From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.theory,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: FAR future programs
Date: 11 Nov 92 22:25:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.amateur-comp
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

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.

>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!

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

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

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

>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?

>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?

>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.

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.

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.

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.


>			Cheers -Dr. Stu
>-- 
>Stuart M. Brown                             If you can remain cool when all 
>U. of Manitoba, Dept. Plant Science         Around you are in panic,
>Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA
>browns@ccu.umanitoba.ca            Then you surely misunderstand the situation


Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Xref: sparky alt.amateur-comp:183 misc.misc:3724 soc.misc:1027 sci.bio:4063