The following issue recurs and has been discussed before:
"'...once a government starts dividing property up, where does it stop? I worked hard for what I have, and I mean for my youngsters to have it after me...'" (p. 231)
That attitude made perfect sense in the kind of economy that we have had but not in the kind of high tech civilization that is possible in the future.
See:
Poul Anderson Appreciation: Interstellar Wealth
Poul Anderson Appreciation: Issues In Mirkheim
- particularly the comment about a technology that could make every living being rich.
This will remain a live issue on Earth Real.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe what you hope for, some kind of high tech "common ownership of everything" is either possible or desirable. You are going to continue to need free enterprise economics and the limited state for high tech to even remain possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Free enterprise will be redundant when wealth is abundant. And the state will be even more limited when it is no longer protecting vast accumulations of private property.
Paul.
What will there be to compete about economically? Someone who would previously have been an entrepreneur will no longer be able to invest in the labour of others and will no longer be able to direct the production of commodities to be sold at a profit to himself in competition with other producers. Socially controlled technology will produce more than enough for everyone, freeing a population from drudgery and exploitation. Vast social resources, no longer used to defend private property and national borders, will then be deployed to enable each individual to realize their full potential. Subsequent generations will take this for granted and wonder why life used to be any different until they learn the history of previous societies with small surpluses.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Human beings are acquisitive and competitive, and I believe some will compete in the sciences and technology. Because I believe that will be one means for some people for gaining status, prestige, even power. To say nothing of how the competitive drive encourages further invention and development. That is so obvious to me!
It's the other way about, "labor" has value only if there is a demand for it. And my view is competition will be good as a means of stimulating demand for it.
"Socially controlled production" is a fallacy. It boils down to having politicians and bureaucrats arbitrarily deciding what to produce. And that has never worked well.
Humans being what they actually are in the real world, there will always be a need for the State to exist, simply to keep the peace and control crime.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have described conditions in which I think that economic competition will be redundant. I did not refer to competition in general.
"Power" only exists where there are means of coercion. I have argued before that weapons, bodies of armed men etc need not be perpetuated into an indefinite future.
My views seem obvious to me!
Curiosity, inventiveness and creativity generate invention and development.
In a high tech future, "socially controlled production" will not mean politicians and bureaucrats. It will be handled by automation, AI, routine procedures, communications technology and democratic decision-making. Past experience is no guide to a completely different future.
My point about labour in this case was not to argue about the source of its value. My point was that, when everyone is supplied with what they need, no one will have to be employed by anyone else in exchange for a wage or salary. The economic entrepreneur class becomes redundant.
The real world changes. There will not be crime as theft, mugging, bank fraud etc when there is no longer a division between some owning property and others wanting to steal it.
Finally, all of this has been said before. Occasionally you say something to which I respond. I do not respond every time but, when I do respond, we then repeat everything that I have said before.
I have given reasons why both free enterprise and coercion of some by others can become redundant. I try to get discussion of suggested reasons as against mere repetition of statements.
Paul.
...everything that we have said before.
"Humans being what they actually are..."
Human beings change! We have changed our environments with hands and brains and have changed ourselves into human beings in the process. Change is what we are.
Very different social conditions bring about very different perceptions, expectations and aspirations. I am confident that the general level of intelligence and creativity will be raised by a culture that encourages these aspects of humanity instead of stifling them.
Right now, large numbers, unfortunately, are ready to riot when told lies on social media. This has just happened in Britain. But many more are prepared not to stay at home and leave it to the police but to turn out in even larger numbers and say no to rioting. This also happened and this time it was the rioters who stayed at home to many people's surprise and also considerable relief.
There are many people right now who are keen to live in a better world when we can overcome the massive obstacles to it.
Kaor, Paul!
And I don't believe a single word of what you hope for. All these "changes" you hope for is mere hope backed by no proofs. Humans are going to remain competitive, acquisitive, aggressive, and prone to being quarrelsome and aggressive.
You are hoping so much for these "changes" that it gets in the way of objectivity and realism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Human beings are going to remain..." is a mere statement.
If fundamental change were impossible, then we would not exist. The examples that I have cited are not addressed. But we are merely repeating ourselves.
Paul.
Sean,
Sometimes I get the impression that you are not responding to what I have in fact said. If, for example, I were to claim that, without any preparation, without any build-up, without anything else changing first, every single individual human being was scheduled to undergo a sudden massive psychological and moral transformation, instantly changing them from what you call "Fallen" to what you would call "unFallen," then of course that would be absurd. I would have no possible ground for making such a claim. And in fact I do not make it. But I try to show that I have some understanding of causes, conditions, processes, interactions and possible (not certain) future states which, whatever else happens, are bound to differ qualitatively from the present just as the present differs qualitatively from the past. My view can of course be disagreed with but to denounce it as baseless nonsense is itself nonsense.
I would like to move us to a broader discussion and away from an endless repetition of affirmations and negations but maybe that is not possible.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe it will be possible because it comes down to irreconcilable and opposing beliefs about what human beings and human societies are like.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But what we are like is that we have changed.
Me: If we change our material and social conditions fundamentally, then we also change our lives, including our perceptions, thoughts and motivations fundamentally, still more so those of our descendants growing up in a completely different environment with no one telling them that they are inferior or should be excluded.
You: Even if we change our material and social conditions fundamentally, we ourselves, all of us, will remain fundamentally unchanged forever. Behaviour that was explicable in conditions of scarcity, poverty and deprivation will continue indefinitely even in conditions of abundance and of every opportunity for personal development and fulfilment for everyone.
Let us put these contradictory theses to the tests of practice and experience.
Paul.
Post a Comment