On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> I wrote: "In the future, if one egg in one store anywhere in the solar
> system has salmonella, it will be on the front page of every newspaper, like
> the crash of a 747 today. Heads will roll. Congress will investigate."
> I am not exaggerati
I wrote: "In the future, if one egg in one store anywhere in the solar
system has salmonella, it will be on the front page of every newspaper, like
the crash of a 747 today. Heads will roll. Congress will investigate."
I am not exaggerating. I think people will react the way we would if someone
ad
Jed sez:
> I have no doubt whatever that if the human race survives
> another few thousand years this replicator will be made.
> The trend is already as clear as anything can be in
> technology. The whole point of technology is to achieve
> something like this. From the first stone age tools we
>
The book about Saudi Arabia sounds interesting. Perhaps it has some
good lessons for the future when we hope material goods will be cheaper.
Steven V Johnson wrote:
IMO, the difference in perspective between Jed's and mine isn't
significant. One difference might lie in the quantification of
"
Following up on Jed's recent commentary...
It's logical to assume that as automation and cheaper energy resources
generate more goods and products (both tangible and intangible) what
would be considered the "basic necessities of life" will
systematically begin including additional entitlements tha
>
> Our ancestors left us printing presses and vaccinations for free. Those
> alone are worth more than all the money in the world. If you have writing,
> good health and enough food, you can rebuild a ruined industrial
> civilization in a decade, as the people in Japan did after WWII. *
Of course
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
IMO, at some point as automation continues taking over most of the
dredge work we may eventually have to transform our entire economic
infrastructure into a highly sophisticated computerized welfare
state. IOW, everyone gets (is entitled to...) a minimum "allowanc
Jed sez:
> Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
>> This is more or less the definition of socialism. For those
>> who are fond of the capitalistic approach, the solution is to
>> make everyone a shareholder, so that income is distributed as
>> dividends as well as wages. That way no one complai
Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
This is more or less the definition of socialism. For those who are fond of
> the
> capitalistic approach, the solution is to make everyone a shareholder, so
> that
> income is distributed as dividends as well as wages. That way no one
> complains
> when fewer people
Nick Palmer wrote:
Orionworks uses the manufacture of APWs (all purpose widgets) to analyse
> work and reward. Imagine if the APW's are made to last a long time, to be
> easily repairable and, at the end of their very long life, the materials
> they are made from can be easily recycled to make new
In reply to OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson's message of Tue, 31 Aug 2010
19:55:30 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>IMO, at some point as automation continues taking over most of the dredge
>work we may eventually have to transform our entire economic infrastructure
>into a highly sophisticated computerized
Please keep in mind that my analysis was prefixed as a fable. Jed correctly
indicated the fact that my story did not clarify the role that automation
would have on the economic system. Automation was sort of implied by the
fact that as innovation continued and fewer people were needed in order to
m
Orionworks uses the manufacture of APWs (all purpose widgets) to analyse
work and reward. Imagine if the APW's are made to last a long time, to be
easily repairable and, at the end of their very long life, the materials
they are made from can be easily recycled to make new APWs. Now imagine that
It seems to me that both Jones and Jed have pointed out valid
perceptions concerning the future of employment and standard of living
issues.
I offer a fable of sorts:
Simple economics tells us that if you pay one hundred workers (out of
a total work force of 200) 100 credits a week to work 40 hou
All of which essentially means that if we did not export 10% of our GDP
overseas, mostly for oil, but instead retained most of that outflow (with
its 'multiplier' effect), then we could essentially reduce the "average
workweek" for the employed, and still reach full employment with no increase
in d
Frank wrote:
Jed, you have not been in the workforce lately. The forty hour week
is a joke. 50 hours per week is the norm and take some work home
too. It adds up to 60 + hours.
I know that the situation is bad but I do not think that 60 hours is
now the normal workweek in the U.S. No doub
everyone goods and services for
free.
- Jed
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, Aug 30, 2010 2:28 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Doh ! (slaps forehead) !
Jones Beene wrote:
>Our continuing high unemployment rate is a
Jones Beene wrote:
Our continuing high unemployment rate is a symptom of energy
dependence more than anything else.
I disagree. I think unemployment is a function of automation. In the
20th century work hours were reduced from 60 or 80 hours per week to
40, with Saturdays off. If that had no
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Mon, 30 Aug 2010 07:32:14 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Population is a function of the rate of useful energy supply, whether or not
>that energy comes from renewable or nonrenewable resources.
[snip]
This is only true for energy scarce economies. Once energy abundance ha
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26070/?nlid=3444
Population is a function of the rate of useful energy supply, whether or not
that energy comes from renewable or nonrenewable resources. If it comes from
renewable resources, the rate cannot rise more than briefly above the rate
of renewal and
20 matches
Mail list logo
