Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Simpler Way

Expand Messages
  • The_Dilster
    c ... long as ... good way ... Unfortunately, idealistic as it sounds, I think the communist experiments of the C20th century are rather too convincing as
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      c>
      > I think this "Simpler Way" is a great accounting and
      > synthesis/distillation of a lot of ideas out there now, and as
      long as
      > the required change in values can come about then it would be a
      good way
      > to live. We certainly cannot keep on in the style of society we
      > currently have, and this seems like a plausible way forward.
      >
      Unfortunately, idealistic as it sounds, I think the communist
      experiments of the C20th century are rather too convincing as
      evidence that it simply doesn't work. We can't change human nature -
      like all organisms we look out for #1 first, and primarily focus on
      short-term gains. Put too much power into the hands of the 'state'
      ('commons', whatever you call it), and note only will the power
      corrupt, but we risk missing out on the wealth created by those who
      have the natural skill and drive to do so.
      No-one has managed to come up with a model other than an essentially
      capitalist economy with a moderate and (more-or-less) democratically-
      determined level of state regulation that is able to maintain any
      sort of stability and productivity. So our best bet is to work
      within this framework. The state regulation part is obviously what
      needs the most work - I wouldn't advocate any greater amount of
      regulation, but we certainly need much more <i>intelligent</i>
      regulation, one that looks at gradually moving from a "convert non-
      renewable resources into surplus wealth" model to a "convert
      innovation, technology and efficiency into surplus wealth" model.
      And note that *without* surplus wealth, we would all suffer - as our
      lives would be fully controlled by our basic subsistence needs. I
      don't think anyone really wants that.
      For a start, as I've said before, if we truly care about the long-
      term future of the human race, then we need to keep advancing our
      technology: eventually nature will throw something at us that
      currently we just couldn't handle, whether it be a sudden ice-age,
      an asteroid, a supervolcano, whatever. Any of those things could
      occur within the next 1000 years or so. With sufficient technology
      we'd have a good chance of surviving such an event more or less
      intact. But you can't generate advanced technology without surplus
      wealth.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.