RE: [Futurework] http://www.glaesernemanufaktur.de/

[Karen Watters Cole]

Bravo, Ed. Personally, I see you as a philosopher with a sense of humor, given to occasional rants.  Seems like good magic to me. - KWC   EW wrote: Thanks, Ray, but I'm not that good.  I don't hold, or care to hold, political office, and I'm aging.  But in my opinion, one of the great questions that we face as both a society and as individuals is the proper balance between self-interest and altruism.  In the case of the individual, how much do we cater to our own needs versus the needs of others?  In the case of society as a whole, how, and to what extent, should control over the use of resources be exercised so that frivolous, self-serving and wasteful uses are minimized and uses important to society as a whole are maximized?   All of which requires prior definition: what is individualism and what is altruism?  What are the limits to both?  What are frivolous uses of resources and how does one define importance to society?  But I don't think we are flying blind here.  There is plenty of literature on all of these subjects.  And please note that, by society, it don't mean "government".  I mean everybody in that society somehow thinking about and debating things together, not formally, but perhaps as many of us do now, by acting and reacting to things as they come along, learning all the while and incorporating that learning so that we do better next time.   IMHO, the most important thing a society can do is educate its people.  And here I'm much more concerned with the arts and humanities than with the sciences.  I believe we will continue to be able to produce the technologists that will then create the status goods, as Keith calls them, that will make the economy lurch forward.  What I am concerned about is the ethics, morals, and ability to make judgments that define how people should behave toward each other and what limitations or permissions society should impose on its citizens.  If we were really able to think about these things effectively, we would be far less likely to slip into long held conventional thought modes that we now label as "neo-con" or "neo-lib" or whatever.  We would also be far more reluctant to let our politicians take actions out of such thought modes.   How to fix up education has often been discussed on this list.  If I were to fix it up at the grade-school level, I would put less emphasis on mathematics and the sciences and more on disciplines that get maturing individuals to think about themselves and their society.  And I would not stop there.  I would set up special classes that adults could attend to learn about, and discuss, bills that are moving through legislatures, or other matters that could have a significant impact on society.  My hope would be that, through education, we could reduce the crap, the waste and the inhumanity that now characterizes society and indeed ourselves.   So there you have it, Ray.  That's what I would hope to fix and how I would try to fix it.  But I do wish I had more time. REH wrote: Ed, Crap is just "economie of scale".    Your complaint about survivor does not take into account the "news as entertainment" cable news channels that pay almost nothing for performers since life is the performer.   The perfect productivity.   Make all of the performers volunteers or payment a lottery.    That drives the serious programming onto the private for pay channels like showtime and HBO with a little in PBS.   (Not so great for upward mobility and designated marketing will make the gulf wider)   People can rob music on the internet but when the "dung hits the wind machine" everyone complains about the bad smell but denies culpability.     Productivity in labor creates a decline in quality in labor produced products.   Only in automated products does it not matter.    Quality and judgement are human traits not machines and that requires professionalism on the part of the producer and discrimination on the part of the consumer.   Ed, you can't just crawl in a hole and retire.  You have to come up with a solution to the economic rules that have created this situation.   The theology of productivity and monetary value is the root and it is rotting the tree.   Harry can long for noble savages while demeaning networks and connectivity and others can complain about the education system as if their own views on culture and value had nothing to do with it.   But bemoaning your fate is beneath your considerable mind and experience.   I believe you see it correctly, now what are your solutions? EW wrote: I don't think we've solved the production problem.  One reason for our inequitable distribution of income is that we use our scarce resources to produce a lot of crap.  A lot of people make a lot of money producing crap.  Others keep them rich and themselves poor by buying it.