Thomas:
Good ol FW. It seems that interesting topics often find fertile ground
among our various posters. Though I have not had much time to monitor all
the viewpoints, I would like to suggest "governance" as a topic in which a
polarity of viewpoints is evolving. On the one hand, Jay Hanson is
suggesting a governance by scientists and other experts, while I on the
other hand am suggesting a governance by non experts.
Now as I have noted on FW before, when you start to examine the concept of
Future-work, it soon passes beyond, shorter work weeks and other technical
changes into a study of the ideas of economics and from there we find that
it is the laws and directions of governments that actually will determine
what the future of work will be. And so, I conclude that this is perhaps
the proper forum for us to start - at the top of heap - governance, which
will determine the economics - which will determine the redistribution of
resources - which is currently done through work - specifically, paid work.
And of course, the implicit question of FutureWork has always been, what is
going to happen to all of us as the nature of work changes due to economic
changes which are sanctioned by ideological changes enacted by governance.
When we come to the overall concept of governance, we can see the polarities
of democracy - ie every citizen having the power through a vote - to
totalitarism in which no citizen has the power to affect government. Jay
and I have proposed variations on these two polarities. I have suggested
replacing the vote with the concept of a lottery, while Jay has proposed the
selection of experts in science. In a sense, my option eliminates politics
as we know it and now it becomes a matter of those selected by lottery to
use their assumed innate abilities to provide for laws and regulations that
will benefit all. In a sense, Jay's model also eliminates democracy as
those being selected will be chosen through a form of meritocracy.
Jay wrote:
> The logical way to proceed would be to the experts specific questions, and
> then "hire" -- not elect -- qualified "leaders" (CEOs) to lead us to
> explicit goals. If they fail to meet specific benchmarks, fire them and
> hire someone else.
As I read this quote, Jay's system appears as a problem solving system by
experts who are given a series of specific questions - problems and from
them they will propose the steps of solutions which will in effect become
the law. It will be a performance driven system and those who fail to
perform are terminated and another is put in the hot seat. In this sense of
governance, I see that the defined problems drive the rules of governance
and people and resources are just units to be manipulated until desired ends
are reached and then it is on to the next problem and the next manipulation.
In my proposed system, I see a much messier and perhaps more inefficient
model of governance. The distinguishing difference is that it is not
problem driven but - for lack of a better term - accommodation driven. As
those selected by lottery represent all - or most - of the variations of
citizens, then I would expect that each selected individual would be looking
at problems through the lens of their experience rather than through the
discipline of a scientific field in which they have been trained. They will
be thinking how each proposed solution will affect people like themselves
and with the concept of partisan politics eliminated, I would assume that
many of the votes of Parliament would be much different than the votes that
are cast by Party members who often have to place the agenda of the Party
over their personal experience.
Without being an expert of any kind, I see this in the history of the
ancient Greeks and the polarity of Sparta and Athens. It is a long debate
that has seen many variations. For us, on this List, the question has to be
explored within the context of our problems, population, resources, economic
systems. It is interesting though, that these two great polarities still
exist and no definitive "right" model has emerged.
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
