Ok, Douglas, I'll try again since you have addressed exactly none of my
points.
Douglas P. Wilson wrote:
> Nobody addressed the title issue at all.
subjective reality?
> Jay Hanson said
>
> > This particular planet -- Earth -- already has too many people working.
>
> By how many, Jay? How much MORE unemployment do you want? 10%, 20%
> maybe?
Unemployment isn't *desired*; it is a systemic requirement given # of
humans.(2 B. in 1930, 6B. now) And the % is a function of the gross #s plus
sum total of other planetary system variables.
> We all know you think the earth is overpopulated, but putting
> people out of work isn't going to solve that, unless they kill themselves
> in despair.
Many on this list have spent months & years attempting to define "work".
I've never seen one proposal to 'put' people out of work. Jobs are not
infinitely available as providers of sustenance and decent quality of life.
As my earlier post said, they provide either barter or tokens(money) for
such provision. Money is *relative* value (power) in such provision. A
shortage of 'good jobs' is an *indication* of a longage of people. Equal
slices of an insufficient pie equals starvation.
>
> Tom Walker said
>
> > No combinatorial solution of the job matching problem can meet the a priori
> > condition that it uphold the regime of compound interest ad infinitum.
>
> I really can't for the life of me figure out what the one thing has to do
> with the other.
Does that mean *you* are correct and everyone else is ill informed?
> Pete Vincent takes my notion of widespread job mismatch as implying
> that if employment were optimized we would have more economic
> activity, and then argues against it, because more economic activity
> would lead to more pollution and depletion of resources.
I, like Pete, Jay, Don Chisholm, & some others think that a sustainable
future more likely requires shrinkage of consumption and throughput.
Technology is double edged, and
so far hasn't helped whole-systemically. Human well-being is at direct
expense of other life forms, materials, and exosomatic energy.
> I really don't get this at all.
Try harder!
> Take pollution -- I rather favour a
> policy of zero-emission, whereby industries just don't pollute, but
> the argument against that has always been economic -- it would be
> "too expensive".
Read some ecological economics. You are thinking about tokens & accepting
industry's externalization of maximum % of enviro & health costs.
> I also favour complete recycling, whereby all waste
> is recycled, but that again has been called "too expensive". And I
> favour a massive conversion to the use of solar energy, either
> directly through solar cells or indirectly through ethanol from
> biomass, but both of those seem to be "too expensive".
Too expensive *for whom*? I suggest you check out some whole-systems
approaches to valuation criteria. See, for ex. John Raven _The New Wealth
of Nations_ (a few chapters are on the Canad. Direct Democ site referred by
Colin Stark.
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/nwn.htm
I've met Raven and many others using diverse approaches to address the
problematique.
Agreement with all details isn't expected; flexibility in thinking is.
> Yes, I think we would have more economic activity and more wealth
> if employment were optimized, but I see it as a means of affording
> clean air, clean water, complete recycling, and drastically reducing
> our use of fossil feuls.
Define "wealth". "affording" is a human value judgement; once sick, the
price of health (and maybe the pure air/water/food...connection)skyrockets!
>
> There is so much in our society that we just don't seem to be able to
> afford, like good healthcare for everyone and better schools. I'm
> sure we can afford all of these things if more people are able to find
> truly suitable jobs. Is this so terribly hard to understand?
You are locked in traditional monetary mode. Some societies operate without
money! For many centuries none existed! Tokens have zero intrinsic value.
Yes, there could be some efficiency improvements if better
matching/combining were accomplished. If that would slow or speed human
demise would depend on the work being done.
My opinion of key human focus is time horizon. Short term need (& greed)is
everpresent, and will get worse as the #s sharing the finite, insufficient
pie increase. This spiral down affects planning and valuation criteria. My
2 cents.
Steve Kurtz
