I do not agree with the assumptions the original post is based on. Although it is correct that 10% of the workforce, with proper technology, could probably provide for the other 10% (with modern cooking and farming technology, I'd put it closer to 1%), it assumes that everyone would be happy living at subsistence level, and that all production of all goods, as well as their distribution, is centrally controlled.
It also assumes that the technology to allow for that development (as well as the manufacturing of the machines) is created by fiat, the industrial base is fully retooled to support advanced agricultural engineering, and that somehow, in the absence of other industry, the machine makers have access to all of the subcomponent manufacturing capability to supply the automated agricultural revolution.
This is not compatible with the gradual technological development in response to market trends by engineers, designers, marketers, etc etc, that is in place today.
I do agree that if, (Say, with a proper wish on a genie in a bottle), the proper technological solutions (using today's technology level) was put in place, a very small percentage of the world could control automated machinery supply the needs of the rest of the world. However, the standard of living for the majority of the people not living in a 3rd world country would suffer greatly.
__________________
twisted no more
Last edited by telekinetic; 11-18-2008 at 12:22 PM..
|