Steve Kurtz wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> Ed Weick's piece grabbed me, so I'm sharing it. I agree with much of Jay's
> work, as does Ed. Futurework is a damn good list.
>
> Steve
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1998 16:21:53 -0400
> From: "Ed Weick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jay Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Futurework" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Friday, July 31, 1998 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re: BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
>
> >Let's pretend for a moment, that we had the resources to minimize global
> >human suffering. What would we do?
We have had the resources for a century, ever since we were able to
produce excess Food whenever and wherever we chose to apply the latest
technology.
The perennial problem --- Hungry people. Solution --- FEED THEM.
> >
> >I would expect to see at least three different groups of effort:
> >
> >#1. A "scientific" group attempts to understand the way things are. (This
> >is the kind of stuff I like to think about.)
The way things have always been. Hungry people. Until a century ago,
insufficient Food due to insufficient technology. Since a century ago,
enough technology to make enough Food for everyone. But Economists
don't like it because it would put them out of a job, and have stupidly
substituted Money for Food. That way, people can still be kept hungry
in the midst of plenty of Food by denying them access to Money. A new
born baby knows the entire essence of Economics, -- Feel a hunger pang,
make a noise or do something about it, get fed, and know peace and
contentment. What else is there?
> >
> >#2. A "normative" group works on ideology. (This is the kind of stuff Brad
> >likes to think about.)
Same thing!!!
> >
> >#3. A "tactical" group utilizes the product of the other two to formulate
> an
> >action plan.
ACTION PLAN. Order that Food be distributed to EVERYONE FREELY, as well
as other GDP. Get rid of the entirely stupid Money and Price system.
Easiest transitiion is for the government, while maintaining status quo
for the benefit of those too hung up in the traditional Doctrinaire
garbage, keep everything as is, but the government to commission the
private sector, cost plus, to embark upon all the jobs needing doing,
such as Restore the Environment, Pay the loggers to Restore the
Forests, Space Programs, Pursuit of Knowledge, Anything, until there is
no longer anyone out of work that suits him and he enjoys. Use Deficit
spending for the time being for the funding. Get off the stupidity of
taxing the citizen because Money is sourced ONLY from the Federal
Reserve, or even leave the taxation and create enough Deficit Spending
to pay everyone enough to please the IRS. Forget about the also stupid
"national debt" wherein the Creditor and the Debtor are mostly one and
the same.
> >
> >Jay
>
> I find Jay Hanson's position a bit contradictory. On the one hand, he argues
> that we are all going to hell in a handbasket, and yet, on the other, he
> suggests the involvement of "systems scientists" in the analysis of "the big
> picture" and the development of of an action plan that would save "whole
> enchilada". During my career, I have been involved in several "big picture"
> social and environmental impact studies, and would suggest that there is
> absolutely nothing less frustrating than trying to understand "big
> pictures". No matter how objective one tries to be, one always approaches
> the "picture" with preconceived notions, perspectives and illusions. To
> undertake the analysis with some efficiency, one starts by distinguishing
> the really important things from the unimportant, only to find, half way
> through, that the important isn't important and the unimportant or
> unexpected is. Meanwhile, one is dealing with an enormously complex moving
> picture into which new events are forever intruding themselves.
What is more important than everyone getting fed adequately? Along with
adequate Air and Water, Food is the staff of life itself. Nothing else
is. ONce that is done, the concept of "cost" becomes moot, and
everything thereafter that we can imagine doing is FREE OF COST --
PREPAID.
>
> But having said that, I would agree with Jay's main point: that we are
> pushing against the limits of the Earth's ability to sustain us, a point
> which many have made, including an economist, Herman Daly.
True. Stop squandering the earth's resources in the pursuit of that
imaginary Money crap.
>
> We are not the first people to have pushed up against the limits of
> sustainability. Many peoples have done so, but when this has happened in
> the past people have usually always found another place to go. If people
> depleted their water table, they might have died, but if they were strong
> enough, they would simply have take over someone else's water table and have
> them die instead. This is no longer possible. We are all using a common
> water table now.
>
> I for one have serious doubts about our ability to remain confined within
> our ecological limits. We are an imperfect animal, not nearly as rational
> as some would like us to be. There are too many of us now, and we are
> greedy and self-serving. And as Jay and many others have pointed out, we
> are moving from an energy surplus to an energy deficit position too rapidly.
> In my opinion, the problem has already shifted from how we might be
> contained to what might happen if we are not.
>
> We may, in fact, already be getting an early taste of what the
> unsustainability of our industrial culture could mean. The Asian Miracle is
> unraveling. People who just a year ago were reasonably well off are now
> poor and in many cases destitute. Solutions which cannot possibly work in
> the longer run are being applied in some desperation; for example, attempts
> to prop up Russia and other failing economies by massive transfers of funds
> via the IMF. There is a pessimism abroad which suggests that people are
> subconsciously if not consciously aware that there is something very wrong
> in the global basement. We no longer believe in things the way we used to
> (or, perhaps more accurately, we no longer have our sustaining illusions).
MONEY has never been the answer to anything. It has been rightfully
stated that "the love of money is the root of all evil."
>
> Even "big picture" analysis could probably not tell us whether we are
> already in a downward spiral, but let us for a moment consider what chain of
> events might materialize if we were. What might "winding-down" mean? One
> possibility is that it could mean the life- boat effect made real - an
> increasing concentration of wealth in the few very rich countries which
> could continue to afford the increasing costs of energy as supplies begin to
> dwindle, and an increasing impoverishment of the rest of the world. A shift
> in global distribution is already happening. The distribution of income
> between rich and poor nations is already highly unequal and is becoming less
> equal. UN data reveal that, between 1985 and 1995 the rich world's share of
> global GNP grew from 78.9 percent to 81.2 percent, while the poor world's
> share shrank accordingly. I doubt very much that this trend is reversible.
> It may even accelerate as economic conditions in Asia, eastern Europe and
> Africa worsen more rapidly than conditions in a few rich countries improve -
> if indeed they do improve. What might the distribution be by, say, 2020?
> Will the rich world then have 90% of global GNP? And, of course, the rich
> world is not homogeneous. A relatively few people would have a
> disproportionate share of that 90%.
Riches is NOT MONEY. It is Land, Labor and Production. Most of the
world has not even touched its Real Resources as we have in the USA, as
they all are still devoted to primitive methods. All that is needed is
intelligent understanding and careful preservation of the remaining
resources while using them to supply the entire world firstly and
foremost with adequate Food. Let those greedy money mongers get all the
money they want, like a child collects baseball cards or lollipops, as
they can do nothing with it to corrupt anyone else who is already well
fed. Money is purely imaginary.
>
> The specter that emerges is reminiscent of Poe's story of the last of the
> wealthy aristocracy holing up in a heavily fortified castle to escape the
> plague. They were having one helluva party until the plague snuck in and got
> them. Our position is not quite like this yet, but if we continue on the
> present course, we could shut down. Step by step, little by little, the
> lights would go out. This would not happen to us of course, it would happen
> to Asians, Russians, Africans and Latin Americans - and to our great
> grandchildren.
>
> This is a very bleak picture. Its bleakness is probably the main reason for
> our failure to confront it - better to party, like Poe's aristocrats.
> Perhaps the only sane view one can take in the face of it is that even if
> our industrial culture fails, humanity will continue. Even though Poe's
> aristocrats and one third of Europe died during the Fourteenth Century
> plague, people regrouped, rebuilt, and got on with their lives.
The "bleakness" is the stupidity of those who insist upon having their
collective heads up their collective asses and give full faith and
credit to the Social Sciences.
Hyman Blumenstock
>
> Ed Weick
