Friday, August 24, 2007
Wastrels
One of the first by-products of an egalitarian infrastructure is the policy that one should not waste resources that are not surplus, "surplus" meaning that all the needs for survival are met. There is no particular reason not to use perishable resources for non-survival purposes so long as everyone has enough to survive and there are no unmet survival needs that could be produced as an alternative to those perishable resources.
"Waste" would be defined as a purpose (or lack of purpose) that causes the resource to be expended in a way that creates an unmet physical need somewhere on the globe. For example, creation of a dress uniform for an official or a "fashion" for a civilian when there is a person anywhere on the globe who is insufficiently clothed. Or taking food and not consuming it when there is a person anywhere on the globe who is insufficiently fed.
I say "physical" need, because there are symbolic wasteful actions that may satisfy neurotic "needs" in some individuals. The need to be in a superior stratum in a stratified infrastructure and demonstrate that by the use of resources for symbolic purposes is such a neurotic need. The fact that it is common in some varieties of social infrastructure does not make it less psychopathological.
In the past, and to a certain degree at present, a certain amount of waste was inevitable; but with modern methods of information transfer, perishable storage, and transportation, much less waste is inevitable. That being so, we have to decide whether is it proper for some people to waste by using resources for symbolic purposes while others have insufficient resources to survive, or at least insufficient resources to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Of course if one believes in inequality, then any amount of unequal distribution of resources is acceptable and may even be desirable. If one agrees that "All persons are equal" then an unequal distribution, for whatever reason, is unacceptable.
So "All persons are equal" and "Do not waste" are of equal importance as slogans.
If all persona are equal, there does not seem to be any reason for awarding some people with resources while denying them to others. Sufficient materials in a form suitable for direct personal consumption by everyone can be produced by automatic machinery so there is no reason to make consumption conditional on any particular activity such as "work". In fact, it is undesirable to have anyone "work" unless they can do something better than a robot or computer, because that would be inefficient, i.e., wasteful and nekulturni. Those who can do something better than a robot (e.g., be creative) will compete for the chance to do it for personal satisfaction.
This gets back to my Utopia, so I'll have to look at this carefully to see that I'm not just copying myself.
"Waste" would be defined as a purpose (or lack of purpose) that causes the resource to be expended in a way that creates an unmet physical need somewhere on the globe. For example, creation of a dress uniform for an official or a "fashion" for a civilian when there is a person anywhere on the globe who is insufficiently clothed. Or taking food and not consuming it when there is a person anywhere on the globe who is insufficiently fed.
I say "physical" need, because there are symbolic wasteful actions that may satisfy neurotic "needs" in some individuals. The need to be in a superior stratum in a stratified infrastructure and demonstrate that by the use of resources for symbolic purposes is such a neurotic need. The fact that it is common in some varieties of social infrastructure does not make it less psychopathological.
In the past, and to a certain degree at present, a certain amount of waste was inevitable; but with modern methods of information transfer, perishable storage, and transportation, much less waste is inevitable. That being so, we have to decide whether is it proper for some people to waste by using resources for symbolic purposes while others have insufficient resources to survive, or at least insufficient resources to maintain a healthy lifestyle.
Of course if one believes in inequality, then any amount of unequal distribution of resources is acceptable and may even be desirable. If one agrees that "All persons are equal" then an unequal distribution, for whatever reason, is unacceptable.
So "All persons are equal" and "Do not waste" are of equal importance as slogans.
If all persona are equal, there does not seem to be any reason for awarding some people with resources while denying them to others. Sufficient materials in a form suitable for direct personal consumption by everyone can be produced by automatic machinery so there is no reason to make consumption conditional on any particular activity such as "work". In fact, it is undesirable to have anyone "work" unless they can do something better than a robot or computer, because that would be inefficient, i.e., wasteful and nekulturni. Those who can do something better than a robot (e.g., be creative) will compete for the chance to do it for personal satisfaction.
This gets back to my Utopia, so I'll have to look at this carefully to see that I'm not just copying myself.
# posted by Karl Eklund @ 8:25 AM 
