The benefits of life in society are countless. It offers the advantage of the "divide and conquer" strategy. Each one contributes a little, and the summation is very good for all. But is it really necessary for every single person to contribute so we all can enjoy a nice society? Not necessarily. Why would it necessarily be so?
Not everyone needs to contribute to society for it to work nicely and pleasantly for everyone. As long as not too many people stay on the way of others who are doing positive contributions, society can work. With only a few positive contributors and many neutral people not contributing for better or worse - just enjoying it. Of course some negative "contributors" will come up, but as long as the overall balance stays positive, things work for the best.
Society is definitely too complex for me to explain what I'm trying to say, so let's look at something simpler first. Like an encyclopedia for example. Got where I'm going? Wikipedia! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia which anyone can edit. Some make great contributions without expecting any rewards, while most people only enjoy the benefits and don't help at all. Of course there are trolls trying to screw things up now and then, but as long as the overall participation stays positive, Wikipedia is a success. Not everyone who uses it has the obligation to contribute, and it still works pretty well for everyone.
Now, thinking about society, really, there's no logical argument saying it is necessary for everyone to contribute in order to get things done for everyone. Things can work smoothly for everyone even if there are free-riders, just like with Wikipedia. Of course it's more complicated, but not at all impossible, and that's what we should be understanding at this point in history. It's just a matter of finding the right technology, and that's what we should be looking for. We should be looking towards a world where those who want to contribute are given the tools, and those who don't wanna help still can enjoy it.
And that's very feasible. We all know how far open-source software has come, and now more and more music, books, and creative work in general is showing up in the public domain. People are doing things for free, because they've been given the tools. And this is moving beyond virtual things as we enter the era of open-source hardware as well. It is already happening.
And all these new possibilities pose us a very important question for the first time in history. If we have conditions for some people to provide benefits for all people, is it ok to do otherwise? Wouldn't it be wrong, immoral, not to do exactly that?
Capitalism, in it's core, completely ignores the fact that not everyone needs to contribute. It's just not necessary. Capitalism forces every single arrangement to be an exchange. But with new technological capabilities, we are realizing this is not the only possibility. We are capable of so much more, and it seems that sticking to this old idea of fair exchange is almost immoral. Even in its most uncorrupted form, capitalism is to reward what eye-for-an-eye is to punishment.
Thankfully we are finally growing out of that and looking for better alternatives. In fact, the need for better alternatives gets more evident the more we advance technologically. We are starting to realize that some ideas which come from the capitalist mindset are just too bizarre at this point in history. Ideas like "machines are bad for taking away jobs". What a wicked mindset is to believe people should be doing mechanical tasks in a factory in order to prove they deserve the benefits of society. This just doesn't make sense anymore.
But the change in paradigm is coming. People are sharing for free. And those who want to stick to the old model... they end up being the negative trolls which are holding us back. Capitalist ideals are stalling the initiative of helping others without expecting money in return. So much potential going to waste because some people refuse to move forward. Real improvement for everyone will come as more people start realizing that capitalism belongs to another era.And the paradigm will be shifted once and for all.
That's the world I look forward to. A world where those who want to share, share; those who don't want to do anything, don't have to do something just to prove they deserve the benefits. And the trolls... Well, they can try to erase a Wikipedia article, but it will come back on in minutes ;)
5 comments:
Well, I strongly disagree with your core idea. To see why I point to the fact that all your examples of sharing are about abstract objects: articles in Wikipedia, software, hardware designs, etc. But nothing concrete. The reason for that is simple: if I write an article for Wikipedia, the work required will be exactly the same no matter if no one ever reads it, or if one person only reads it, or if 6 billion people reads it. I did it in my free time and after that I don't care of how many people reads/uses it. And that applies to all your examples.
But that is not true (and will not be in the foreseeable future) for food, water, habitation, clothing, energy, transportation, education, health care, security, etc. These things demand an amount of work and resources proportional to the amount of people using it.
It is true that 100 people contributing to Wikipedia will not have to bother if there are 1 or 100 billion users of their articles. The amount of work will be the same. But how about health care? What if we have only a few doctors an billions of people needing health care? Well, that is exactly what is happening now in 1st world countries. People have good lives so they don't feel compelled to engage in high profile careers (more demanding). It is all over the news, the number of people applying for demanding careers, like engineering, for instance, is declining year after year.
In an Utopia where all the basic needs of humankind are supplied by robots and only abstract work is conducted by humans we may consider your idea. But then, why would we need those people? (And this is a serious question that you should thoughtfully consider. Why would we need billions of useless human beings consuming resources?)
Hello Anonymous!
I still think my argument holds even when talking about concrete things. It's true that in some areas we are still relatively far from finding good technological substitutes for human beings. But in many vital areas we are already seeing that proportional is different from equal.
Imagine you have a plantation which can feed 100 people, but you only need one guy to turn on the switch of the sprinklers and later drive the harvesting machines. In order to feed 200 people you might need two guys in some cases, so it might even be proportional, but it is definitely not equal. One man feeds 100 people. One man drives a bus for 20 people. One man maintains the power source for 1000 people, and so on.
Of course we are still far from this in many areas, as you pointed out, health care is not something machines can do well for us yet, maybe never. But that's not the bulk of services we are being offered. In most areas, the tendency we see is that companies can provide more and more with less and less employees. We are quickly approaching the day when you have a few people setting up a machine and then sitting on a pile of money which only grows bigger. Like Wikipedia, they have the initial effort, but the machines will do the rest while they get the profit. Is that fair? It's obvious that this only generates more inequality.
"But then, why would we need those people?"
The very fact that you asked this question is horrible. It implies humans are only here to be used by others, because they are needed by others. For me, people are not here because we need them, each one of us is here to live our own fulfilled lives in the way we find best. Of course I mean we should do it sustainably, and that's one of my ideals alongside equality, justice and freedom.
Maybe this old post helps answer your question:
Technology for freedom
Thanks for reading the blog! =)
I'm afraid you still fail to see the point here.
«One man feeds 100 people. One man drives a bus for 20 people. One man maintains the power source for 1000 people, and so on.»
These men you mention will not do it one time and then just let people benefit from their work. They will have to work every day in order to others to benefit. What will motivate them? The "exciting" prospect of turning machines on and off? People are self motivated by challenging tasks, that is true, but the most basic tasks, to provide basic needs, are exactly the less motivating and challenging ones. You yourself is not eager to engage in them, are you? I don't know anyone that, provided the choice to do otherwise, would choose to be a traffic guard, or to operate a trash disposal plant. So, why would one man choose to do the hard work on a farm to feed 100 people when he could choose to do nothing and just enjoy his life? Would you choose that? Why would somebody choose to drive a bus every day when he could just expend his time painting or playing soccer? Would you choose that? Do you know anybody that would? Why would somebody risk their lives running a power plant if they could be playing with their kids, working out in the gym or studying? Would you choose to run the power plant? Think about that honestly and you will see that nobody would be willing to do those kind of jobs just for fun. Because they are not fun and not rewarding.
My central point here is: would you choose to work in a farm for free to feed 100 strange people that chose just enjoy their lives expecting you to provide for them? Well, if you would, then you should. But I'm guessing you will not. Even so you believe that some goodwill strangers will do. I don't think so.
Another point I think you are thinking very short is the following:
«We are quickly approaching the day when you have a few people setting up a machine and then sitting on a pile of money which only grows bigger.»
The problem here is that you can have production without work (in some fields) but you can't have consumption without work. People and governments in many places have already realized that, and some countries already require that a human perform some tasks even if there are a machine that could do the same thing. This is done to protect employment, and economy as a whole. Of course, this is not a stable system, since not all countries are doing things this way. Eventually this will translate in a lost of competitivity of the countries that are opting for employment competitive policies and we will have tension between these countries and the ones that do not adopt these policies. The outcome, at this point, is unpredictable.
I am looking forward to the day we will find something better than capitalism, but embracing an idea just because it is against the current status quo is stupid. I've read a lot about the subject (alternatives to capitalism) and believe me when I say that there are proposals much more though through than yours seems to have been. There are a lot of things to consider. One that you seem to completely neglect is human nature. Most people are prone to help the ones that can't take care of themselves -- I take care of you when you need and you take care of me when I need. But we are not so prone to help those who act like parasites. And that seems to be imprinted in our genes (in all primates if I'm not mistaken). If some member of the group is not helping he/she is just lowering the chances of survival. So we have evolved to cast out the parasites and expect that everybody helps. Change what came from thousands of years of evolution is not a simple goal. And not everybody will agree that it is a desirable one.
«"But then, why would we need those people?"
The very fact that you asked this question is horrible. It implies [...]»
Yeap. You obviously didn't follow my advice («you should thoughtfully consider»). It was kind of expected, but I tried with the advice anyway. You still have a long way to go. The problem is that you seem more willing to defend your convictions that to think through and find conclusions.
All I can do now is wish you good luck on your crusade of simple answers.
Hey Anony!
So your two main arguments seem to be that (1)no one would choose to do a mechanical job if they had the choice, and that (2)"you can't have consumption without work".
Maybe if you had spared the half of your argument in which you tried to attack me personally you could have noticed that the focus of this particular post was on morality. But it seems like the least you were worried about was right and wrong, since the solution you seem to support is that we should put people into situations where they have to do mechanical jobs or die, and where they have to monetarily consume or die, i.e. capitalism.
Have you heard the quote from Iain M. Banks, "Money is a sign of poverty"? It means that if a society needs money in order to redistribute resources, it is an impoverished society suffering from scarcity. A system which requires cyclical consumption, discourages sharing, stimulates competition, and requires its people to do mechanical tasks in order to be perpetually consuming seems more like something which impoverishes humanity while raping the only planet we have than a solution. Oh yeah, let's not forget that it is immoral ;)
As for practical solutions, I'm far from having any convictions so far and am constantly trying to learn about solutions which fit humanity best. So far I've been discouraged by sudden ideological revolutions, which usually require violence and oppression, and most recently I have been inspired by how technology can increase quality of life and freedom while empowering people. So I guess the direction I'm looking at right now involves speeding up technological development in the right direction in order to improve equality, sustainability and freedom.
Hope this answers your questions, if you are interested in understanding my approach to more practical issues, I suggest you take a look at some of my other posts.
Cheers!
Post a Comment