Thomas: I have thought on this. I just don't know if I have the time to flesh out my conclusions.
If we take a loaf of bread at a time of balance, when machines such as mixers and large ovens where combined with an adequate source of labour, ie a trained baker and call that a benchmark. Then as time goes on and labour decreases while machines and intelligence increase to the point no labour is required, we still have a loaf of bread as an end result. Machines don't need money! Machines don't eat bread! Humans need money to buy bread! Humans eat bread! Without changing our whole capitalistic system which is based on labour producing value, then we have to admit that the value is still there and money is the preferred means of accessing that value. Therefore we need money. So take the lost labour component and assign it a value. Add that value into the cost of machine produced bread. Distribute that value through a basic income scheme on a Universal basis. We will then strive for total machine productivity because it will eventually mean total leisure activity. Something we humans have been trying to achieve since our first slave. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde PS: This satisfies on of Harry's assumption - we all want more and we want it with the least effort. ---------- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching >Date: Mon, Dec 8, 2003, 2:31 PM > > Agree. > > When we disconnect work from income, as you suggest, then how do people > receive income? > > arthur > > -----Original Message----- > From: Franklin Wayne Poley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 1:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> There will always be a need for human intelligence. As human intelligence >> gets encoded into routine functions, productivity rises while fewer and >> fewer people are needed in the labour force. Good or bad? Depends on how >> we distribute "the new wealth of nations" > > The educational wealth of nations could be mass distributed NOW by > teaching machines so that the poorest eligible student on the planet > would receive quality higher education at little more than the cost of pc > use. The question about MIT's $100,000,000 OCW venture is how much is > "boon" and how much is "doggle". That works out to $50,000/course. If they > give me a budget like that I will ensure that not only are the course > materials presented, but also the ENTIRE COURSE WILL BE TAUGHT. And it > will be taught by teaching machine and the human professors will have > to redefine their roles in society. > > The financial contributions of Microsoft to MIT for purportedly > innovative education make me very suspicious. Microsoft's big programs > like Windows and VS .NET are accompanied by such pathetic pedagogy in the > books and manuals which purport to explain them that I have to think that > the "doggle" part of this is deliberate. In other words they are > protecting intellectual property by using deliberate methods of confusion > so it is really counter-education disguised as education, misanthropy > disguised as philanthropy. I guess some people learned their Cold War > lessons well. Now there is a new kind of social class war: technolords > against technopeasants. I would be happy to show Microsoft how to put out > a first rate manual to accompany Windows or .NET but that does not appear > to be what they want. So much for that quaint old slogan, "The customer is > always right". > > By keeping the technopeasant masses in the dark, the technolords > have also raised up a new social class beholden to them, the > technopriests. Technopriests disguised as technicians practice > hermeneutics by teaching the ignorant peasants (alias customers) how to > interpret the 'icons' (defined as religious symbols) for program use when > any good manual would make this new priesthood unnecessary. > > That is what I would like to see Charlie Rose discuss the next time he has > President Vest on as guest. > > FWP > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Harry Pollard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2003 4:09 AM >> To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching >> >> >> Arthur, who establishes the codes? >> >> Harry >> >> >> ******************************************** >> Henry George School of Social Science >> of Los Angeles >> Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 >> Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818 353-2242 >> http://haledward.home.comcast.net >> ******************************************** >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:10 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching >> >> As the saying goes, the smarter the machine the dumber need be >> the operator. >> >> With machine intelligence there will be little need for operators >> to know anything but punching in the codes--this goes for >> computerized machine tools or smart microwaves or smart cars. >> >> Arthur >> >> >> --- >> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >> Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 12/5/2003 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Futurework mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework >> > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
