What is Your Vision of a Positive Future | UR Part Of It

Lori - Post-scarcity

|2008-09-06 11:10:23

My vision of a positive future would contain the following features:

1.
Vindication of the idea that prosperity is NOT a prerequisite for democracy, or
at least of the idea that unlimited growth is not a prerequisite for ending
extreme poverty. All that is needed for proof of concept is a counterexample; a
country that is both poor and free. I had high hopes for Costa Rica, but
eco-tourism is so annoyingly trendy...

2. Travel and migration as a right
rather than a privilege, that is, NO ONE is illegal, ANYWHERE. It appears
working class residents of the global north are in for an inevitable market
correction. If so, let it be mercifully quick. If the principles of so-called
free trade are to be its parameters, let it not be subject to entry and exit
barriers, ignorance of the outside world, asymmetric mobility of capital
relative to labor, deregulation by treaty and other instruments of economic
duress.

3. Some reduction in human population. Hopefully not due to a
die-off (as per your poll question "What impact will climate change have on
human population?"

but due to empowered individual choices concerning
family size. Critics of the latter harp incessantly about a future in which
fewer than ever workers will be supporting more than ever retirees. I'm
skeptical of this claim, as I am of claims of the existence of labor shortages
in general, given the fact that virtually all industries are less labor
intensive than they used to be, and in my experience people compete over jobs,
not the other way around. Retirement prosperity ultimately depends more on the
size of the GPP (gross planetary product) than on the size of the workforce.
Hopefully, of course, simple dignity will depend less on prosperity in the
future.

4. In the spirit of #3, the obviation of work through automation and
by bringing about a 'post-scarcity' state of affairs. Automation seems to imply
what you term extra-biological power, which I'm sure raises questions about
sustainability. I assume you are not opposed in principle to extra-biological
power, as you "propose a starting point for development of a human purpose
as being to expand the scope of human consciousness and, to the degree that
extra-biological force exceeds human biological bounds, apply that force for
benefit of the entire body of life." I suggest coupling such applications
to reproductive self-restraint.

Reply | Quote

Bob Guyer - How do you view scarcity?

|2008-09-06 13:31:56

Hi Lori, my name is bob. Thanks for the thoughtful vision statement.

It
seems clear to me that unlimited growth will create scarcity in the long run
through accelerated consumption of our ecological base. It sounds like you see
population control/reduction as part of the way scarcity will be put behind us.
I guess scarcity is somewhat dependent on how we would define its opposite.
Readily available food, water, shelter, and human companionship would be on my
list of things that could be too scarce. Good sanitation has been one of the
things that helped increase life spans and I would feel a scarcity if that goes
away. Could you tell me more about scarcity and your vision of post
scarcity.

On your number 1 point I agree, I see the pairing of growth economics
and the idea of democracy as unnecessary, they are separate ideas. The economic
growth advocates have paired the two for marketing reasons in my opinion.
Economic growth as a result of the industrial revolution has happened in all
countries that have industrialized regardless of political system. I don't know
much about Costa Rica so I can't comment about that, but I do know that when you
measure the happiness of a population increased economic growth doesn't seem to
correlate with increased happiness after a point.

Point 2, I haven't thought
much about national and other human social borders except that the idea of
semi-permeable boundaries could be applied artfully. I worry that if all
boundaries were fully permeable that there would be more change than people
could tolerate, but this is probably just my own limitation, not a justified
criticism of your idea.

Point 3 and 4. I don't buy the fear that reduced
population will result in a young worker shortage that will have terrible
consequences either, I think it is a popular notion generated by a large scale
corporate point of view. One way or another the number of people will have to
match up with the number of us that our environment can sustain over a long
period of time.

Its better in my eyes that we take charge of our reproductive
lives and decrease population growth, but I have a hard time thinking to far
beyond that. I have 3 kids, planned 2, and I just love them. I can't imagine how
it would feel to not be able to have kids.

You are right I don't object in
principal to the power we have developed but I am sure we don't have a clue as
to how to use it without eating up our environment to our own detriment. Having
this power is a natural outgrowth from our ability to collect information
culturally over time, in my view it all depends on writing. Objecting to the
fact we have created this power is like objecting to our ability to talk, think
and write it down.

I like your vision. How we get from where we are to a future
that is positive for human individuality and social life and constructive
relative to our impact on our habitat is a big question. I think individual
action only gets us so far, I think we will need big changes in our political,
economic, systems.

Reply | Quote