some things in
>>short supply that can't be churned out by the auto-factories. Artworks,
>>of course, but also choice houses in beautiful locations, special foods
>>that must be grown- not synthesized, and resource intensive hobbies
>>like dogfighting WWII aircraft.
>
>So, no one who likes collecting garbage, treating sewage, producing
>food, etc. just quits....geeze. How much will you enjoy this scenario
>when you have to do all this yourself? If people do this, someone has
>to then come up with ways to automate these things...but no one wants
>to, because they hate to work, so nothing gets done. The automation
>has to come first, doesn't it?

Not only does it have to come first, there has to be some incentive in
it.  This means money, in whatever form you like it.  Again, someone
gets paid to do it, that means someone has to pay to get it done.  Who?

>>OK, so now what does everyone do?  This has already been described
>>by others in this thread.  Lots of scientific research, and Art, lots
>>of human care (teaching, health care, etc.).  I feel that left free
>>from wants, a lot of people would choose to make a contribution to
>>society- and the net result would be technical progress at a faster 
>>rate than in our current fear driven capitalist system.  I'm sure that
>>there will be an ample supply of tecnophiles to keep the gears of the
>>automated industy oiled as long as some attractive compensations are
>>offered.
>
>Who will pay for their compensation?

And who will decide who gets compensated for what?

>>We really are not so far away from making this type of society
>>technically feasible. We already produce wheat and sugar, radios and
>>digital watches at prices so low that it would be more efficent to
>>give them away- if only the producers could receive thier needs in
>>return.

Efficient, perhaps.  Economic, no.

>First you say it is more efficient to give away the products of labor,
>then you say only if the producers are compensated? But isn't that
>the opposite of giving something away...isn't that trading..?
>This is exactly what capitalism is--each individual is a trader in 
>society, and in order to get something, he must give something in 
>return ("do ut des"). Capitalism is less fear driven than reward 
>driven.
>
>What seems to be missing from these arguments is the fact that capitalism
>is the driving force for technological advancement, that the socialist
>countries are completely impoverished.

Yes.  Why?  Because the innovator in a capitalistic society owns his
product.  Not his neighbour.  S/he gets the money from its successful
sale.  Why go through the trouble coming up with a new system or process
when you know you will gain nothing from it?

>What capitalism does is allow each individual, through a system of indirect
>exchange, to decide for himself what his needs and wants are. The discussion
>on this subject has been a classic example of socialistic thinking.
>"I (or "society") will decide what is best for everyone and insure that
>they receive what they 'need'." There is a new twist to it, and now 
>machines will do all the work for everyone. I think this is a bit Utopian.
>In the end, people have to work to survive, and there really isn't any
>way around that. Machines certainly free individuals from certain tasks,
>but there is always more work to be done.

When there is no more work, why bother going on with life at all?  just
let the machines make all the stuff the machines need.  No thanks.  Like
I said last time about this 'utopia', it sounds terribly terribly boring
and dull.  No reason to innovate or explore!  Not very many people can do
these things with NO compensation.  And if some sort of compensation exists,
who pays for it, and who decides who gets it?

>What is best for society, is to allow each individual the freedom
>to decide for himself what his needs are, and to allow him the ability
>to do so without being pillaged (Taxed). If high technology comes about
>because of this, great. But it has to come about naturally, or technology
>will be stifled, because the more force you use to decide for a person
>what is best for him, the less he will be able to use his own mind to 
>do so, and the less he will use his mind at all.

I agree with most everything you've said.  Am just belatedly defending
my earlier post.  :-)

-- 
balesej@ucunix.san.uc.edu - atreis@tso.uc.edu		 -Eric Bales-
ebales@ddt.eng.uc.edu - at098@Cleveland.Freenet.Edu
		        -The second dolphin-
Dolphins. Soon you will be one of us, and then you will understand.
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.theory,comp.society.futures