[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Suicide Junkie]

Given power and time, of course.

The first things you should replicate are some power plants, and some type of refinery to gather the fuel you need.
A hawking reactor would probably be cheapest, assuming you can get your hands on a really small black hole (borrow one from a romulan ship).
Random matter in, energy out, E=MC^2. Much more unsafe than a Fed style matter-antimatter reactor, but much cheaper to run.
You'd just need to set up camp in an asteroid field, or a trek-density nebula, and you'll be set for life.

[ April 01, 2003, 16:24: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[dogscoff]

For me the best sci-fi universe to live in would be the one from Iain M Banks' Culture novels: Incredibly advanced technology means that lifespans are incredibly long and comfortable and economy/ currency is pretty much irrelevant at the personal level. There is no such thing as government, you can mod your body into absolutely anything you like and there is a proven afterlife at the end of it all. Furthermore, the whole society is maintained and kept stable by these benign Super-AI "Gods" called Minds, and there are a zillion wierd and wonderful places and things to see and do.

Yep, that'd do me...

[Kamog]

I wonder if we will ever get to the point where people don't have to work for a living. Even if we have replicators and unlimited energy, we will probably still need to work. The advancement of technology has not reduced our work hours. Computers and automation have made our industries more efficient but we still don't have a 3-day work week like some people thought we will have. We can get things done faster with technology, but we have to do more each day now. In fact, it seems like people are working longer and longer hours and working more and more. 50 years ago, one person in the family was able to work and comfortably support a spouse and kids and be able to buy a house, car, and other items. Now it seems that in most families, both parents have to work just to get by. The trend seems to be more work, not less.

[dogscoff]

Computers and automation have made our industries more efficient but we still don't have a 3-day work week like some people thought we will have.

You're right, but the thing to remember is that while working people are at the office longer and longer hours, more and more people are unemployed.

Basically, it comes down to the way in which the time-saving benefits of labour saving technology are used to benefit the upper levels of an organisation rather than the lower levels: If a company employs 2 ppl doing the same job, and then a gizmo is invented that means the job can be done in half the time, does the company halve both their hours or lay one of them off?

In France they've passed a law where you're not allowed to work more than X hours a week. I think X is about 35 or 40. This is a cool idea- it caused some problems while people adapted but hopefully it will reduce unemployment and improve standards of living. I think the whole world should be heading this way.

[General Woundwort]

[quote]Originally posted by dogscoff:

Basically, it comes down to the way in which the time-saving benefits of labour saving technology are used to benefit the upper levels of an organisation rather than the lower levels: If a company employs 2 ppl doing the same job, and then a gizmo is invented that means the job can be done in half the time, does the company halve both their hours or lay one of them off?

In France they've passed a law where you're not allowed to work more than X hours a week. I think X is about 35 or 40. This is a cool idea- it caused some problems while people adapted but hopefully it will reduce unemployment and improve standards of living. I think the whole world should be heading this way.

Yes, and France thereby gets the worst of both possible worlds - high unemployment and declining productivity. If you're going to have a massive welfare state, you must have a large pool of labor and capital to support all those who don't/cant work. And if your workers are limited by law as to how long they can work, you are capping potential production (and thereby potential new jobs and tax revenue) by default. The French model just isn't working. But they've had it so long that when they try to scale it back, they get strikes (even "strikes" by college students - college students).

[dogscoff]

Surely you agree though that in a world where many/ most people in employment are over-worked and work-related stress is reaching epidemic proportions, it makes sense to relieve that pressure by sharing the workload with the unemployed? Two birds with one stone...

The French model may not be working yet, but given time employers will adjust to the fact that they need to take on extra staff to bring productivity back up to previous levels. This might be tough on them, but the economy will gradually change shape to fit the new dynamics and wage structures. Maybe a more gradual approach should have been implemented...

If nothing else, it's certainly a brave concept and attempt.

[Chronon]

I think the trend towards more work is a very complex one. Certainly the materialistic/economic/status ambitions of some Americans (I don't want to generalize about Europe, because the culture is different) is a contributing factor. But I also think there are some fundamental economic changes going on that perpetuate this trend.

Back in the days of Father works, Mom stays home with the kids, and everyone lives comfortably in a one-family house (or at least this was the ideal anyway), the mainstay of the economy was large-scale manufacturing (steel, automobiles, capital equipment, etc.). The American economy produced over 40% of the Gross World Product because the rest of the world (Europe especially) was still recovering from WWII. Most American factories were running at close to maximum production in this time period. The unions were strong, CEO's only made about 12-15 times what the average worker made, housing and education was cheap, and the amount of stuff necessary for "comfort" was less. A small three bedroom house, one car, a single TV (or not, depending on the decade), a radio, a stove, a refrigerator, and simple furnishings were all that were necessary.

Now we have a global economy where the US contribution to GWP is about half of what it was (percentage wise), mostly because the rest of the industrialized world has fully recovered from WWII and caught up economically. Manufacturing has moved to the developing world, and the information economy is the driving force of the mature economies in Europe, Japan, and North America. Education (in the US) is no longer cheap, the unions are dying (mostly because the manufacting economy is dying), the average CEO is making over 40 times what the average worker is making (more at Enron and Worldcom...), and the amount of stuff that one needs for "comfort" is much greater. Now we need a large four-bedroom house, a mini-van and an SUV, about 4 TV's with cable programming, at least one computer, a modern kitchen (with stove, refrigerator, microwave, mixer, and dishwashing machine), a rack of home theater audio equipment (receiver, dvd player, vcr, and surround speakers), a snow-blower for the winter, a tractor-mower for the grass in the summer, plus a wide range of small appliances (Palm Pilot, cell phone, laptop, kitchen gadgets, etc.). It's no wonder that everyone is working longer hours.

And, for those not connected to the global economy, there are always minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. One has to work ridiculous hours just to get above the poverty level at minimum wage, and those are the jobs that are expanding the quickest.

So, I think the French have a good idea, but the real test is going to be how many people can be connected to the global economy (which requires a high leve of education), and how many people are going to be shunted into service jobs. If the current trend of separation between the upper classes (economically speaking) and the working classes continues, we're in for a lot more social unrest. Revolutions are made out of these kind of social disparities...

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Chronon:
Back in the days of Father works, Mom stays home with the kids, and everyone lives comfortably in a one-family house (or at least this was the ideal anyway), the mainstay of the economy was large-scale manufacturing (steel, automobiles, capital equipment, etc.).

And that situation itself was the result of massive economic change. The "dad works outside the home, mom stays at home" model is itself an offshoot of the industrial revolution. Before that, *everybody* worked at home, either in agriculture or crafts, and there was more overlap between housekeeping and job-related labor.

The American economy produced over 40% of the Gross World Product because the rest of the world (Europe especially) was still recovering from WWII. Most American factories were running at close to maximum production in this time period. The unions were strong, CEO's only made about 12-15 times what the average worker made,

What happened to the Rockefellers and the Carnegies?

housing and education was cheap, and the amount of stuff necessary for "comfort" was less. A small three bedroom house, one car, a single TV (or not, depending on the decade), a radio, a stove, a refrigerator, and simple furnishings were all that were necessary.

Necessary? All that is necessary is a clean living space, access to clean water, and a place to cook and store food. Everything you list here is, from the standpoint of the condition of most humans in history, mind-boggling luxury. Even the "poor" here in America, for the most part, have it so good in comparison to the rest of the world. I think our perspectives in this matter are horrifically skewed.

Education (in the US) is no longer cheap, the unions are dying (mostly because the manufacting economy is dying), the average CEO is making over 40 times what the average worker is making (more at Enron and Worldcom...), and the amount of stuff that one needs for "comfort" is much greater. Now we need a large four-bedroom house, a mini-van and an SUV, about 4 TV's with cable programming, at least one computer, a modern kitchen (with stove, refrigerator, microwave, mixer, and dishwashing machine), a rack of home theater audio equipment (receiver, dvd player, vcr, and surround speakers), a snow-blower for the winter, a tractor-mower for the grass in the summer, plus a wide range of small appliances (Palm Pilot, cell phone, laptop, kitchen gadgets, etc.). It's no wonder that everyone is working longer hours.

Which again makes my point about how culturally relative all this is. The educational system is indeed a mess, but I will pass on commenting there as I am no expert in that field. But about that ratio of CEO-to-lineworker salary - again, let me state that culture has a lot to do with what the impact of that is. In America (ideally), competence, education, and effort can move you up the ladder. Plus, the difference between that CEO and the assembly line worker in social, real economic, and political terms is not nearly as much as the difference was between a Soviet assembly line worker and the apparatchik who ran the factory. There is less of a "great gulf fixed" between the two in our society than in societies that were more influenced by strict class systems.

And, for those not connected to the global economy, there are always minimum wage jobs at McDonalds. One has to work ridiculous hours just to get above the poverty level at minimum wage, and those are the jobs that are expanding the quickest.

I'll stick my rabbit's foot in my mouth and wildly speculate that, perhaps, the overloading of the educational system might have something to do with that. IOW, the glut of collegate education widens the gulf between basic labor and "skilled" labor. In my dad's day, a high-school diploma could at least get you a decent job in industry. Now, as you say, it just gets you "You want to super-size that?"

But I might be wrong.

So, I think the French have a good idea, but the real test is going to be how many people can be connected to the global economy (which requires a high leve of education), and how many people are going to be shunted into service jobs.

As I insinuated in my reply to Dogscoff, it's a beautiful idea, in theory. But when you try to apply that idea from the top-down without consideration of the forces that actually drive human behavior, politics, and economics, you get what the French have now, at best; and you get the wasteland of the ex-Soviet empire at worst.

If the current trend of separation between the upper classes (economically speaking) and the working classes continues, we're in for a lot more social unrest. Revolutions are made out of these kind of social disparities...

Unless the disparities are softened by other cultural and economic factors, as I have stated above.

Good grief, and I originally came here just to download shipsets... :-}

[General Woundwort]

Were the Forums down Last night, or was it just my service provider?

Originally posted by dogscoff:
Surely you agree though that in a world where many / most people in employment are over-worked and work-related stress is reaching epidemic proportions, it makes sense to relieve that pressure by sharing the workload with the unemployed? Two birds with one stone...

No, I want people to either die of overwork or starvation, and decrease the surplus population. Unemployment and overwork are bad. Agreed. But, I have a philosophical problem with the idea that effective solutions to such problems can be "socially engineered" by government. And at least in America, a lot of the overwork (mind you, being in govt, I don't see a lot of it ) is out of personal or cultural expectation. "I want the corner office. I want a big raise. I want the fancy title stenciled on my door..." Ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

The French model may not be working yet, but given time employers will adjust to the fact that they need to take on extra staff to bring productivity back up to previous levels. This might be tough on them, but the economy will gradually change shape to fit the new dynamics and wage structures.

Like it is in France?

If nothing else, it's certainly a brave concept and attempt.

Wasn't it Orwell who said that socialism was a beautiful idea killed by ugly facts?

[Suicide Junkie]

Necessary? All that is necessary is a clean living space, access to clean water, and a place to cook and store food.

Physically, all you need is a supply of oxygen at the right pressure and temperature, and an IV drip.

And of course a lack of dangerous critters and events.