As with any change one can approach it at least two ways.
1. Fear it and see the doomsday approaching.
2. Accept it and try to regroup to get maximum benefit from it.
To me it is obvious and to most people it is when I put it this simple. The
problem occurs because people dive into details and observe that certain
things will be negatively affected. The reaction ought to be; we must
change this situation now so we better can benefit from future advances.
It seems I am the only one proposing smaller organizations. Maybe after a
long period of very large organizations it seems powerless. IMHO with
unprecedented access to information, with instant communication everywhere
(soon anyhow), there is no value in the large organization. The large
organization has very few advantages but a number of easily recognized
disadvantages:
1. They automatically carries a large amount of 'fat'. Therefore
ineffective.
2. In an open society with great access to information, there capacity for
deploying resources they harbor will no longer have a value. The same
resources can be deployed without formal and inflexible (read forever)
organization.
3. Given the opportunity most people will produce better if given the right
to produce what they are interested in. Large organizations have to force
people to do things the organization deems important. Thus there is a
possibility for small organization with temporary liaisons to provide
better result if we embrace the new opportunity. I think there are two
issues one need to resolve before this can be a reality:
a. Basic income needs to be separated from work. UBI is a
possible solution.
b. People must be educated so they can see and utilize the
opportunity.
I do agree with Adrian in his analysis and suggested solutions.
I have lived my first 45 years in Scandinavia. I have first hand experience
and it certainly has its advantages. However, the differences between US
welfare and the Swedish ditto is very small. I sometimes feel there is less
freedom in the US system. (I know it is hard to believe and that many will
say - cannot be so.) There is one big difference. The Swedish system is
considered a right, the US system is murky in its implementation. This
might not be the best analysis but what I am trying to say is that there is
an attitude difference, which is hard to describe. Personally I have chosen
to live in California so it has to be some advantages or am I saying one
and doing the other? Reality is that days are longer and the sunshine
prevalent in California. The nuances in difference in regards to politics
are so small that there is hardly possible to distinguish between and they
for sure are evened out over time. As Adrian is saying; ' One possible way
of avoiding the looming conflict is conversion to a welfare system like the
Scandinavian countries employ'. It actually calms down the
revolutionary tendencies.
I just want to add that I think the comparison is very unfair. The US is 30
times more people, and even as Sweden has a large number of immigrants
lately, it is still a much more homogeneous population than the US. The
Scandinavian model cannot be implemented in the US. This model will not be
enough in Scandinavia either - more must follow. I think the most important
in the US is to decentralize the government.
1. Less in Washington and more in the neighborhood block.
2. Reduce the bureaucratic obstacles we have built with a good intention
but with totally wrong result. See the licensing system for different
trades, which is close to medieval rules for trade. I understand that there
need to be requirements for certain services. The question is who is
capable of judging - I for sure know government is totally incapable.
LENR has many characteristics, which would help future social development.
Just as we need to search for solutions in the energy field, that makes
life better, we need to find a model for distributing the resources and
make sure everyone has the basics.
Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros
lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899
Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:57 AM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> I wrote a long piece about this last year covering the present, the near
> future and possible solutions. The third part on solutions follows.
>
> *Possible solutions.*
>
> The Triple Revolution (Cybernation. Weaponry, Human Rights) was an
> open letter, signed by notables, sent to President LB Johnson on March
> 22, 1964. Although now dated, the problems of automation were foreseen.
> All have been ignored to some extent and it will take a brave politician,
> considering how their elections are funded, to state the obvious that
> American adventurism can no longer be sustained and that the new unemployed
> must be supported.
>
> History shows that when wealth inequality reaches a certain point, unless
> it is redistributed there will be a revolution. There are examples of
> both ways: Rome failed to redistribute and the Western Roman Empire
> collapsed. Athens managed to redistribute wealth and survived for a
> while. Will Durant’s book *The Lessons of History* gives many examples.
> Durant also points out that following redistribution of wealth the
> government must allow its reaccumulation by the few to ensure future
> progress. The failure of Communism in Russia showed what happens if you
> ignore human nature and don’t allow that.
>
> One possible way of avoiding the looming conflict is conversion to a
> welfare system like the Scandinavian countries employ. It does seem to
> be successful for them and surveys show they are considered some of the
> best places to live. At least it might be a good transitional route.
>
> The other possibility is a guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBI), high
> enough to live on, given to every adult citizen in the country with no
> strings attached. Many object to the thought of giving money to the idle.
> Free marketers have to face the obvious, which is that the modern American
> economy doesn’t provide enough income distribution to preserve civility in
> our society. Some say it is only sharing society’s accumulated wealth. I
> will leave the moral justification to others. The main objective is to
> avoid a revolution that would cost a lot more than UBI both in blood and
> treasure.
>
> A UBI differs from welfare as follows:
>
> - it is being paid to individuals rather than households;
> - it is paid irrespective of any income from other sources;
> - it is paid without requiring the performance of any work or the
> willingness to accept a job if offered.
>
> Many prominent European social scientists have now come out in favor of
> basic income - among them two Nobel laureates in economics. Alaska has a
> modest UBI instituted by a Republican governor, based on the profits from
> oil from Prudhoe Bay. This amounts to $300 - $2000 a year for every
> resident of more than six months. Switzerland will have a referendum on
> whether to have a $2,400/month UBI in 2015 that looks unlikely to pass.
> Perhaps
> a full UBI could be tried experimentally in a State or even a city,
> substituting for all welfare payments, to find out the problems.
>
> The main objection to UBI is how to pay for it. Savings could come from
> replacing
> the present 80 government welfare departments, that has the advantage of
> requiring little administration. Legalizing drugs to drop the prison
> population. A one payer medical system and of course, getting out of the
> habit of wars. That alone will not provide enough money, so perhaps
> changing the sales tax to manufacturers, rather than sellers, would capture
> some of the profits from advanced technology instead of it being winner
> takes all.
>
> Work has been a necessity but has no intrinsic virtue. Many hate their
> jobs. Surely having more leisure time is not bad. Families will be
> better able to look after each other in illness and old age. It is
> likely many unemployed on UBI will still want to work both to make more
> money and for the first time allow some to do what they enjoy, like to be
> musicians or artists, or a mother to stay with her kid when it’s a baby.
> Certainly
> the entertainment industry will grow. Advanced sexbots that can move and
> talk will be available, possibly threatening reproduction rates.
>
> UBI together with robotics and cheap energy from LENR (Low Energy Nuclear
> Reaction) aka cold fusion, should finally win the war on poverty and
> significantly raise the standard of living for most. Norway’s largest
> newspaper Aftenposten reports Industrial Heat’s commercial 1MW thermal LENR
> plant is working well. It has now been operating for eight months (edit
> now 11 months) as part of a 350 day trial. The new money that would
> circulate through UBI should stimulate the current economy, as the sluggish
> recovery is due to most having too much debt and not enough money to spend
> beyond necessities.
>
> Social unrest will not help run better companies, raise healthier children
> or allow one to walk down the street unmolested. UBI is a pragmatic
> solution. Hungry people, especially parents of hungry children, cause
> unrest.
>
>
