Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cs.yale.edu!news From: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Future Work (was Re: prognostications about expert systems) Message-ID: <22190@cs.yale.edu> Date: 10 Apr 90 18:34:12 GMT References: <2889@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Reply-To: jellinghaus-robert@yale.UUCP Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept, New Haven CT 06520-2158 Lines: 82 In article <2889@rodan.acs.syr.edu> isr@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michael S. Schechter - ISR group account) writes: >It's not that there's enough wealth, it's that certain very few people >have TOO MUCH wealth.. personally I have nothing against someone wanting >to accumalate 1, 5 , 10 even 20 million dollars.. it's when they keep >on accumulating it after that point has been reached that they are doing it >SOLELY to accumulate more wealth, often at the expense of ruining the lives >of others. What's needed is some sort of progrressive wealth tax, >so that truly excess wealth can be redistributed.. how to do this without >destroying investment in new ventures I don't know, but the concentration >of wealth from the many to the few has to be slowed. What JoSH is saying is that even if all the wealth in the world were re- distributed, it would still be almost nonexistent compared to the amounts of wealth we may be able to acquire through appropriate use of technology. And JoSH unfortunately didn't state that he's basing his argument on a little book called _Engines_of_Creation_, by a chap named K. Eric Drexler. I personally believe the book should be required reading for anyone who reads this newsgroup, and that applies ESPECIALLY to people who are par- ticipating in this discussion. >> I won't be happy until each >>person can have his or her OWN moon rocket or super collider or >>space telescope. I won't be happy until each person can have these >>things because they have each produced that much value themselves. >>If all you want from life is a happy family and nice house in the >>suburbs, I say you have no vision. I say technology gives us the >>opportunity for each and every single individual person to be an >>*honest* selfmade billionaire. (Whew! A little harsh there, JoSH! "No vision"? Not everyone WANTS to be a selfmade billionaire....) >for most people not interested in business. Maybe in years to come technology >will give us that capability, but not now, not with society based on >money and wealth the way it is. What I find fallacious in these wealth-restructuring arguments is precisely this: perhaps someday we could restructure the economic system around one of these saner proposals, but not now, not with society based on money and wealth the way it is. I can't see any reasonable way to shift the massive (incomprehensibly so) inertia of the world's economic and political systems, especially if what one is shifting them towards is so radically different as many of these proposals are. The best chance I can see is to change the rules of the game, to change the meaning of wealth and production, through... well, check out _Engines_ for details. And technological progress tends to be market-driven, so current society will actually help to drive the process. >>Would you want to reduce everyone in the world to wretched, grinding >>poverty on the edge of starvation--provided it could be done equally? >>Their only thought, a dim groping for their next bowl of cold, thin, >>gruel? Absolutely equal in body, mind, and spirit? > >No, but those who are in wrteched, grinding poverty should not be.. >And just how do you propose to have them use technology to >be and honest selfmade billionaire........ Ah ha! Now there's the rub, isn't it? And you omitted JoSH's assertion that compared to the wealthy future he envisions, _all_ _of_ _us_, no matter how rich, _are_ in the midst of complete poverty. >And, don't tell me about how if Donald trump's billions were split up >that would only be $1 per person! What if it were used intelligently??? >For example, take 100 billion dollars and spend 10 million dollars in >10,000 locations worldwide for ultra-cheap housing, medical facilities, >and farming improvements. True, by U.S. standards, 10 million goes fast, >but it buys an awful awful lot of grain seed, poor quality livestock, and >cheap cement. Great. If you can find a reasonable way to convince Trump, let me know. Even better, earn it yourself and then go do it! But simply saying "clearly the best solution would be to take X dollars from Y rich people and spend them in Z ways, which would make everyone a lot better off," while it may be true, doesn't come any closer to solving the problem of actually _doing_ so. This is a problem I see with all of these proposals, which is why I haven't been following them very closely. Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_