At 11:57 PM 11/20/98 -0500, "Victor Milne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My interest was not so much in the provenance of "Rifkin's theory"--though
>the quotation from Bertrand Russell was fascinating and instructive. I doubt
>that Rifkin would claim to be the first to argue that the net effect of
>technological innovation is a reduction in the number of available jobs.
>
>Neither do I put much confidence into Rifkin's proposed amelioration of the
>system by bringing volunteerism into the marketplace.
>
>My main interest was simply to ascertain if most of the thoughtful people on
>this list believe that technology is gradually reducing the number of jobs
>available within the current economic framework. The question is important
>because the mainstream media are propounding the opposite view, that new
>technology will bring more and better jobs within a marketplace economy. One
>finds even well-meaning, compassionate journalists like David Crane,
>economics editor of the Toronto Star, vigorously promoting this optimistic
>scenario. (As Rifkin notes, that was the predominant view in the 1920's and
>earlier.) Needless to say, many ordinary people are taken in by these
>hopeful arguments. When I was talking to a bank teller about on-line banking
>further decimating her profession beyond what the ATM has already brought,
>she responded that surely lots of good new jobs would be created by the new
>technology. Since all these people are voters, I think it important to
>counter the optimistic delusion that the current economic structure will
>heal itself.
Delusion and misplaced beliefs are indeed what keep he glossy-eye public
going, even with the wolf at the door. However, there are not yet viable
alternates on the table, and everybody has to believe in something!
>Another point: when we talk about dealing with structural unemployment
>created by technological advance, I think we need to make clear whether we
>are discussing short term palliative measures within the present economic
>framework and long term visions of what our human world could and should be
>like.
Yes, these are quiet different scenarios.
>In the long term I agree with the points made by several people that the
>only secure foundation for a comfortable life in the future has to be based
>on (a) population reduction and (b) an adequate basic income granted to
>everyone. The late great Isaac Asimov believed that one billion was about
>the optimum population for our planet as it would enable everyone to live in
>great comfort without endangering the environment.
Wackerneigle and Rees say, about 3 billion, Pimentel says 2 billion, and
juggling number based on energy use and renewable energy few years ago, I
found 0.5 billion seemed to be max. This presumed an increase in renewable
energy by a factor of four, and a reduced throughput for US and Canucks by a
factor of 2/3. Both Rees and Wackenrneigle agree that their numbers are
optimistic because of the way they deal with energy.
>At any rate, I seem to have the answer to my question: virtually all the
>thoughtful people on this list agree that technology reduces the number of
>jobs available in the present economic structure. The one exception is
>Douglas Wilson, who is certainly a thoughtful person.
That is to say, that techology PLUS non renewable energy flow reduces the
number of jobs abailable - short term situation at best.
snip
>Regards,
>
>Victor Milne
>
>FIGHT THE BASTARDS! An anti-neoconservative website
>at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/pat-vic/
>
>LONESOME ACRES RIDING STABLE
>at http://www3.sympatico.ca/pat-vic/
Don Chisholm
////////\\\\\\\\
Don Chisholm
416 484 6225 fax 484 0841
email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Gaia Preservation Coalition (GPC)
http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc
personal page: http://home.ican.net/~donchism/dchome.html
"There is an almost gravitational pull toward putting out of mind unpleasant
facts. And our collective ability to face painful facts is no greater than
our personal one. We tune out, we turn away, we avoid. Finally we forget,
and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth." -
psychologist Daniel Goleman
\\\\\\\\\/////////
