I believe in good!

wil said:
Yet we have less violence and war per capita than ever before....we are feeding more people than ever before.
Click to expand...
I trust that this is true, and that two major classes of cooperation (capitalism and governments) have helped achieve this fact. And yet we have the very real prospect that an unhealthy dynamic between the two seems to threaten future progress. Capitalism, an improvement over Feudalism, seems to have inherent flaws that have amplified over time and now may be starting to cannibalize government (at least the democratic forms that seem to serve us best). As Stephen Covey would say, we have become increasingly money “centered” instead of human centered. If the rate of improved good is to continue, and not stall out or reverse, we may need to begin mapping out alternative resource management (“economic “) systems. Our interactive computer technology holds the potential to know where every resource is (Rifkin’s “internet of things”) AND to allocate those resources most effectively to those who need it. The latter would require consensus about legitimate needs vs mere wants, and a metric (operational definitions) would need to be handed over to an Artificial Intelligence “God’s Helper” to optimize the meeting of human needs. The global marketplace with all its wasteful and inefficient (and ineffective) fluctuations is primitive (and unintentionally callous) as a means of meeting human needs. If we are serious about continuing the progress, we MUST consider systematic options. The concept of and practice of “mission economies” is a step in the right direction. Perhaps our interactive computer technology will allow us to form decentralized but highly integrated resource management systems. I wrote a book about a model community, the likes of which would fit in with a lot of other “Integrated Local Resource Management Systems.” The intimacy of small towns but united via integrative technology—no longer requiring heavy centralized, top down, governance.
This idea or similar innovations could maintain and increase the good that we are growing.
I tried to keep this comment as non political as possible, but it seems impossible to seriously discuss the movement towards goodness without examining the paths and vehicles required.
Thanks in advance for listening to my “vision.” I am confident that many others also are starting to sense a similar future beyond the systems we currently rely upon (and may be overly dependent upon, even addicted to).
 
I wonder what the criteria is for "poverty". A couple hundred years ago so many people lived in agricultural societies. Money wasn't as necessary because you grew your own crops, raised your own livestock, and didn't need money as much as we do today. I couldn't find anything in this study that accounted for possessions (property, houses, livestock, etc.) instead of just monetary wealth. So this change in our lives would definitely account for a large swing in poverty.

Just a thought that popped in my head.
 
moralorel said:
I wonder what the criteria is for "poverty". A couple hundred years ago so many people lived in agricultural societies. Money wasn't as necessary because you grew your own crops, raised your own livestock, and didn't need money as much as we do today. I couldn't find anything in this study that accounted for possessions (property, houses, livestock, etc.) instead of just monetary wealth. So this change in our lives would definitely account for a large swing in poverty.

Just a thought that popped in my head.
Click to expand...
If we relied on resource sharing systems, there could be no individual poverty, only everyone relatively unable to access adequate resources to meet the collective’s needs (and the needs of each individual within it). Individual ownership is based in part on not trusting that fellow human beings will work together to utilize resources to meet everyone’s needs. I have to own things because I can’t trust others to help me meet my needs. Capitalism is based on “OWNING the means of production”. It is based partly on owning things and the distrust behind the compulsion of ownership.
 
We would need to create trust culturally, either before or during the resource sharing
 
moralorel said:
I wonder what the criteria is for "poverty". A couple hundred years ago so many people lived in agricultural societies. Money wasn't as necessary because you grew your own crops, raised your own livestock, and didn't need money as much as we do today. I couldn't find anything in this study that accounted for possessions (property, houses, livestock, etc.) instead of just monetary wealth. So this change in our lives would definitely account for a large swing in poverty.

Just a thought that popped in my head.
Click to expand...
I think about that sometimes, too.

I spent much time in life being told I was living in poverty... as I sat in my heated house, eating dinner...

I think it would help if there was more diverse language surrounding such situations. When I was a kid, a teacher told me poverty described a life in which a person may live in a shack and lack food and adequate clothing.

Shopping thrift or discount, delaying wants, and going without internet didn't really seem like poverty to me. Just broke. :D
 
As usual it is perception.....what is poverty to some is a dream to others...

The crew that uses private jets, own yachts and have skysuites in stadiums is different from the retirees who go on the occasional cruise and season ticket holders...

I am often reminded of what is "riches" to napoleon hill...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top