wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/08/85)
In all the public pronouncements of governmental spokespersons, in the
debate over forms of government, and in the press or news media, I
do not recall ever seeing what seems to me to be the most important
thing in our material lives -- a GOAL toward which we should be moving.
I can't recall a Presidential speech, for example, outlining what
we want the lives of future generations to be like, other than in
general platitudes or short-term specific programs ("man on the moon
by the end of the decade" or the like). It seems like we spend all our
collective effort thrashing about, busily designing products to sell
to each other and then throw away, stave off the current enemy, or
changing the names of the groups holding political power, but never
aim toward anything. Individually, we amass wealth, or fritter it
away, grow older, have offspring or not, and maybe move from one
place to another, with little more in mind than existing from day to day.
We seem to reserve to religion any aspects of transcendental goals --
we'll be saved and go to Heaven, or move up in the eternal cycle
and gain good karma, or otherwise reach some higher level. Our
mundane lives are spent just getting by, which for some is a struggle
taking all their efforts, while for others it flows almost unnoticed.
We never even DISCUSS a larger aim, much less plan for it, or channel our
efforts into a path that will facilitate achieving that goal, while
at the same time satisfying our own needs. I don't mean some great
collective 10-year-plan to put a tractor in every field or whatever;
I mean something transcending nationality and which could be defined
in material terms. Ask any governmental leader what they would ask
for if they were granted "three wishes" or some other magic solution;
they might say "the elimination of communism [or capitalism or whatever]",
"eliminating poverty", "peace", etc. These are all short-term things,
though, with no concrete definitions.
I posted a response (over on net.politics), in which I outlined the
kind of world I want. To summarize that here, it is one with a small
human population, supported by automated systems providing their
material needs, allowing undisturbed natural environments, where
a human may exist in isolation if he wants to, and do whatever he wants.
This situation would exist on other terrestrial planets, and there would
be a technology to allow space exploration and travel. I DON'T want a
world with giant floating or land-based arcologies, crammed with millions
of people, or a world covered with highways and endless suburban housing,
or a non-technological world of subsistence farming, etc.
That is, there is something I do NOT expect to live to see, but which I
would prefer to be working toward. Instead of people spending time
and effort "treading water", as they are now, they could be swimming
toward somewhere. Your goal may not be what I want, but we don't ever
talk about it, so I have no idea if I am alone, one of the majority,
or whatever. Not only do we never vote on where we want to aim, we
don't even have any idea that multiple directions EXIST! The topic
is totally ignored, except maybe by "futurologists" or "think tanks",
whose ideas are given a magazine article somewhere and thereafter forgotten.
This looks to be a good place to discuss this. Do any of you have any
conception of what you WANT for the future? Do the Libertarians want
a specific form of world to live in (though I'm sympathetic to that
philosophy, I cannot see it being viable in a society with a population
density of America today, much less one with the density of many other
countries, or what is projected for the near future)? Do the Socialists
have a specific form in mind (do they want the world to be just like
Sweden all over, for example [with climatic variations, I hope!])?
Or do individuals out there have anything specific in mind as to what
they want their great-great-great-grandchildren doing or how they will
live? (As I mentioned in my net.politics posting, I've worked toward
my goal by having no children and being sterilized; if your goal is
akin to mine, you'll have to envision somebody else's grandchildren,
as few of us will have any descendents in that world, by definition.
They might have a few of our genes, though...)
Post your concepts of specific forms we should be working toward.
You want extended families? No families, with children produced
in creches? Few people? Lots of people? High tech? No tech? Religious
leaders overseeing happy multitudes? No religions at all? Etc...
Regards,
Will Martin
USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPAcliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/09/85)
> I posted a response (over on net.politics), in which I outlined the > kind of world I want. To summarize that here, it is one with a small > human population, supported by automated systems providing their > material needs, allowing undisturbed natural environments, where > a human may exist in isolation if he wants to, and do whatever he wants. > This situation would exist on other terrestrial planets, and there would > be a technology to allow space exploration and travel. I DON'T want a > world with giant floating or land-based arcologies, crammed with millions > of people, or a world covered with highways and endless suburban housing, > or a non-technological world of subsistence farming, etc. I would like to see a more varied set of societies. If a group can get an arcology going with a decent society within, then I am for it, as long as it doesn't prevent the society that prefers to exist in largely undisturbed environment from doing so. Variety is the spice of life. I shudder at the thought of a world covered with highways, but I wouldn't be upset with the presense of highways in some areas. I think space exploration and colonization could really help different societies do as they see fit; the real heretics could always take off and do their thing undisturbed. > Post your concepts of specific forms we should be working toward. > You want extended families? No families, with children produced > in creches? Few people? Lots of people? High tech? No tech? Religious > leaders overseeing happy multitudes? No religions at all? Etc... My eventual goal, a multitude of dissimilar societies sharing the universe, will probably not be attainable in my lifetime. I would like to see a meta-government, that would provide for a marketplace of governments, in place before I am on my deathbed. I have brought up the concept once before under net.politics, maybe it is time to see if it can generate any discussion on net.politics.theory: The basic premise is a meta goverenment that allows national governments under it. The national governments have very few limitations under the meta government, the ones that come immediately to mind are: National governments may not kill their citizens and People may emmigrate at anytime assuming another National Government is willing to accept them (this includes incarcerated criminals). A national government would soon find it very counterproductive to incarcerate its citizens for trivialities, for there would bound to be another national government that would be willing to take its prisoners. It would be interesting to see how a socialist government would do compared to a libertarian government. I would start out under the libertarian government but I would be willing to change my mind if it were obvious that the socialist government had its act together ('though I am not holding my breath). Of course before I emigrated I would want to be sure that the socialist country would be a member of the meta government for the rest of my life...I wouldn't want to wake up one day and find out I could no longer emigrate and that there was going to be a purge at 3:00pm the next day... --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143 Thanks to Will Martin for posting the original message... I hope it generates more light than heat... > Regards, > Will Martin > > USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
ncg@ukc.UUCP (N.C.Gale) (02/12/85)
Cliff proposes a zoo of every conceivable society, under a World metagovernment, so that everyone could find their ideal country. Nice idea. I like it. (though I still don't understand why any country would want another's criminals, unless the criminal took his ill-gotten gains with him. Perhaps there could be World Laws too...) One problem, however. I don't think that Socialism could ever work in a world where there were also Free Market economies. (My reasons are based upon my own opinionated misconceptions about socialism, and are open to correction) Socialism demands that a man be paid by the amount of work he does. So a painting is worth the number of man/hours it took to paint and sell it. A farmer gets paid the same amount as a politician working the same hours. Whether or not his crop fails. (the farmer's, that is). But what motivation is there for a highly-skilled worker to stay in this paradise, if he can be paid twice as much in the Libertarian paradise, just over the border. Very little. So they would have to have emigration restrictions. I could labour the point, but I expect you see it already. -Nigel Gale
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/19/85)
> Nice idea. I like it. (though I still don't understand why any > country would want another's criminals, unless the criminal took > his ill-gotten gains with him. Perhaps there could be World Laws > too...) I would have no qualms living in a country that made it a point to accept immigrants who have been convicted of smoking the dreaded marijuana weed (assuming these people are not convicted of violent crime or fraud, etc.). In a marketplace of governments it would be very hard to maintain the current status quo of victimless crime laws. > One problem, however. > I don't think that Socialism could ever work in a world where there > were also Free Market economies. Personally, I don't either, but as long as emigration is allowed, I am not against such a government trying. --Cliff
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (02/24/85)
>Cliff proposes a zoo of every conceivable society, under a >World metagovernment, so that everyone could find their ideal >country. > >.... > >One problem, however. >I don't think that Socialism could ever work in a world where there >were also Free Market economies. >(My reasons are based upon my own opinionated misconceptions about >socialism, and are open to correction) In my youth, I also pondered this metagovernmental idea, and I still think it would be an interesting experiment. It wouldn't be a good test, though, because of the different stabilities of different systems. For example, suppose (as many people believe) that the current US economic boom is fueled by the depletion of other developed economies (just suppose). Wouldn't people right now want to join the US? When the boom collapsed, the otherwise more stable economies would have been ruined and there would be nowhere to go. Similarly with socialism. Suppose (just suppose) that it enabled a relatively slow growth in average quality of life, whereas libertaria allowed enormous boom and bust cycles on a much quicker time scale. Who would stay to help the socialist economy grow as it would in the absence of this temporarily more attractive neighbour? I am not claiming here that socialism would lead to a slower time cycle than libertarianism, or that it would result in more permanent improvement in life quality. I am saying that the metagovernment idea wouldn't work. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt