Re: FW: Re: Views on Rifkin's theory
Tom, we could have some fun here finding the oldest comments on these matters. I was working with a student yesterday; we were finding contemporary situations similar to those describe by some of the prophets in the Hebrew(old) Testament. Amos and Isaiah had some interesting concerns. Regards, Brian McAndrews Pete Vincent I think it could hardly be called _Rifkin's_ theory, as it has been around an awfully long time, being discussed explicitly, for example, in Robert Theobald's 1964(?) book. I'd give it a much older pedigree than that. Stephen Leacock started out as a political economist and wrote a very interesting piece on the same theme in 1921. M. King Hubbert's "Man hours and production" dates from the mid 1930s. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/ ** * Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator* * Faculty of Education, Queen's University * * Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 * * FAX:(613) 545-6307 Phone (613) 545-6000x4937 * * e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]* * "Ethics and aesthetics are one"* * Wittgenstein * ** ** **
Re: FW: Re: Views on Rifkin's theory
Brian, Agreed. I'm currently reading Thomas Mann's _Joseph and his Brothers_. Tom, we could have some fun here finding the oldest comments on these matters. I was working with a student yesterday; we were finding contemporary situations similar to those describe by some of the prophets in the Hebrew(old) Testament. Amos and Isaiah had some interesting concerns. Regards, Brian McAndrews Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
Re: FW: Re: Views on Rifkin's theory
At 09:39 PM 11/19/98 -0800,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) wrote: Pete Vincent I think it could hardly be called _Rifkin's_ theory, as it has been around an awfully long time, being discussed explicitly, for example, in Robert Theobald's 1964(?) book. I'd give it a much older pedigree than that. Stephen Leacock started out as a political economist and wrote a very interesting piece on the same theme in 1921. M. King Hubbert's "Man hours and production" dates from the mid 1930s. Regards, Tom Walker ... or by Bertrand Russell, about that time: INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION - Friend or Foe Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins. Pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as in the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all around instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined? ..In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays - 1935 Don Chisholm 416 484 6225fax 484 0841 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Gaia Preservation Coalition (GPC) http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc personal page: http://home.ican.net/~donchism/dchome.html "There is an almost gravitational pull toward putting out of mind unpleasant facts. And our collective ability to face painful facts is no greater than our personal one. We tune out, we turn away, we avoid. Finally we forget, and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth." - psychologist Daniel Goleman \/
Re: FW: Re: Views on Rifkin's theory
Thank you for this. I've never seen it before, and it sure goes to the heart of things. By the same token, farm labourers would work about ten minutes a day and factory workers about the same amount of time. That being the case, it would be simpler for everyone just to pay them not to work, as we pay (mostly) big time farmers and agribusiness) not to grow things-- and as we risk human health and who knows what else to enable farmers to produce a greter surplus of milk with the help of rBGH, so that Monsanto may fatten profits. Just as we pay many industries to pollute, making many harmful practices so cheap that better practices (or energy sources) can't compete with them. A large part of the problem is the fear that people would not work if they were not pressed by fear and necessity. The truth has always been that most people have always been eager to work if given something really useful and not too horrible to do. There is also the secondary fear, that people who didn't face starvation would have to be paid enough to live decently, which makes unemployment very popular with employers. Now that there is no where near enough economic work to go round, we can no longer afford these fear-driven prejudices. Caspar Davis At 3:07 PM -0500 11/20/98, Don Chisholm wrote: ... or by Bertrand Russell, about that time: INDUSTRIAL AUTOMATION - Friend or Foe Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins. Pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as in the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all around instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined? ..In Praise of Idleness and Other Essays - 1935 Don Chisholm 416 484 6225fax 484 0841 email [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Gaia Preservation Coalition (GPC) http://www.envirolink.org/orgs/gaia-pc personal page: http://home.ican.net/~donchism/dchome.html "There is an almost gravitational pull toward putting out of mind unpleasant facts. And our collective ability to face painful facts is no greater than our personal one. We tune out, we turn away, we avoid. Finally we forget, and forget we have forgotten. A lacuna hides the harsh truth." - psychologist Daniel Goleman \/
Re: FW: Re: Views on Rifkin's theory
Pete Vincent I think it could hardly be called _Rifkin's_ theory, as it has been around an awfully long time, being discussed explicitly, for example, in Robert Theobald's 1964(?) book. I'd give it a much older pedigree than that. Stephen Leacock started out as a political economist and wrote a very interesting piece on the same theme in 1921. M. King Hubbert's "Man hours and production" dates from the mid 1930s. Regards, Tom Walker ^^^ #408 1035 Pacific St. Vancouver, B.C. V6E 4G7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (604) 669-3286 ^^^ The TimeWork Web: http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/
