Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!munnari.oz.au!gwydir!gara!pmorriso From: pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: Future Work Message-ID: <1481@gara.une.oz.au> Date: 13 Apr 90 14:08:11 GMT References: <9004101958.AA23998@stdc.jhuapl.edu> <1472@gara.une.oz.au> <1990Apr12.203832.17512@cs.rochester.edu> Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia Lines: 84 In article <1990Apr12.203832.17512@cs.rochester.edu>, yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes: > In article <1472@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > > Furthermore, there is no doubt that the resources that support these > >things are taken from the third world at ripoff prices. > > "Ripoff prices" like those that made Kuwait one of the richest nations > in the world during the 70s? (If any third worlders can blame any > Westerners for their economic condition, it should be the Arabs > blaming the conservationists...) OPEC is one of the few nonwestern cartels to succeed, although I believe they haven't been doing all that well lately due to a number of factors. There have been other attempts by 3rd world countries to develop cartels but threats to cut off aid (food, military etc) or economic sanctions have often prevented it. > > > I'm not suggesting a cataclysmic end to this situation, but there is > >no doubt that the hugely wasteful techological lifestyle that we lead in the > >West has to be moderated. > > No doubt :-) many people felt the same way during the last industrial > revolution, but given the all of the sweeping technological advances > likely in the _next_ industrial revolution, your statement is highly > doubtful at the very least. No doubt I will have to change my usage of no doubt :-) None of my reading of the literature of the industrial revolution (Hardy, Dickens?) shows that people were concerned about levels of consumption or waste. I'm happy to be corrected though. > More efficient technology will be developed, so in that sense, the > proportion of wasted energy/resources will be likely to be reduced -- > in the sense that more production will be possible with a small amount > of energy/raw materials. Sure, processes will become more efficient, nevertheless the planet is finite (shades of Malthus!). In addition, this will be of little benefit if the present imbalance in the sharing of resources remains. i.e. who will benefit from such increases in productivity/efficiency? I'm sure since say WWII, we've seen massive improvments in efficiency, yet the essential difficulties of the third world remain. We assume that these efficiencies will filter through to third world. But s far as I can see, the don't (much). >But if you are making an argument for a > reduction in the standard of living, I think this argument is both > misguided and doomed to failure. Depend how you define standard of living. Clean air and water, food, security, a sense of community, hope for one's children- can all define a standard of living. I'd rather have these than a new car if it came to a choice. > > I would echo the previous recommendations that anyone interested in > informed technological speculation (current, near future, and far > future) should read Eric Drexler's "The Engines of Creation" > (nanotechnology) and Hans Moravec's "Mind Children" (robotics). In > addition, I would also recommend Stewart Brand's "The Media Lab" > (telecommunications/graphics/human-computer interaction) and Grant > Fjermedal's "The Tommorow Makers" (robotics/AI). > > Both the level of technology and the standard of living are likely to > increase drastically in the near future -- continuing and accelerating > the current levels of progress. I haven't read your refs, so I can't comment on that. Regarding your last para, no doubt our standard of living will improve (for a time- before the global env problems impact), but the point is that it will be our standard of living. Primarily though, at least in reference to the third world, I think we should understand that their problems aren't technological. They come from a political and economic base. Giving them a gene spliced variety won't help if the money goes to buy arms or pay off foriegn debt or props up (say) a dictatorship that just happens to be friendly with one of the superpowers (in return for a base or two). The problems need to be addressed at that level, not (only) in terms of technology.