Ideas for a better society

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

What would you do to make society better?

 

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

 

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

 

 

Any ideas?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[immortal]

Its something which some of our politicians promise to give us during the elections but exactly do the opposite after they've won it. If democracy is for the people, by the people and to the people, why give the power to make decisions to only one individual and keep hoping that he or she would bring us fortunes when its never going to change any sooner, instead with the advent of social media and other networks we can have an interactive system with both the public as well as the government interacting with each other and make a poll on every issue of the society and be a part of the decision making process rather than wait for 4 or 5 years bearing all the pain of inflation, price rise and other social factors.

[Phi for All]

Human society has advanced due to our intelligence, communication and cooperation. Helping ourselves by helping everyone prosper seems to be a noble, efficient and rewarding aspiration. I'd like to see some kind of Minimum Subsistence Standard adopted, to make sure everyone had food, clothing and shelter. It would have to be a no-frills kind of welfare system, that provided the necessities rather than the money to buy the necessities, to avoid abuse as much as possible.

 

I'd like to see medicine become a not-for-profit enterprise. Everyone would have to give a great deal to see that all citizens received medical care, but I think medicine would change and become much cheaper if it were not-for-profit.

 

I'd completely change the educational system. The current system is much too rigid, too based on outmoded styles and standards, and tries to be a one-size-fits-all solution.

 

The criminal justice system needs to be completely overhauled as well. The US especially has many conflicts of interest going on with regards to prisons and sentencing.

 

After lengthy consideration, I'd have to say that drugs need to be legalized. There are plenty of laws already in place that deal with being intoxicated in inappropriate circumstances, or providing intoxicating substances to minors. Manufacture them professionally, tax them and remove the criminal element from the process as much as possible. If someone wants to destroy themselves, they should have the right as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others.

 

I'm a bit dicey about any redistribution of wealth. There are some sectors that should be removed from the standard for-profit business model, like medicine, health insurance, prisons, and maybe even defense, but I'm reluctant to deny wealth to someone who has worked hard for it, or that society is willing to pay exorbitant funds to for whatever they do (yes, footballers, actors, etc.). Perhaps we need a system where ordinary people can get luxury items credited to them for work that benefits society as a whole?

[ajb]

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

Underplayed? Check this link. Some earn a lot more than this by taking on extra duties.

[JustinW]

What would you do to make society better?

 

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

 

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

Point B is inacurate. Sports does benifit society. It's entertainment for the world, setting up social activity and comradery between those who enjoy the same activities. No matter where they're from, what religion, or nationality, they can find common interests. I do agree they get paid intirely too much.

 

As far as the distribution goes, as an American I am adamently against the redistribution of other people's private property. Whether it be money or anything else for any reason. As a free person you have the choice to make the right decisions in life. And the amount of money one pays an employee is obviously based on the amount of money brought in by product or service. The fact that an employer wants to pay a certain price for one job while another employer wants to pay a lower price for another job isn't the fault of the employee. We all make desicions about where we want to work based on afew things such as skill and enjoyment, and money plays a big role in our employment aspirations. If you redestributed the money of higher paying jobs people would only aspire to be what they enjoyed doing. No one enjoys refuse. You could say they might if they were getting paid more, but I would say they wouldn't if they could just as easily get paid for doing something they enjoyed.

 

I don't have any quick fix ideas for solving the worlds problems. But what I do know is the more of people's property that gets redistributed(forcibly taken) the less free those people are.

 

I'd like to see medicine become a not-for-profit enterprise. Everyone would have to give a great deal to see that all citizens received medical care, but I think medicine would change and become much cheaper if it were not-for-profit.

Where would the funding from research come from? That could be something else for a government beaurocracy to run into the ground. Picking which research gets funded depending on the ideology of time. Edited December 12, 2011 by JustinW

[Phi for All]

Where would the funding from research come from? That could be something else for a government beaurocracy to run into the ground. Picking which research gets funded depending on the ideology of time.

The idea is that we'd have more money to spend if profit wasn't the main consideration. If we're focused on preventing or curing illnesses instead of alleviating their symptoms, there should be more money for research.

 

I think the biggest problem with "government bureaucracy" is that half the people in government are working against its success. I offer the Bush II gutting of many programs and agencies as examples. It's easy to make "government bureaucracy" look bad when you cut it's funding and pull its regulative "teeth".

 

That's another thing that should be fixed.

[Moontanman]

I think we should stop financial speculating, the buying up of something to try and drive up the price or in the hope the price will go up is wrong.

 

Buying influence in our government is wrong, or possibly it should be wrong to be able to do so, both.

 

Make religion report it's income and tax it.

 

For once and all separate religion from government.

 

Pursue space exploration the same way we pursue weapons superiority.

 

Pursue alternative energy, oil should be an industrial feedstock not the source of the worlds energy.

 

All industry, banks, farms, power companies, manufacturing, anything financial not covered by banks, should be regulated...

[Tres Juicy]

"Point B is inacurate. Sports does benefit society....."

 

Ok fair point, but not in the same way as medicine or preventing the build up of rubbish.

 

Here's my crazy idea from reading the above:

 

What if everything was non profit? Eliminate money entirely.

 

People work to produce the things that we need, but they are given to whoever needs them. This eliminates "sales companies".

 

I'll use my line of work as an example: We sell network equipment, Cisco, HP etc... but in this model you dont need to "sell" anything so my company (and a lot of others) are no longer necessary as the "sales" process is redundant.

 

This frees up all those people to share the workload for production, each person works about 3 hours a day doing something thats needs doing rather than just competing with another company trying to sell the same product into the same market.

 

Could this ever work?

[CaptainPanic]

Hi all,

 

What would you do to make society better?

 

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

 

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

 

 

Any ideas?

Sorry if this does not address the major issue of global welfare and a better society, but I just want to say this:

The concept of bread and games, to keep the people happy is not just a way to keep the masses under control. Some entertainment is important for a society.

The problem with the really high salary of football players is that it ruins the competition, not that it is such a large cost to society (it's not).

 

Personally, I think that we should just reduce our overhead costs: reduce the number of jobs in useless sectors. And I think that the financial sector could be halved without any problem.

[Tres Juicy]

given that at the moment we have one choice for a political party

take it or leave it and all that changes is the colour of the party

why do we not make our own political party

 

why not punt your ideas for a better fairer society

we do have the right to stand for election and we also have a majority of the country who are sick of politicians sucking up to bankers

 

small ideas and political parties do and have in the past changed the world

 

so lets get some ideas going and who know we could have a bigger effect than we could imagine

 

Revolution?!

 

 

Not only that, with a scientific approach taken to changing a scociety (rather than economics and capitolism, which are quite short sighted and are already showing signs of failing), You'd think we could sort this whole mess out in a few decades

[dimreepr]

Hi all,

 

What would you do to make society better?

 

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

 

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

 

 

Any ideas?

 

I think the only way we could have a society that would sustain and be free of coruption is a platocracy. How you could set this system up is the big question.

[kitkat]

I think we should stop financial speculating, the buying up of something to try and drive up the price or in the hope the price will go up is wrong.

 

Buying influence in our government is wrong, or possibly it should be wrong to be able to do so, both.

 

Make religion report it's income and tax it.

 

For once and all separate religion from government.

 

Pursue space exploration the same way we pursue weapons superiority.

 

Pursue alternative energy, oil should be an industrial feedstock not the source of the worlds energy.

 

All industry, banks, farms, power companies, manufacturing, anything financial not covered by banks, should be regulated...

 

 

There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.

[Phi for All]

There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.

So making them tax-exempt is merely to placate them, to keep them from plotting the overthrow of the government?

 

I think money they take in that goes towards charity and upkeep costs should remain tax exempt, to keep separation of church and state. Funds that are used to expand/improve the ministries and pay salaries should be taxed.

[CaptainPanic]

There is a reason why religious organizations are tax exempt and that is to prevent replacing or eliminating government. Think about it, a large body of people gathering in one place regularly would be the perfect environment to organize a stradegy to take over government that is corrupt.

I think it's the complete opposite. I think that religious organizations are so powerful, especially in the past, that they simply bargained to pay no tax, and got what they wanted from the governments.

 

And there are so many influences of religion in governments that you cannot say they aren't involved in the government. The US president swears on the bible at the inauguration. Plenty of European parties are actually Christian parties. The Middle East and Northern Africa often have religious governments... in fact, the list of countries without religious influence in their governments might be shorter than the list with influence.

 

My point is: they have already taken over.

[Phi for All]

What if everything was non profit? Eliminate money entirely.

 

People work to produce the things that we need, but they are given to whoever needs them. This eliminates "sales companies".

 

I'll use my line of work as an example: We sell network equipment, Cisco, HP etc... but in this model you dont need to "sell" anything so my company (and a lot of others) are no longer necessary as the "sales" process is redundant.

 

This frees up all those people to share the workload for production, each person works about 3 hours a day doing something thats needs doing rather than just competing with another company trying to sell the same product into the same market.

 

Could this ever work?

You always run into motivation problems. How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you? I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality. Plus I want all the other stuff I buy normally. How much work at what job will get me that? Who decides? Do they get more than I do?

 

In theory, if EVERYONE did a productive amount of work, say six hours per day, four days per week, at a job where you were providing goods or services that helped society or managed the distribution of those supplies and services, this type of system might work. There would probably need to be some kind of standardization (since everything isn't "sold" anymore, there wouldn't need to be hundreds of different designs for many products) so we could mass-produce all the new stuff for folks. I'm not a super-picky person though; to me, if a product does what it's supposed to do, does it well and lasts a long time without a lot of maintenance, I don't much care what other bells and whistles it has, or how good it looks. I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety.

 

There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long. I think you would probably get some kind of Communistic problems that would threaten the collapse of the system. Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered. The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all.

[Tres Juicy]

You always run into motivation problems. How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you? I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality. Plus I want all the other stuff I buy normally. How much work at what job will get me that? Who decides? Do they get more than I do?

 

In theory, if EVERYONE did a productive amount of work, say six hours per day, four days per week, at a job where you were providing goods or services that helped society or managed the distribution of those supplies and services, this type of system might work. There would probably need to be some kind of standardization (since everything isn't "sold" anymore, there wouldn't need to be hundreds of different designs for many products) so we could mass-produce all the new stuff for folks. I'm not a super-picky person though; to me, if a product does what it's supposed to do, does it well and lasts a long time without a lot of maintenance, I don't much care what other bells and whistles it has, or how good it looks. I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety.

 

There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long. I think you would probably get some kind of Communistic problems that would threaten the collapse of the system. Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered. The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all.

 

"The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all."

 

Tasks could be rotated so that everybody gets a go at every job (within reason - obviously things like "have-a-go brain surgery Tuesday" are a bad idea).

 

"How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you?"

 

Everyone gets the same "value" of stuff - there needs to be a value assigned to your contribution to society that is fair

 

"I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality."

 

Grow up Phi, of course you can't have a speedboat!

 

Everyone gets a car (generic model) and a laptop and everything else they need to be productive in society. With the now much increased labour force, why shouldn't they?

 

"I'm not a super-picky person though"

Good, you won't miss the speedboat too much then...

 

"I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety."

 

There would have to be some variety to accomodate peoples needs (sizes and things)

 

"There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long."

 

Once you get past the initial rush, you can start to just maintain and improve peoples quality of life

 

"Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered."

 

Things would need to be carefully managed, but after a while it should settle into a decent workable system (?)

[jason.p]

"Do as you would be done by " as preached in one form or another in many religions, to my mind is one of the basic tenets of human relationships, (and therefore societies). Unfortunately, being the imperfect beings that we are, this becoming the norm is a forlorn hope

[JustinW]

Damn Tres, your kinda taking all the fun out of living aren't you? Generic basics with no room for luxury? Give me pig headed capitolism any day. If that is construde as greedy, then your just going to have to call me greedy.

 

NTM, who will decide where people will apply there labor? And how long will it be before they start taking away freedoms under the ruse of being for the good of the people? I may be paranoid, but that is the way the road turns in my mind if you let someone dictate these sorts of things. Plus it would cut out competition which is detramental to quality. No one would have a personal regard for quality if there were no market to compete with or room for advancement because of that competition.

 

The idea is that we'd have more money to spend if profit wasn't the main consideration. If we're focused on preventing or curing illnesses instead of alleviating their symptoms, there should be more money for research.

Sorry for taking so long to respond Phi.

Maybe in a perfect world. Once they recieve the funds, who's to say that is where the money will be spent? A new problem will always emerge that will take precidence over spending it on something that is yet to exist.

Edited December 16, 2011 by JustinW

[michel123456]

A better society where?

In the whole world? or only in the already privileged countries?

[JustinW]

Good question.

[Phi for All]

"The idea that others are getting more for less will almost always make its way into our psyche and ruin things for all."

 

Tasks could be rotated so that everybody gets a go at every job (within reason - obviously things like "have-a-go brain surgery Tuesday" are a bad idea).

It's more about, "Hey, I work harder than Bob does, I should get more! And Nancy just answers phones all day, I should get twice the stuff she gets!"

 

Or maybe I decide that I should only work as hard as Bob does, or get myself transferred to the phone-answering department. I get the same stuff if I do, right?

 

"How much work do you have to do in order to get x number of y products delivered to you?"

 

Everyone gets the same "value" of stuff - there needs to be a value assigned to your contribution to society that is fair

There's the rub. Who decides? And do those who decide get more than me?

 

"I want a speedboat and a new car and a really good laptop, all the best made quality."

 

Grow up Phi, of course you can't have a speedboat!

Frikkin' Bob has a speedboat, why can't I get one? Are we not making speedboats any more?

 

Everyone gets a car (generic model) and a laptop and everything else they need to be productive in society. With the now much increased labour force, why shouldn't they?

See, I'd be OK with a car and a laptop that did what I wanted them to do and nothing more. I like the efficiency of making making every product the absolute best it can be and averaging the cost by making a bajillion of them. But many people wouldn't be satisfied with the same stuff everyone else has.

 

"I'm not a super-picky person though"

Good, you won't miss the speedboat too much then...

I said I'm not picky, not that I'm stupid. If frikkin' Bob gets a speedboat, you better not screw me over! We're all equal now, or so you say. I WANT MY SPEEDBOAT!!!

 

"I know there will be some who disagree with this and would always call for more variety."

 

There would have to be some variety to accomodate peoples needs (sizes and things)

Obviously, but what if I want the toaster with the twelve different darkness settings instead of the standard eight? And does it come in red, as well as chrome and taupe?

 

"There would be a tremendous amount of desire for everything to begin with, since so many have lived without so much for so long."

 

Once you get past the initial rush, you can start to just maintain and improve peoples quality of life

I actually think there would come a point where people realized that having all the stuff you want isn't necessarily the great thing we think it is.

 

"Eventually, you'd probably end up with a Tragedy of the Commons scenario, where people would misuse this ability to get whatever limited resource product or service that's offered."

 

Things would need to be carefully managed, but after a while it should settle into a decent workable system (?)

Lots of unforeseen obstacles. While I can applaud the efficiency of having a great deal of standardization (oh, the money we could save!), the current free market system ensures that most of what people can afford is available to them, in whatever flavor, color or quality they desire. On the other hand, maybe that's what we really need to outgrow, our need for a variety of "stuff".

 

Sorry for taking so long to respond Phi.

Maybe in a perfect world. Once they recieve the funds, who's to say that is where the money will be spent? A new problem will always emerge that will take precidence over spending it on something that is yet to exist.

But if the money spent in medicine goes towards cures, not symptom-suppressors, that at least would be a huge savings. As long as the new problems that crop up are approached with the same goal, what's wrong with that?

 

A better society where?

In the whole world? or only in the already privileged countries?

On my island. Which is by invitation only.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course, you're all invited.

[kitkat]

I think it's the complete opposite. I think that religious organizations are so powerful, especially in the past, that they simply bargained to pay no tax, and got what they wanted from the governments.

 

And there are so many influences of religion in governments that you cannot say they aren't involved in the government. The US president swears on the bible at the inauguration. Plenty of European parties are actually Christian parties. The Middle East and Northern Africa often have religious governments... in fact, the list of countries without religious influence in their governments might be shorter than the list with influence.

 

My point is: they have already taken over.

 

 

People that colonized the U.S. were escaping religious control from their origin and it is government that claims they are separate from church. The people that created government knew how powerful religion could be in the influence of the masses since many of them grew up in that environment. By giving them tax exempt status, places of worship cannot influence their followers with anything to do with politics with our government. Once any religious organization becomes motivated to sway the masses to go against their government, they lose their tax exempt status. Money has always been more powerful then the God who they educate about to their followers as well as the rest of society who intentionally or untentionally view the almighty dollar as being all powerful in the name of survival.

 

This is not the case in the rest of the parts in the world. In England, religion has more power then government.

Edited December 17, 2011 by kitkat

[michel123456]

(...)On my island. Which is by invitation only.

Of course, you're all invited. (...)

That's a problem.

A society that is an island of wealth will be considered as guilty of injustice as regarded from the rest of the world. You'll be obliged to create a mighty army to defend your island from jealousy. And it is history rewinded.

[Essay]

Hi all,

 

What would you do to make society better?

 

I've always thought it's crazy to pay footballers £1000's ( or more) every week to do something that A) They love, and B) Does not benefit society

 

when the people that do benefit society are often underpaid - doctors and refuse collectors (without which we would be knee deep in filth and disease within a month) spring to mind

 

What about fair distribution of wealth/work?

 

 

Any ideas?

 

TresJ, what a good idea. I'll try to catch up:

 

Sports! ...and sports in the educational system too... has that weird arms-race of pay scales that leads to so much corruption (or facilitates so much corruption). But yes, it does seem a bit over-hyped for the actual "contribution" to society. Though I bet the actual players don't "love" the constant training, injuries, and pressures of being on top; so they do need to get a lifetime of pay within just a decade or so (but not 20-400 lifetimes of pay)....

 

The problem seems to be how we assign value to a particular job/career/profession. Why don't we value refuse collectors more (or value refuse more)? And why did sports become so highly valued? It would be an interesting historical study, and I can already imagine some perspectives involving "American Exceptionalism" ...but that is another topic.

===

 

My idea is to value things differently too. Money itself probably shouldn't be a commodity, and other things that are not viewed as "commodities of value" probably should be. It is that mismatch between the "true" value of commodities (and jobs) and the "perceived" value, that causes our economy to be unbalanced and unjust. We need to figure out what the "true" value of stuff is, eh?

 

Something I noticed recently was the etymology of the word economy.

"Eco" is from the Greek word, Oikos, which means house (literally), or "resources" in general. "Nomy" is from the Greek word, Nemein, which means "accounting for" or "management of" whatever the word is modifying.

 

So "Economy" means the management of our resources, similar to how "Ecology" means the study of our resources.

 

...And when you look at how we manage our resources, is it any wonder that our "economy" is skewed and unjust? So I advocate for valuing things differently, in the hopes that will help "fix" the economy. We need to recycle everything, and especially focus on the resources close to "peak" harvesting. We need to more fully account for resources/products, from cradle to grave, and to account for their ongoing effects, displaced effects, and "true" environmental costs.

 

Of course the big question is how do we decide what "true" really is? Ecology, the study of those resources, will help us more fully understand how the resources should be valued. Science can help us establish a more sustainable economy. That imho is where the "truth" of value will be discerned.

===

 

But let me catch up with the rest of the posts here:

 

Immortal, yes--social media may help us evolve beyond a "representative democracy" and beyond a management system based on 19th-century models.

 

Phi, all good points--and I'd add that some "civic duties" should be required of those getting a subsistence stipend; and also they should accrue some "social credits" in order to receive extra health care--above the minimum required to maintain a public-health standard. I'm sure that sounds very "intrusive," but I'm picturing "self-directed" service. Our education system should be updated to at least teach about the wide array of services that provide civic enhancement, such as taking care of one's neighborhood, elder neighbors, house, yard, garden, compost, trash, diet, health, etc., in addition to all the formal ways of "volunteering" time.

But don't get me started....

 

ajb, Doctors! There must be some way to distribute all that responsibility and supplemental work; maybe by integrating the medical system into community business and educational networks they could.... But I'd like to hear from doctors about this and that.

 

JW, I think it is about redistribution of opportunity, not property or wealth; those just follow naturally as more people benefit from working that opportunity.

 

Phi, Yes! Electing people who want to drown govt. in the bathtub, and then complaining about ineffective govt. does seem a bit myopic. Nowadays we hear about the "growth" of govt., which is of course relative to our shrinking GDP--as well as not considering the huge growth associated with the Dept. of Homeland Sec. But sure, lets cut some more food inspectors to shrink big gov., ...(i'm saying sarcastically)....

 

MTM, Sound good! And I'd add a microtax on all of those computerized advantage-taking programmed trades that buy and sell in short term investment excursions. ...or words to that effect.

 

TresJ, We are moving towards a "credit economy" and away from a money-based system. You should read "Debt: the first 5 thousand years" by David Graeber, or just search for some summaries. He has a good overview on CSPAN's BookTV, which is available online too.

 

Cap'nPanic, Good points. And we need to increase jobs in "useful" sectors! As for the financial sector, I agree they dominate too much and need reducing. But it would be a problem to simply "cut" them in half since they contribute most to our GDP. They are what keeps our economic momentum going at this point. It is not right, but it is current reality. We need to build up other sectors also, which will reduce the relative size of the financial sector too. As it is, they are building the financial house-o-cards even higher these days; nothing much seems to have changed.

 

TresJ, There is also a new book out called, "America Beyond Capitalism: Reclaiming our Wealth, Our Liberty, and Our Democracy" which highlights the movements toward local, sustainable economies (networked and coordinated on regional and national scales).

see: http://www.dollarsan...alperovitz.html

"Virtually all the democratized ownership forms—including thousands of co-ops, land trusts, social enterprises, and worker-owned companies of one kind or another—are also characterized by another principle of political importance, especially as ongoing economic decay destabilizes city after city: All are inherently anchored in, and supportive of, the local economy. Unlike private corporations, worker-owned companies of all descriptions rarely move to another city. The fate of those who own the company is intimately tied to the fate and health of the locality in which they both live and work. Virtually all the many other non-profit and related institutions based on democratized ownership principles are similarly place-anchored.

 

Well, that is enough catching up. In general Western economies are based on consumerism. Maybe we need to add a component of "service" to our economy (and I don't mean servicing rich people with consumer services). We need to find value in servicing the rest of the developing world, helping them develop into a sustainable socioeconomic system that will make the whole world a better place in the future (hence the value in pursuing that strategy). IMHO.

 

Working on the 8 Millennium Development Goals and the Five Food Security Steps should be a valued service, and should at least be worth credits toward SocialSecurity or HealthCare (or their equivalents), if not worth pay for industrial or intellectual research, development, and production/implementation.

 

As carbon-based life forms, living in a carbon-based agriculture/energy economy, why don't we value carbon more highly? I agree with this quote from a 2007 book:

 

"We recognize that ultimately the transition to ecologically sound, sustainable food production systems that meet human needs will be complex and will require fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies as well as the application of ecological knowledge to agricultural management." – p. 148

THE RHIZOSPHERE: An Ecological Perspective

Also, in last month's SciAm....

 

The Five Food Security Steps !

 

...what could be of more value?

Thanks for asking!

Edited December 17, 2011 by Essay

[Tres Juicy]

"It's more about, "Hey, I work harder than Bob does, I should get more! And Nancy just answers phones all day, I should get twice the stuff she gets!""

 

This happens anyway... not much can be done about it

 

"Or maybe I decide that I should only work as hard as Bob does, or get myself transferred to the phone-answering department. I get the same stuff if I do, right?"

 

This also happens

 

"There's the rub. Who decides? And do those who decide get more than me?"

 

This needs to be a fair system (public vote?) that is rotated

 

 

"Frikkin' Bob has a speedboat, why can't I get one? Are we not making speedboats any more?"

 

This is a difficult one... Stupid Bob lording it around in his speedboat is ruining my society. I'll have a word with him...

 

 

"See, I'd be OK with a car and a laptop that did what I wanted them to do and nothing more. I like the efficiency of making making every product the absolute best it can be and averaging the cost by making a bajillion of them. But many people wouldn't be satisfied with the same stuff everyone else has."

They would get used to it, and as time went on we could start to look at improvements to the system

 

 

"I said I'm not picky, not that I'm stupid. If frikkin' Bob gets a speedboat, you better not screw me over! We're all equal now, or so you say. I WANT MY SPEEDBOAT!!!"

 

Chill out, I'm gonna sort this for you Phi... (maybe we could all share speedboats?)

 

 

"Obviously, but what if I want the toaster with the twelve different darkness settings instead of the standard eight? And does it come in red, as well as chrome and taupe? "

 

We'll get there... once everyone (literally everyone) has the basics, we can improve. Surely you could deal with waiting for your perfect toast if it meant that nobody was starving in Africa right?

 

 

"I actually think there would come a point where people realized that having all the stuff you want isn't necessarily the great thing we think it is."

 

Exactly, maybe with the reduced working hours afforded by this system people just be happier with less?

 

 

"Lots of unforeseen obstacles. While I can applaud the efficiency of having a great deal of standardization (oh, the money we could save!), the current free market system ensures that most of what people can afford is available to them, in whatever flavor, color or quality they desire. On the other hand, maybe that's what we really need to outgrow, our need for a variety of "stuff"."

 

Some people have nothing and thats not really fair - can you justify your chrome toaster with 12(12! You must really like your toast a certain way...) settings to the starving masses?

 

 

But if the money spent in medicine goes towards cures, not symptom-suppressors, that at least would be a huge savings. As long as the new problems that crop up are approached with the same goal, what's wrong with that?

 

Agreed

 

On my island. Which is by invitation only.

Of course, you're all invited.

 

Lets do it! Where is the island? (can I come with you on your speedboat?)

 

I'll pack a bag.....

 

 

Its 2012 nearly and we're still running a system thats centuries old and not designed for the type of world we now live in

 

Something needs to change

 

 

Lets do it! Where is the island? (can I come with you on your speedboat?)

 

I'll pack a bag.....

 

 

Its 2012 nearly and we're still running a system thats centuries old and not designed for the type of world we now live in

 

Something needs to change and where better to sort it all out?

 

If science types can't do it who can?

 

 

Edit: Quoting has gone a bit wierd... sorry guys

Edited December 19, 2011 by Tres Juicy