Human civilizations have spread through two or three spiral arms of the galaxy. The Commonalty is a service organization in one civilization.
Daven Laure, a Ranger of the Commonalty, says:
"'...we can't have a planned interstellar economy.'" (p. 771)
Agreed. Impossible and unnecessary. Each planet or at least each planetary system should be self-sufficient.
Laure continues:
"'Planning breaks down under the sheer mass of detail when it's attempted for a single continent. History is full of cases.'" (ibid.)
Laure's history is longer than, and different from, ours. With advanced, "intelligent," whether conscious or not, computers, nanotech and communications technology it should be possible to plan at least the production and distribution of physical necessities. No one should have to earn a wage in order to eat. Such physical security would provide the material basis for maximum human freedom. Nicholas van Rijn, transported into such a future, would find endless opportunities for pleasure, culture, social interaction, study, learning, travel and creativity but would not find a labour force needing to be employed by entrepreneurs like him in order to survive.
Laure refers to quadrillionaires. No one can either need, or earn by his own individual labour, quadrillions. The term implies an economic pyramid with a base of low wage earners and unemployed. Thus, our familiar social structure is projected into what should be a qualitatively different future society.
Laure's career has to show what is described as "a profit" but:
"In this particular case, the profit would consist of detailed information about a unique environment. You could prorate that in such terms as: scientific knowledge, with its potentialities for technological progress; space-faring experience; public relations -" (p. 769)
I agree with this but the word, "profit," has gone far beyond van Rijn's trade pioneer crews finding new spices to sell in a money economy back on Earth.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Apologies, I still disagree with many of the points you made here.
I do not agree with advanced computer technology, conscious or not, that it should be possible to plan for at least the production of physical necessities. Because no one can possibly predict what might be necessary or desired in the future. All anyone can do is make estimates--and any number of factors can throw those estimates off.
Nor do I share such optimism as this: "No one should have to earn a wage in order to eat. Such physical security would provided the material basis for maximum human freedom. Nicholas van Rijn, transported into such a future, would find endless opportunities for pleasure, culture, social interaction, study, learning, travel and creativity but would not find a labour force needing to be employed by entrepreneurs like him in order to survive. Because most people are simply NOT going to be like Old Nick. A post scarcity economy in which most don't need to earn wages is far more likely to result in what we see in "Quixote and the Windmill": despair, ennui, seeking relief in alcohol and drugs, destructive rage, etc. I personally know of people with zero interest in culture, the arts, literature, philosophy, etc. For them employment and wages might be exactly what they need to find fulfillment. Most people are simply not going to CARE about the higher things in life.
We have billionaires (or quadrillionaires) because some of then at least, like Bill Gates or Elon Musk, discovered or invented something which filled a hitherto unknown and massive need. Which means they earned those billions and I would oppose spiteful and envious attempts to destroy those billionaires and prevent others from joining them. And I like how Musk is using of his wealth for getting mankind into space--and more successfully than gov't agencies have managed to achieve in decades!
I don't believe in the likelihood or plausibility of that "qualitatively" different civilization you hope for--because nothing in human history or in how REAL men and women behave makes me think your dream is possible. You might call this a lack of imagination in me, I call it simple realism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If this were true, then we would have to give some people an entire planet with limited technology where they could continue to work for a living.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I believe the problem we are discussing here can only be managed, not "solved." One possible "solution" would be extraterrestrial colonization. My view is that if mankind begins colonizing other planets, they would most likely need to start at a much lower level of tech than what would be seen on Earth--because I think many colonies would need time to gain the capital required for the most advanced technology. That would leave openings for people on Terra who feel frustrated and redundant. Emigration of the most dissatisfied would also be a safety valve reducing strains and stresses on Old Earth.
Btw, do children still celebrate Guy Fawkes day in the UK with stuffed effigies of Fawkes? And ask passers by for "A penny for the Guy"?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That still happens. And fireworks.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I wondered! I might even give such children two pence coins! (Smiles)
November 5, Guy Fawkes Day, used to see ugly expressions of anti-Catholic bigotry. Nowadays it just seems to be an occasion for amusing children.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
There is no longer any anti-Catholic sentiment.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Good. But anti-Catholicism can still be found, if you look for it.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment