Wednesday 11 January 2023

In The Twenty-Second Century

"By the opening of the twenty-second century, the Psychotechnic Institute's power and prestige reached their zenith. The bright future it had planned for humanity seemed inevitable. High technology was triumphant. The blessings of the Second Industrial Revolution were available to all. No one went hungry or homeless anymore. Work had become a privilege instead of an obligation."
-Sandra Miesel, Forward IN Poul Anderson, The Complete Psychotechnic League, Volume 2 (Riverdale, NY, February 2018), pp. 3-5 AT p. 5.

But who works for whom? Is economic activity still based on competition for profit? If it is, then there is still:

a class of owners and employers;
a class of employees (however small that may have become!);
production and sale of commodities;
a declining rate of profit;
a built-in boom-slump cycle.

However, there are several major differences from the economy as we know it. First, as I understand it, the date and severity of the next major economic slump are inherently unpredictable. However, a fictional premise of the series is that the science of psychodynamics makes economic and other social developments predictable.

Secondly, advanced automated technology can continue to produce necessities even during a slump.

Thirdly, workers are not dependent on employment for their comfort or survival and must therefore have a completely different relationship to their employers.

Fourthly, a national employing class is no longer supported by an armed state willing and able to wage war to procure raw materials, trade routes and markets.

That makes everything sound different - as if the competitive, profit-seeking sector of the economy could become increasingly redundant.

16 comments:

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I don't think I understand all of your comments here, or agree with everything I think you seem to be saying.

I see nothing wrong with people working for others if the terms, conditions, remuneration, benefits, etc., are agreeable to both parties.

You seem to think "...competition for profit" is somehow bad. At least that is the impression I get. If so, I disagree. All that this "competition" means is that some of the manufacturers and providers of goods and service of all kinds are more efficient than others. Baker A succeeded while Baker B failed because A offered baked goods of all kinds at a level of quality and at prices customers preferred over what B offered. Unless he was a moron A did not storm and destroy B's bakery!

Slumps and recessions are an inevitable, even necessary parts of any reasonably free enterprise economy. It's a way of cancelling mistaken decisions and forcing a more realistic and efficient reallocation of resources of all kinds. Attempts at preventing recessions are far more likely to needlessly worsen and prolong the pain, turning them into depressions.

It is not the view of free enterprise philosophers that "...a national employing class" has to be "...supported by an armed state willing and able to wage war to procure raw materials, trade routes and markets." What you described is more akin to Mercantilism, not free enterprise economics, and was fiercely attacked by Adam Smith himself.

I believe the urge to be competitive is innate in the human race. And will show up in all forms of human activities. Trying to deny or stamp out that urge simply will not work.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Competitive sport is good. Economic competition has caused wars.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

I still disagree. You are confusing the MERCANTILIST/protectionist mindset with what it is not, genuine free enterprise economics.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

Whatever we call it, wars for oil and spheres of influence occur now.

Paul.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

And that ultimately goes back to the innate human urge to compete for power, status, rule over others, etc. Things like oil are merely the means used for satisfying that urge.

Adam Smith wrote his classic THE WEALTH OF NATIONS to combat the dominant economic thinking of his day, Mercantilism.

Ad astra! Sean

paulshackley2017@gmail.com said...

Sean,

There is no innate urge to rule over others. Certain societies encourage certain motivations and try to pretend that those motivations are innate. Wars are fought over oil because of its central economic role.

Paul.

Jim Baerg said...

"Wars are fought over oil because of its central economic role."
Here is an interesting proposal for reducing that role.
https://www.terrapraxis.org/projects/clean-synthetic-fuels

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Paul!

That is simply not true. The desire for status, power, RULING, etc., is innate in all humans, to a greater or lesser extent. Some desire wealth as a means for gaining status and power.

Even if oil is replaced by synthetics, as Jim suggested, people will simply fight over other things.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: yup.

For literally hundreds of thousands of years, political power (and hunter-gatherer bands most definitely have politics) was crucial to successful reproduction.

Ancient DNA research has multiply reinforced and reconfirmed this. The Y-chromosome (male) lines of descent "bottleneck" over and over and over in a way which the mitochondrial (female) lines don't, or not to nearly the same extent.

I mentioned that 10% of Asia is descended from Genghis Khan, but that's just one example -- the ancient DNA research shows events like that (though usually not on the same scale) go back way, way before agriculture or state-level societies.

So the desire to seek power -- both individually, and just as important, collectively -- is indeed inherent in human beings.

It's not the whole story, but it's there and it will never go away, absent drastic genetic engineering.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

Exactly! And one reason for what you summarized above was that you only needed one or a few men to impregnate MANY women quickly. Women could not do that because it took so long, nine months, to have a child. To say nothing of how, before modern medical care, so many women (and their babies) died in childbirth.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: add in the long dependency period of human infants, who are monstrously labor-intensive compared to, say, kittens.

S.M. Stirling said...

A contemporary pop-culture reference: the YELLOWSTONE tv series.

Note that none of the people in that (in some ways rather realistic) series who are intriguing and using skulduggery and corruption and violence on each other -need- to do so in any direct physical sense.

The leaders of each faction are -already- rich and powerful.

They're doing it because of ambitions that go far, far beyond personal physical satisfactions.

This is spot-on, if the details are often rather melodramatic.

And hell, reality is melodramatic often enough... 8-).

S.M. Stirling said...

And bear in mind that as the saying goes, it takes the agreement of many to produce peace -- but only one to make a fight.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

True, human child raising is hugely labor intensive, far more so than for the offspring of any animal. And requires the cooperation of both father and mother.

I've not watched YELLOWSTONE, but I agree the scenario is realistic. Powerful and wealthy can still be ambitious and aggressive, even if they don't NEED more wealth. Such things are RELATIVE, not absolute.

Ad astra! Sean

S.M. Stirling said...

Sean: and if they weren't aggressive and power-hungry, they wouldn't be rich or powerful -- or even if born to that status, they wouldn't -keep- it long.

Sean M. Brooks said...

Kaor, Mr. Stirling!

I agree. Even if born rich and powerful, you have to make at least some minimal effort to STAY that way.

Ad astra! Sean