Yes it is theology and thank you for saying it. REH
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:47 PM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Future Teaching > Thomas, > > 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. > > arthur > > I agree with you. But this is where things get sticky in our society. The > pro-marketeers will say adding the value into the cost of machine produced > bread is anti-competitive and distorts the market. They will say this again > and again even as the labour force goes to zero and effective demand for > products dries up. > > Your logical suggestion flies in the face of market theology. > > arthur > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Thomas Lunde [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 1:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Future Teaching > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
