From: smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british
Subject: Re: The end of society as we know it (was Re: Currency Problems)
Date: 5 Oct 92 10:00:47 GMT
Reply-To: P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee)
Organization: University of Bristol

In article <BvJDG4.CBt@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixjr.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.120011.6508@bristol.ac.uk> P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk (Paul Smee) writes:
>>
>>As a thought experiment, consider technology taken to its limit.
>>(After all, that's where we are trying to take it.)  It's now 2050, and
>>we have completely technified the country.  We can make everything we
>>need (goods AND services) using technological solutions.  No workforce
>>required.  But, since no-one has a job, no-one can afford to buy all
>>these products.  Not a good solution, but it IS the direction which
>>many of us are, if we're honest with ourselves, working towards.
>
>Try a thought experiment in the opposite direction. Go back to 1850, and tell
>the folks then that all the goods and services they then produced, could be
>produced with (say) 5% of the workforce employed then, in 1850, to do it.
>Shock horror all round! But what will the other 95% do? Answer, they will do
>all manner of things *inconceivable* to the folks of 1850, but completely
>familiar to you and me. I think it's pointless worrying about where technology
>will be in 2050. 

My surmise, and I'll stick with it, is that while 2050 will almost certainly
bring all manner of currently inconceivable goods and services, they will
almost certainly be 'technified' in the same way that traditional ones are.
Indeed, they will have 'technification' built into them from the start, as
they are developed.  Thus, I believe my hypothesis is a reasonable one.

While I have ignored unforseen technologies in this side of the equation,
I have also, in compensation, ignored unforseen technologies in the energy
and production side.  I.e. all my 'energy' and 'machinery' could be made
or gotten using only existing technology, or reasonably (and conservatively)
expectable results of engineering research which is currently under way.

>>solar-generated electricity, but maybe wave-power and/or wind).
>
>Wind and wave have done very little so far. Even in California.  
>Where would
>we build hundreds of windmills in the UK - people wouldn't stand for it. Where
>is there enough consistent wind (other than Westminster)? As for wave, if I
>remember, the River Severn is the only place in the UK with enough of a tidal
>bore to make it viable - environmental shock-horror all round.

Lots of places with reliable wind.  As for what people will stand for,
who can say.  They certainly go along with aging nuclear plants a mere
12 miles from me, and in the 'wrong' direction far as prevailing winds
go.  For wave, the Severn is probably the only suitable site for
'tidal' power.  However, there has also been a great deal of research
into 'farming' wave power.  That looks very promising, and it looks
like pretty near anywhere along the coast (of which we've got a lot)
would do.  Ultimately, though, I'd put my long-term bets on solar, or
maybe a breakthrough in fusion power.

>The Luddites and their modern day counterparts, the
>printers and the coalminers and, less visibly but still to be included, their
>managerial counterparts (choose all your own favourites, here), cannot accept
>this. They want "this" job for life.
>
>In the UK last xmas, I saw part of a programme about the privatisation of 
>refuse collection in Camden. There was one dustman, he not only wanted "this"
>job, he wanted "this" round! 

There are, undoubtedly, some few people like that.  However, the majority
of the cases I've seen involve people who simply want A job.  And, we can't
offer them one.  And, we keep working to make it increasingly unlikely that
we ever will be able to offer them one.

-- 
Paul Smee, Computing Service, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UD, UK
 P.Smee@bristol.ac.uk - ..!uunet!uknet!bsmail!p.smee - Tel +44 272 303132
Newsgroups: soc.culture.british,rec.arts.books