Your work is not needed ! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pai mei · 11-18-2008, 11:08 AM

This is the most important thing people should know :

Their work is not needed !

For real, not because there is an economic crisis , even in "normal" times there is no need for 100% of the work force to work. 10% is enough because of the technology of today.
But we have this system were people are forced to work or be homeless , are forced to consume more and more, or else they don't have jobs, and they produce useless stuff, just because they need something to do, they are forced to, under this system. See this information :
The Gospel of Consumption | Orion Magazine

Quote:

In a 1927 interview with the magazine Nation’s Business, Secretary of Labor James J. Davis provided some numbers to illustrate a problem that the New York Times called “need saturation.” Davis noted that “the textile mills of this country can produce all the cloth needed in six months’ operation each year” and that 14 percent of the American shoe factories could produce a year’s supply of footwear. The magazine went on to suggest, “It may be that the world’s needs ultimately will be produced by three days’ work a week.

Imagine an "advanced" civilization doing what we do now, destroying our planet ,consuming more and more, working like crazy, just to HAVE SOMETHING TO DO, and if we don't do these things we have problems.

Quote:

Machines can save labor, but only if they go idle when we possess enough of what they can produce. In other words, the machinery offers us an opportunity to work less, an opportunity that as a society we have chosen not to take. Instead, we have allowed the owners of those machines to define their purpose: not reduction of labor, but “higher productivity”—and with it the imperative to consume virtually everything that the machinery can possibly produce.

We have machines to work for us, we should all stay home, have 10% work, make something like the military service - you work 10 years of your life, the rest of it you stop and do whatever you want, but with the basics being provided to you : clothing, food , shelter. Want more ? Invent yourself more ways to have fun, but stop this crazy "must work must consume" destroying rampage.
The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard

Halx · 11-18-2008, 12:06 PM

Ok, so.. what do you suggest we do?

telekinetic · 11-18-2008, 12:12 PM

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.

Manic_Skafe · 11-18-2008, 12:23 PM

As an idealist, I'm right there with you. But it'll always be a hell of a lot easier to tear it down than to build it up. After we minimize the work force, what are we to do with our lives? Do we get to live in some Rand-esque fantasyland in which we all do whatever we're naturally good at (supposing that all of us are naturally good at something) and live our lives by whatever we imagine to be in our best interest?

...

pai mei · 11-18-2008, 12:50 PM

In USA 3% of the population work in agriculture and they produce enough to export. So I say it's enough for 10% to work and 90% to do whatever they want. Houses do not need to be built all the time, food and clothes I do not think will be a problem. If a nation would set it as a goal I am sure that within 1 year they would have enough clothing and housing for a very long time.

What will people do ? Whatever they want, I told you, if you want more than what is provided create it yourself, associate with others and do it. Nobody forces you to eat and wear only what is provided. About houses, problem can be solved, build many of them to allow people to move wherever they want. I am sure there are lots of young people starting their career wanting to save the world , then realising that all they do is helping some rich person getting richer, and there is nobody to save, is each man for himself. I would gladly work for free if there is a need ( not economic need of money), if I knew I had food and shelter taken care of. Even beyond my proposed 10 year work period.

To prevent that system from becoming what we have today no money will be allowed. No banks no nothing. This system of mine has the purpose of protecting the planet and the people from their own greed.
It all started when a fisherman understood he can fish more than he can eat, because he exchanged the fish for money. Soon he owned a fishing fleet and eradicated the fish. What about the others from his village ? Who cares, they had to get jobs somewhere, lazy people !

We have this stupid concept that people cannot just "live" they have to work ! I mean "if I suffer why don't they suffer !"
See the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, who wants a pdf version of it I can send it trough email.

If people see helping others as a thing that is valued in society they will do it. If people see getting more money and stuff as a valued thing, each man for himself, and who cares about the planet, we only live for a short time, they will do that

snowy · 11-18-2008, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

In USA 3% of the population work in agriculture and they produce enough to export.

Yes, but examine the cost of that industrialized agriculture: more chemical fertilizers are being used, more chemical herbicides and pesticides are being used, crops are being genetically modified to yield more and/or be resistant to the herbicide/pesticide, more farm machinery is being used, the system encourages the use of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Chemical and CAFO runoff pollutes, the animals in the CAFOs release enormous amounts of greenhouse gas, and so does the machinery used to sustain this industrial farming regime.

No thanks, I'll pass. I'd rather focus on making my household sustainable versus having someone else work for me.

genuinegirly · 11-18-2008, 12:59 PM

Fascinating concept. You should propose the model to various countries. You might find one that's willing to try it out.

Or you could choose to incorporate a bit of this model into your own life. Live with just the basics you describe, work just enough to stay afloat, and take frequent vacations. See if you enjoy it. If you find yourself living a happy life, propose the idea to friends and allow it to become a movement.

My personal take on the idea?
Seems a bit idyllic. I don't think that it is going to work on the scale you propose, but it would be worth trying.

pai mei · 11-18-2008, 01:02 PM

I am not talking about having someone else work for you ! I am talking about not working at all, to stop this destruction. Yes you can work on your house, and so on, I know what industrialized agriculture does I am against it myself , but overall it would be a lot less damage on the planet with my system. See that movie from the first post. We cannot just rennounce this kind of agriculture, we can move towards organic farming but not all at once.

telekinetic · 11-18-2008, 01:09 PM

What about the people who manufacture and engineer the farming equipment? What about the people who drive the trucks and trains and planes to distribute the goods, and the people who build them? What about the people who process the food, and the people who build the machines that process the food? What about the power generation and distribution to power all of this utopia, both due to the electric grid and the petroleum needed to fuel the farm and transportation equipment? What about the computers to coordinate the production and distribution of this food, and the networks to support that coordination? What about the distribution centers for the food? What about the space industry needed to support the network of satellites that allows GPS to function, thus enabling super efficient automated farming? Now we need rocket scientists, too! And that is just for food! We also need to manufacture and distribute clothing and shelter, and all of the things that go along with both of those. I'd assume we still need running water, so you still need that utility company as well, and we'll need roads constructed and maintained to get the food to everyone, so we still need civil engineers and construction workers. Plus, if we're going to have vehicles driving and flying around, we need repair shops, and subassembly manufacturers (I make seatbelts!).

What you are describing is a society benefiting from extreme specialization, but without any of the neccessary industries to support that specialization. If you want to maintain the level of efficiency you seem to desire in agriculture, I think you would need to maintain a startlingly large segment of the manufacturing and engineering base.

I am not denying that we have 'unnecessary' redundancy in some areas, but I'm still not sure "Lets have a few workers specialize to feed and clothe the many" is a realistic model, from many angles. And this doesn't even begin to deal with the motivational aspect: Without money, even in your more optimistic model, how would you ensure that you had workers willing to work 12 hour backbreaking days(agriculture is not easy) to allow 97% of your population to loaf about?

Cynosure · 11-18-2008, 01:16 PM

This is the most important thing companies and entrepreneurs should know...

Your products are not needed!

(Well, the vast majority of them aren't, anyway.)

pai mei · 11-18-2008, 01:24 PM

They will do it because they know they will have a life time vacation in 10 years. Very valuable thing. How to keep everything moving ? People will do it because they want to, because there is nobody forcing them, and who does not want to improve his life ? They will get bored and start doing stuff. If in some zones people are lazy, they wil have a lower quality of life. But some will just be lucky to live in some tropical country and have very little to do to improve things. I am sure clothing, construction and food can be provided with only 10%, because the others 90% will not just sit and do nothing, they will try to improve everything too. Overconsumtion will be prevented by the lack of money. Nobody will take more than he needs becasue there is nothing to do with it. People will organize themselves. Yes it's an utopia ,trying to make it happen tommorow will result in chaos.

telekinetic · 11-18-2008, 01:25 PM

I am not entirely optimistic about the ability of anarchist tribes to maintain nuclear power plants, a space program, wafer fabrication facilities, and heavy manufacturing, let alone agriculture.

If you want a society based primarily around agriculture to survive, with no money, with people organized into tribes that work for the common good--that's easy, you just have to turn back the clock a few thousand years, (many thousand in some parts of the world) and everyone works until they die an early death at 35 or 40 from poor medical care and the toil of 12 hour work days 7 days a week.

The overall average amount of leisure time provided by our current society is unprecedented in the history of the world, so I don't buy the argument that we can improve upon this much by taking large steps backwards.

I think the point I'm trying to make is, this whole idea vastly oversimplifies the complex interdependence of modern industry--you can't pick and choose. Eliminate all industry, and you get stone age agricultural efficiency. Keep efficiency the same, and you get all of modern society to go with it.
-----Added 18/11/2008 at 04 : 46 : 53-----
(edit: yes I know this will get 'doublepost merged')

After some thought, lets assume you could treat the entire earth like a space station, and engineer self-sustaining agricultural solutions based entirely on solar power that never broke, never needed repairing, and were modular enough that they could be spread evenly accross the surface of the earth, to be within walking distance of everyone. Ignoring the medical field (the other major quality-of-life industry) for a moment, if we disbanned all manufacturing and engineering, the human population would explode (all that freetime = extremely high reproduction rates) until it reached the point that the automated systems could no longer support us, at which point we'd have population control via starvation. Massive human overpopulation of the earth is probably not that great for the environment, either.

Nisses · 11-18-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

They will do it because they know they will have a life time vacation in 10 years. Very valuable thing. How to keep everything moving ? People will do it because they want to, because there is nobody forcing them, and who does not want to improve his life ? They will get bored and start doing stuff. If in some zones people are lazy, they wil have a lower quality of life. But some will just be lucky to live in some tropical country and have very little to do to improve things. I am sure clothing, construction and food can be provided with only 10%, because the others 90% will not just sit and do nothing, they will try to improve everything too. Overconsumtion will be prevented by the lack of money. Nobody will take more than he needs becasue there is nothing to do with it. People will organize themselves. Yes it's an utopia ,trying to make it happen tommorow will result in chaos.

Sorry, idyllic and not feasible from my point of view.

People will do it because they want to? If you just let people do stuff because they simply want to, the majority will abandon their "post" after a short amount of time, vastly less than your 10 years.

You are sure that other segments can be provided with only 10% because the other 90% will try to improve everything? I think not. AT LEAST half of those people will just loaf around, doing nothing.

Overconsumption will be prevented because stuff doesn't cost anything anymore? I sincerely doubt abolishing money will solve that problem. People can get greedy with or without money.

People will organize themselves... Why? What do they have to gain out of putting in extra effort to organise something when everything they want and need is free according to you.

A human being normally speaking will do something for a minimal amount of effort to get a bigger result, worth his time (and yes, if you take away money, it will get a new worth, be it time invested, or something else).

Also, if people in the tropics would have to do less, then a massive amount of people will move there, overtaxing the local situation and resources.

Edit: and TwistedMosaic's point stands true as well... Population levels will rise dramatically. Can't believe I missed out on that one .

I think your idyllic idea needs a new kind of human as well.

telekinetic · 11-19-2008, 11:44 PM

I'm sad that this thought provoking thread got killed by our devil's advocacy after hearing from so few. Although my gut reaction was "That's impossible!" it really got me thinking on the practical aspects of WHY I thought it wasn't possible, and led to a really fascinating meditation (if you will) on how interdependant everything is, only a very tiny portion of which I refered to in my posts here.

pai mei · 11-20-2008, 01:59 AM

The prison which you don't know it's there is the perfect prison. You will not try to escape. Why establish a dictatorship ? To get a revolution ?
The simple thing that I need money and I am forced to work for others to survive, I cant just "live" without this thing called "money", means I am a slave, I am imprisoned. The money creators - bankers are the rulers.

Look here some free people :
Surin Island, Thailand: The Sea Gypsies of Surin Island - Travel Story by Antonio Graceffo - Oriental Tales Magazine

Quote:

Soon after the story broke, global attention was focused on these fascinating people who would no doubt have preferred to remain anonymous. Aid began pouring in changing the economic dynamic as well as the diet of the Mogen. The press came. The Tourists came. And soon, government regulations came, which altered their way of life, forever.

Not for long. Soon our prison of "get a job or die", will reach them. They will feel it like a prison unlike us. Work not because your work is needed, but because there is "economic need" of money. Working for money means they will no longer take what is necessary from the environment to survive, they will have to take as much as they can. The more the better.

Bottom trawling impacts, clearly visible from space

Quote:

“Bottom-trawling repeatedly plows up the seafloor over large areas of the ocean” said Mr. Amos. “Until recently, the impact was basically hidden from view. But new tools – especially Internet-based image sites, like Google Earth – allow everyone to see for themselves what’s happening. In shallow waters with muddy bottoms, trawlers leave long, persistent trails of sediment in their wake

This is what I am trying to obtain , an existence similar to that of these Mogen people, or others like them. Nobody forces them to do stuff, and it;s not "work" for them, they just LIVE. But without completely renouncing technology, just without at thousands of modern comforts ( in fact useless stuff we "need" to consume, so we keep our jobs that create them), and I think it can be done. The internet is an important tool, it will have to be preserved

shakran · 11-20-2008, 10:02 AM

What you are suggesting is an advanced form of communism. I'm not bashing communism - it's actually an idyllic system. Trouble is, it can never work. We've all been raised to think that communism is inherently evil. It's actually utopian. Everyone working for the good of the whole. But once that theory is taken off of the drawing board and put into practice, human greed takes over. There's always some greedy bastard that wants to be more equal than others. Some group of people would exploit your system, and arrange to take more of the subsistence-provisions of food / shelter / clothes, thereby leaving others in the cold unless they worked harder than everyone else.

Furthermore, you aren't taking into account expertise. This theory might work fine for janitorial or fast-food work - - work that requires little actual skill. But for more advanced work, you need to produce enough product so that you are good at producing the product.

That's why airplane companies like Boeing make airframes even if there aren't any orders for them. If they simply lay off the people who work the factory floor every time they don't need to make an airplane, they will lose all the expertise that was gained by the people who have been making the airplanes. And that's not even mentioning the designers of those airplanes. I personally don't want to fly around in an airplane where the average experience level of the designers and builders is around 5 years.

This would also affect us medically. Doctors who retire after 10 years probably wouldn't happen, because there would be little point in going to med school for so long if you worked for so short a period afterward. But even if a doctor stayed around after 10 years, he'd be using medical equipment made by newbies. Again, I really don't want my life to depend on a heart-lung machine that was made by a newbie, designed by a newbie, and is serviced by a newbie.

Lasereth · 11-20-2008, 12:31 PM

I think your proposition is very good and is the idyllic system for humans. Working until we're 60 is the dumbest shit I've ever heard of to put it in layman's terms. You only get to live once and experience this awesome life once. We are on a gigantic mass of rock in the middle of a sea of nothingness and we are wasting it on bullshitting our way through 40 hour per week jobs just so we can go home and then wait until the next day so we can do it again. It is such a waste and we could live comfortably with significantly less work being done.

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocate of hard, honest work, but I am in total agreement that our species wastes way too much time working for how short our lives are.

pai mei · 11-20-2008, 11:56 PM

It's not communism, it's how people used to live. Until money came along, and the devil took over. Taking all you can carry, is a sign of "success".

Look at how those Mogen people live, look at how American Indians used to live. Were they communists ? Did they do any work because someone forced them ? No, they did everything because they wanted to, the good of the tribe was everyone's good, and they never "worked" they just lived.

Look at SF. What does an "advanced civilization" do ? They build great cities, they have great technology, and take care of their planet. And nobody forces them to do that and they do not care about "property". We are the "Ferengi" of Star Trek right now.

Yes it's an utopia, people are so lost, this news system cannot work.
It's not just that we should have a better way to live, also there is our planet we destroy, we will feel it's loss very soon.

Forgot to say : one big lie is that people are inherently evil, greedy and nothing can be done , they can never live in a system like the one above. They are not, they are just enacting the story they are given to enact.
See the books of Daniel Quinn.

Nisses · 11-21-2008, 01:46 AM

pai mei,

It is a form of communism, provided you look past the "evil" stigma.

Why is it one big lie that some people are inherently evil? And they can live in such a system, provided that they have 0 influence or power... They'll just be frustrated.

In the end, power and influence is something you can gather. That in my opinion is the biggest flaw in communism in practice.
You seem to think free will is completely off the table, and we're all just puppets in each and every aspect of our lives?

pai mei · 11-21-2008, 01:56 AM

Free will exists. But how can I change this system if I depend on it to survive ?
Look I am writing on this forum, this is too easy not to do. Besides telling more people there is little I can do with my free will.
Yes some people are greedy, but if to get accepted into society they will need to be selfish, then they will do that. Indeed a new kind of people need to exist so that system can work and never transform back into what we have today.

Nisses · 11-21-2008, 03:26 AM

You believe that the selfish are so to get accepted into society?

I think there are a few like that, yes, but I believe most of them are selfish & greedy simply because of themselves, because they as an individual believe themselves worth more than another individual. Society & morals is what may actually hold them back a bit from acting on those impulses (what will people think)?

pai mei · 11-21-2008, 03:46 AM

I believe people want to be accepted into society and for that they will do whatever is valued by that society. Not a good thing, to not think for themselves.
Commercials tell us "do not be afraid to be different !" .They forget to say "do not be afraid to be the same" and in fact to not care. If 99% chose one thing it should have no impact on my choice.

Nisses · 11-21-2008, 03:56 AM

It's not a good thing to not think for yourself;

However, if 75% chose 1 thing over another, it SHOULD impact your choice. You should look at it and critically evaluate why they did so.

Following the stream isn't necessarily bad. Just know why you're doing it and make sure it's the right reason for you.

roachboy · 11-21-2008, 04:46 AM

this has nothing to do with any vision of socialism. or communism. this is a version of the existing order. it's capitalism rewritten with a period of compulsory labor and very early retirement built into the picture. but one of the underlying ideas--that the capitalist mode of production is based on an unbelievable squandering of human potentials simply by virtue of how work is organized and understood---that i agree with.

the problem here as i see it is that there's nothing about organization in it, nothing about direct-democratic controls, nothing about how to do this you would have to transform education--which i think absolutely should happen. there's nothing about the nature or organization of the revolutionary movement that would be required to bring these changes about---there's nothing about any of the questions to do with how to get to this place, what this place would in fact look like, how this space would regulate itself---and if you think there's no need for collective self-regulation, you're kidding yourself. it's all in how that would work. and if you are in any way serious, you have to take the process of getting to this place seriously---after world war 2, there was aa region of revolutionary marxism that was built around direct democracy as the meaning of socialism. you should read some of that--socialisme ou barbarie, c.l.r. james. for both, the question of self-organization is central. for both the revolutionary movement was a kind of extended experiment in fashioning alternative social relations and forms of self-organization. revolutionary theory was about indicating spaces and situations in the context of which working people assumed control over production, raised questions about the nature and meaning of hierarchy, about the relation between an alternate possible social configuration and social subject who are fashioned in the image of this social configuration--capitalism--and how you might move from repeating the assumptions of the latter into thinking something beyond it, not only as a utopian vision, but at the level of actual practices.

what the op outlines is athenian democracy without the democracy part. what it outlines is effectively a rotating slavery system (the compulsory service period) with an amorphous aristocracy supported by the deskilled, rigidly organized work of successive generations of people. what the op leans on is a logic of fraternity hazing--you endure the hazing so you can be a brother later and watch the hazing of others. but what i think the op is really talking about is some kind of monarchy in the context of which a state machinery that you cannot necessarily see maintains functionalities while the happy peasants frolic about.

at the same time, i think that the ending of capitalist social relations could open onto a period of creativity the likes of which we have never seen. we differ on how we think we might get there, what there looks like, how it would operate, who would have power--this is key---people should have power, but not in the way they think they do in the states, which is a context in which, like the happy peasants in the libertarian monarchy above, we get to wander about powerless telling ourselves by way of official ideological decree that we already have power when everything around and about us demonstrates that the opposite is in fact the case. for people to have power means that people have to exercise it. if they revert to being isolated happy frolicking peasants, there will still be power and it will still be exercised, but not by you.

it's the same old shit repackaged.

pai mei · 11-21-2008, 05:22 AM

Do you know why I said we will need that period of labor ? To have people provided with free food, houses and clothing. So there will be no need for money to exist.
After these basic things are taken care of they can work to improve their life however they want, without calling it "work" and without money to make them want to transform everything into money. If they don't want improvements, they don't do anything. See my signature

Who will organize all this ? Now we need that new kind of people to make it work, without any dreams of power or wealth.

Cynosure · 11-21-2008, 06:42 AM

Ironic, that some of the most oppressive governments and hellish societies, historically, are the result of people trying to create Heaven on Earth.

telekinetic · 11-21-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pai mei

Do you know why I said we will need that period of labor ? To have people provided with free food, houses and clothing. So there will be no need for money to exist.
After these basic things are taken care of they can work to improve their life however they want, without calling it "work" and without money to make them want to transform everything into money. If they don't want improvements, they don't do anything. See my signature

Who will organize all this ? Now we need that new kind of people to make it work, without any dreams of power or wealth.

I don't quite understand your use of the word 'free'...anything I have to earn with 10 years of hard labor isn't free, it's just a good pension plan. Also, you can't go around calling everything free just by removing money.

QuasiMondo · 11-21-2008, 12:39 PM

The concept of a labor-free society, much like the concepts of a society free of currency or governments is a flawed one because it relies too much on trust. You trust that as long as you live a happy existence, the people around you will do the same. You trust that when you make your offerings to the community, there is nobody among them that is filled with greed and takes more than he needs.

We can offer our goods to our fellow man, but what is to guarantee that he will do the same in return? That is the essence of trading. Simple bartering fails because traders may not always have what each other wants. Money become that universal that can be traded instead of goods. In time, we learn to trade our bodies (as labor) in exchange for this universal known as currency, and this is why we need jobs. Quite simply humanity has shown that it cannot be trusted, and that is why your concept can never work.

kurty[B] · 11-21-2008, 03:29 PM

So, would there be a predetermined amount of food given to people? You get xxxx amount of calories a day and that's all? What if my idea of enjoyment after I'm done with my 10 year working stint is riding my bike around the world, and because of the energy I exert I need to eat three times as much as the daily limit of calories to not feel like I'm starving at the end of each day? If that's the case, I'm going to pilfer someone's rations who is not paying attention.

What if I impregnate women across the world. Am I in any way shape or form responsible for providing for those children? Or does the community of the world as a whole have to deal, and I can just keep pedaling the Earth with no consequence to my actions because I put in 10 years of work at some point?

ASU2003 · 11-22-2008, 05:01 PM

And that is the downfall of communism. It has to force the rules on everybody to try and keep people equal.

There are some good things about communism in small groups like families and Indian tribes. The problem with implementing modern day communism is that each person has to have as much as the top 1% has or as much as they want.

Now, what will be interesting is if Hollywood would stop making movies about evil robots that want to kill humans, and show that a robot with some AI (that can be trained by watching what the human does and reproducing that, finding out from other robots what they figured out works the best, and also looking up whatever information it needs) can actually do 95% of the jobs out there. Maybe more. What will happen to society then if nobody needs to work?

You should look into the work less political party. I think they are onto something there. Home - Work Less Party

Merlocke · 11-26-2008, 11:44 PM

Now THIS is an interesting thread! A mixture of utopia for some and hell for others. In my previous life as an employee, I would've agreed with the communism thought process of everyone lifting their own weight equally and everyone will get paid equally. Then I became an entrepreneur, and soon found out that some people actually enjoy working much more so than others. Everyone's definition of "Fair" is different and as such there will never be a true equality except in that we allow the best to thrive and survive, while the rest that don't make the cut fade away.

pai mei · 12-23-2008, 11:09 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7495717.stm

Urban farming takes root in Detroit

Quote:

No greed

Visiting one of the largest allotments, on a site that had been derelict since Detroit's infamous 1967 riots, locals spoke about an astonishing transformation.

"There is something that every hand in this area can do," said Rose Stallard, who is keen to enlist as many volunteers as possible to help tend the garden and its precious crops.

As she organises a band of eager helpers to pull greens from the rich top-soil, Ms Stallard says food is more expensive than ever and neighbourhood shops are scarce.

"That's one cucumber you didn't have to pay 69 cents for," she adds, with a smile.

There are no fences but one local said greed had not been a problem.

"People are only taking what they need, because they know it's for everybody," he said.

For all those who say people are inherently evil and the only way they can live is the way they live today. Fighting each other over everything, and each man for himself.

They can, just give them another story in which to play a role.
What you see above is the idea of comunity, and because that community values selfishness, there is no need for fences. People want to be appreciated by others, they want to be part of something, and that is why they take only what they need. Tribal societies were the same.

What a strange concept ot take only what you need !

ramone · 12-24-2008, 12:35 PM

Pai Mei-

Have you read Tragedy of the Commons and commentary on it? Historically, taking only what you need fails because not everyone does what they have to do...

That said, for the past twenty or so years, by living simply for the most part, I have managed to take a year or two off every five years or so. The most interesting part, to me, is the reaction of other people, and the hassle/disbelief from landlords, IRS, employers (when I decide to go back to work), cops, and other parts of the vast machine- which isn't so surprising. It's regular people that react with hostility- as though I were stealing something from them.

When I work, I work hard, put in lots of hours, and put my work near the top of my priorities- I've left jobs and come back two years later at a raise from an employer who was happy to have me back. I make a decent wage, and live fairly well, and save without selling today cheap- nothing that couldn't be done by anyone. Still, when I am not working, most people are angered by it, as though by avoiding debt and living an uncluttered life, I am forcing them to overspend far beyond their means, to work at dissatisfying jobs, to hate their lives.

Ramone

pai mei · 12-25-2008, 03:12 AM

Not read. But the system above works because of the idea of community. Were all know each other and their purpose. That is the natural organization for humans - small groups.

Of course that everyone would take as much as they can carry if there was no group to which they belong, and there is no tribe to be part of, what we see today.

11-18-2008, 12:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	Ok, so.. what do you suggest we do? __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

11-18-2008, 12:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	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..

11-18-2008, 12:23 PM	#4 (permalink)
Manic_Skafe More Than You Expect Location: Queens	As an idealist, I'm right there with you. But it'll always be a hell of a lot easier to tear it down than to build it up. After we minimize the work force, what are we to do with our lives? Do we get to live in some Rand-esque fantasyland in which we all do whatever we're naturally good at (supposing that all of us are naturally good at something) and live our lives by whatever we imagine to be in our best interest? ... __________________ "Porn is a zoo of exotic animals that becomes boring upon ownership." -Nersesian

11-18-2008, 12:50 PM	#5 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	In USA 3% of the population work in agriculture and they produce enough to export. So I say it's enough for 10% to work and 90% to do whatever they want. Houses do not need to be built all the time, food and clothes I do not think will be a problem. If a nation would set it as a goal I am sure that within 1 year they would have enough clothing and housing for a very long time. What will people do ? Whatever they want, I told you, if you want more than what is provided create it yourself, associate with others and do it. Nobody forces you to eat and wear only what is provided. About houses, problem can be solved, build many of them to allow people to move wherever they want. I am sure there are lots of young people starting their career wanting to save the world , then realising that all they do is helping some rich person getting richer, and there is nobody to save, is each man for himself. I would gladly work for free if there is a need ( not economic need of money), if I knew I had food and shelter taken care of. Even beyond my proposed 10 year work period. To prevent that system from becoming what we have today no money will be allowed. No banks no nothing. This system of mine has the purpose of protecting the planet and the people from their own greed. It all started when a fisherman understood he can fish more than he can eat, because he exchanged the fish for money. Soon he owned a fishing fleet and eradicated the fish. What about the others from his village ? Who cares, they had to get jobs somewhere, lazy people ! We have this stupid concept that people cannot just "live" they have to work ! I mean "if I suffer why don't they suffer !" See the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn, who wants a pdf version of it I can send it trough email. If people see helping others as a thing that is valued in society they will do it. If people see getting more money and stuff as a valued thing, each man for himself, and who cares about the planet, we only live for a short time, they will do that __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 11-18-2008 at 01:05 PM..

11-18-2008, 12:59 PM	#7 (permalink)
genuinegirly Eat your vegetables Super Moderator Location: Arabidopsis-ville	Fascinating concept. You should propose the model to various countries. You might find one that's willing to try it out. Or you could choose to incorporate a bit of this model into your own life. Live with just the basics you describe, work just enough to stay afloat, and take frequent vacations. See if you enjoy it. If you find yourself living a happy life, propose the idea to friends and allow it to become a movement. My personal take on the idea? Seems a bit idyllic. I don't think that it is going to work on the scale you propose, but it would be worth trying. __________________ "Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq "violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

11-18-2008, 01:02 PM	#8 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	I am not talking about having someone else work for you ! I am talking about not working at all, to stop this destruction. Yes you can work on your house, and so on, I know what industrialized agriculture does I am against it myself , but overall it would be a lot less damage on the planet with my system. See that movie from the first post. We cannot just rennounce this kind of agriculture, we can move towards organic farming but not all at once. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 11-18-2008 at 01:05 PM..

11-18-2008, 01:09 PM	#9 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	What about the people who manufacture and engineer the farming equipment? What about the people who drive the trucks and trains and planes to distribute the goods, and the people who build them? What about the people who process the food, and the people who build the machines that process the food? What about the power generation and distribution to power all of this utopia, both due to the electric grid and the petroleum needed to fuel the farm and transportation equipment? What about the computers to coordinate the production and distribution of this food, and the networks to support that coordination? What about the distribution centers for the food? What about the space industry needed to support the network of satellites that allows GPS to function, thus enabling super efficient automated farming? Now we need rocket scientists, too! And that is just for food! We also need to manufacture and distribute clothing and shelter, and all of the things that go along with both of those. I'd assume we still need running water, so you still need that utility company as well, and we'll need roads constructed and maintained to get the food to everyone, so we still need civil engineers and construction workers. Plus, if we're going to have vehicles driving and flying around, we need repair shops, and subassembly manufacturers (I make seatbelts!). What you are describing is a society benefiting from extreme specialization, but without any of the neccessary industries to support that specialization. If you want to maintain the level of efficiency you seem to desire in agriculture, I think you would need to maintain a startlingly large segment of the manufacturing and engineering base. I am not denying that we have 'unnecessary' redundancy in some areas, but I'm still not sure "Lets have a few workers specialize to feed and clothe the many" is a realistic model, from many angles. And this doesn't even begin to deal with the motivational aspect: Without money, even in your more optimistic model, how would you ensure that you had workers willing to work 12 hour backbreaking days(agriculture is not easy) to allow 97% of your population to loaf about? __________________ twisted no more Last edited by telekinetic; 11-18-2008 at 01:16 PM..

11-18-2008, 01:16 PM	#10 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	This is the most important thing companies and entrepreneurs should know... Your products are not needed! (Well, the vast majority of them aren't, anyway.)

11-18-2008, 01:24 PM	#11 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	They will do it because they know they will have a life time vacation in 10 years. Very valuable thing. How to keep everything moving ? People will do it because they want to, because there is nobody forcing them, and who does not want to improve his life ? They will get bored and start doing stuff. If in some zones people are lazy, they wil have a lower quality of life. But some will just be lucky to live in some tropical country and have very little to do to improve things. I am sure clothing, construction and food can be provided with only 10%, because the others 90% will not just sit and do nothing, they will try to improve everything too. Overconsumtion will be prevented by the lack of money. Nobody will take more than he needs becasue there is nothing to do with it. People will organize themselves. Yes it's an utopia ,trying to make it happen tommorow will result in chaos. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 11-18-2008 at 01:29 PM..

11-18-2008, 01:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	I am not entirely optimistic about the ability of anarchist tribes to maintain nuclear power plants, a space program, wafer fabrication facilities, and heavy manufacturing, let alone agriculture. If you want a society based primarily around agriculture to survive, with no money, with people organized into tribes that work for the common good--that's easy, you just have to turn back the clock a few thousand years, (many thousand in some parts of the world) and everyone works until they die an early death at 35 or 40 from poor medical care and the toil of 12 hour work days 7 days a week. The overall average amount of leisure time provided by our current society is unprecedented in the history of the world, so I don't buy the argument that we can improve upon this much by taking large steps backwards. I think the point I'm trying to make is, this whole idea vastly oversimplifies the complex interdependence of modern industry--you can't pick and choose. Eliminate all industry, and you get stone age agricultural efficiency. Keep efficiency the same, and you get all of modern society to go with it. -----Added 18/11/2008 at 04 : 46 : 53----- (edit: yes I know this will get 'doublepost merged') After some thought, lets assume you could treat the entire earth like a space station, and engineer self-sustaining agricultural solutions based entirely on solar power that never broke, never needed repairing, and were modular enough that they could be spread evenly accross the surface of the earth, to be within walking distance of everyone. Ignoring the medical field (the other major quality-of-life industry) for a moment, if we disbanned all manufacturing and engineering, the human population would explode (all that freetime = extremely high reproduction rates) until it reached the point that the automated systems could no longer support us, at which point we'd have population control via starvation. Massive human overpopulation of the earth is probably not that great for the environment, either. __________________ twisted no more Last edited by telekinetic; 11-18-2008 at 01:47 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

11-19-2008, 11:44 PM	#14 (permalink)
telekinetic zomgomgomgomgomgomg Location: Fauxenix, Azerona	I'm sad that this thought provoking thread got killed by our devil's advocacy after hearing from so few. Although my gut reaction was "That's impossible!" it really got me thinking on the practical aspects of WHY I thought it wasn't possible, and led to a really fascinating meditation (if you will) on how interdependant everything is, only a very tiny portion of which I refered to in my posts here. __________________ twisted no more

11-20-2008, 10:02 AM	#16 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	What you are suggesting is an advanced form of communism. I'm not bashing communism - it's actually an idyllic system. Trouble is, it can never work. We've all been raised to think that communism is inherently evil. It's actually utopian. Everyone working for the good of the whole. But once that theory is taken off of the drawing board and put into practice, human greed takes over. There's always some greedy bastard that wants to be more equal than others. Some group of people would exploit your system, and arrange to take more of the subsistence-provisions of food / shelter / clothes, thereby leaving others in the cold unless they worked harder than everyone else. Furthermore, you aren't taking into account expertise. This theory might work fine for janitorial or fast-food work - - work that requires little actual skill. But for more advanced work, you need to produce enough product so that you are good at producing the product. That's why airplane companies like Boeing make airframes even if there aren't any orders for them. If they simply lay off the people who work the factory floor every time they don't need to make an airplane, they will lose all the expertise that was gained by the people who have been making the airplanes. And that's not even mentioning the designers of those airplanes. I personally don't want to fly around in an airplane where the average experience level of the designers and builders is around 5 years. This would also affect us medically. Doctors who retire after 10 years probably wouldn't happen, because there would be little point in going to med school for so long if you worked for so short a period afterward. But even if a doctor stayed around after 10 years, he'd be using medical equipment made by newbies. Again, I really don't want my life to depend on a heart-lung machine that was made by a newbie, designed by a newbie, and is serviced by a newbie.

11-20-2008, 12:31 PM	#17 (permalink)
Lasereth Knight of the Old Republic Location: Winston-Salem, NC	I think your proposition is very good and is the idyllic system for humans. Working until we're 60 is the dumbest shit I've ever heard of to put it in layman's terms. You only get to live once and experience this awesome life once. We are on a gigantic mass of rock in the middle of a sea of nothingness and we are wasting it on bullshitting our way through 40 hour per week jobs just so we can go home and then wait until the next day so we can do it again. It is such a waste and we could live comfortably with significantly less work being done. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge advocate of hard, honest work, but I am in total agreement that our species wastes way too much time working for how short our lives are.

11-20-2008, 11:56 PM	#18 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	It's not communism, it's how people used to live. Until money came along, and the devil took over. Taking all you can carry, is a sign of "success". Look at how those Mogen people live, look at how American Indians used to live. Were they communists ? Did they do any work because someone forced them ? No, they did everything because they wanted to, the good of the tribe was everyone's good, and they never "worked" they just lived. Look at SF. What does an "advanced civilization" do ? They build great cities, they have great technology, and take care of their planet. And nobody forces them to do that and they do not care about "property". We are the "Ferengi" of Star Trek right now. Yes it's an utopia, people are so lost, this news system cannot work. It's not just that we should have a better way to live, also there is our planet we destroy, we will feel it's loss very soon. Forgot to say : one big lie is that people are inherently evil, greedy and nothing can be done , they can never live in a system like the one above. They are not, they are just enacting the story they are given to enact. See the books of Daniel Quinn. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 11-21-2008 at 01:01 AM..

11-21-2008, 01:46 AM	#19 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	pai mei, It is a form of communism, provided you look past the "evil" stigma. Why is it one big lie that some people are inherently evil? And they can live in such a system, provided that they have 0 influence or power... They'll just be frustrated. In the end, power and influence is something you can gather. That in my opinion is the biggest flaw in communism in practice. You seem to think free will is completely off the table, and we're all just puppets in each and every aspect of our lives? __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated. Last edited by Nisses; 11-21-2008 at 01:56 AM..

11-21-2008, 01:56 AM	#20 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	Free will exists. But how can I change this system if I depend on it to survive ? Look I am writing on this forum, this is too easy not to do. Besides telling more people there is little I can do with my free will. Yes some people are greedy, but if to get accepted into society they will need to be selfish, then they will do that. Indeed a new kind of people need to exist so that system can work and never transform back into what we have today. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"

11-21-2008, 03:26 AM	#21 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	You believe that the selfish are so to get accepted into society? I think there are a few like that, yes, but I believe most of them are selfish & greedy simply because of themselves, because they as an individual believe themselves worth more than another individual. Society & morals is what may actually hold them back a bit from acting on those impulses (what will people think)? __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

11-21-2008, 03:46 AM	#22 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	I believe people want to be accepted into society and for that they will do whatever is valued by that society. Not a good thing, to not think for themselves. Commercials tell us "do not be afraid to be different !" .They forget to say "do not be afraid to be the same" and in fact to not care. If 99% chose one thing it should have no impact on my choice. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"

11-21-2008, 03:56 AM	#23 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	It's not a good thing to not think for yourself; However, if 75% chose 1 thing over another, it SHOULD impact your choice. You should look at it and critically evaluate why they did so. Following the stream isn't necessarily bad. Just know why you're doing it and make sure it's the right reason for you. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

11-21-2008, 04:46 AM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	this has nothing to do with any vision of socialism. or communism. this is a version of the existing order. it's capitalism rewritten with a period of compulsory labor and very early retirement built into the picture. but one of the underlying ideas--that the capitalist mode of production is based on an unbelievable squandering of human potentials simply by virtue of how work is organized and understood---that i agree with. the problem here as i see it is that there's nothing about organization in it, nothing about direct-democratic controls, nothing about how to do this you would have to transform education--which i think absolutely should happen. there's nothing about the nature or organization of the revolutionary movement that would be required to bring these changes about---there's nothing about any of the questions to do with how to get to this place, what this place would in fact look like, how this space would regulate itself---and if you think there's no need for collective self-regulation, you're kidding yourself. it's all in how that would work. and if you are in any way serious, you have to take the process of getting to this place seriously---after world war 2, there was aa region of revolutionary marxism that was built around direct democracy as the meaning of socialism. you should read some of that--socialisme ou barbarie, c.l.r. james. for both, the question of self-organization is central. for both the revolutionary movement was a kind of extended experiment in fashioning alternative social relations and forms of self-organization. revolutionary theory was about indicating spaces and situations in the context of which working people assumed control over production, raised questions about the nature and meaning of hierarchy, about the relation between an alternate possible social configuration and social subject who are fashioned in the image of this social configuration--capitalism--and how you might move from repeating the assumptions of the latter into thinking something beyond it, not only as a utopian vision, but at the level of actual practices. what the op outlines is athenian democracy without the democracy part. what it outlines is effectively a rotating slavery system (the compulsory service period) with an amorphous aristocracy supported by the deskilled, rigidly organized work of successive generations of people. what the op leans on is a logic of fraternity hazing--you endure the hazing so you can be a brother later and watch the hazing of others. but what i think the op is really talking about is some kind of monarchy in the context of which a state machinery that you cannot necessarily see maintains functionalities while the happy peasants frolic about. at the same time, i think that the ending of capitalist social relations could open onto a period of creativity the likes of which we have never seen. we differ on how we think we might get there, what there looks like, how it would operate, who would have power--this is key---people should have power, but not in the way they think they do in the states, which is a context in which, like the happy peasants in the libertarian monarchy above, we get to wander about powerless telling ourselves by way of official ideological decree that we already have power when everything around and about us demonstrates that the opposite is in fact the case. for people to have power means that people have to exercise it. if they revert to being isolated happy frolicking peasants, there will still be power and it will still be exercised, but not by you. it's the same old shit repackaged. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

11-21-2008, 05:22 AM	#25 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	Do you know why I said we will need that period of labor ? To have people provided with free food, houses and clothing. So there will be no need for money to exist. After these basic things are taken care of they can work to improve their life however they want, without calling it "work" and without money to make them want to transform everything into money. If they don't want improvements, they don't do anything. See my signature Who will organize all this ? Now we need that new kind of people to make it work, without any dreams of power or wealth. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game" Last edited by pai mei; 11-21-2008 at 05:27 AM..

11-21-2008, 06:42 AM	#26 (permalink)
Cynosure Psycho Location: the center of the multiverse	Ironic, that some of the most oppressive governments and hellish societies, historically, are the result of people trying to create Heaven on Earth. Last edited by Cynosure; 11-22-2008 at 08:24 AM..

11-21-2008, 12:39 PM	#28 (permalink)
QuasiMondo Wise-ass Latino Location: Pretoria (Tshwane), RSA	The concept of a labor-free society, much like the concepts of a society free of currency or governments is a flawed one because it relies too much on trust. You trust that as long as you live a happy existence, the people around you will do the same. You trust that when you make your offerings to the community, there is nobody among them that is filled with greed and takes more than he needs. We can offer our goods to our fellow man, but what is to guarantee that he will do the same in return? That is the essence of trading. Simple bartering fails because traders may not always have what each other wants. Money become that universal that can be traded instead of goods. In time, we learn to trade our bodies (as labor) in exchange for this universal known as currency, and this is why we need jobs. Quite simply humanity has shown that it cannot be trusted, and that is why your concept can never work. __________________ Cameron originally envisioned the Terminator as a small, unremarkable man, giving it the ability to blend in more easily. As a result, his first choice for the part was Lance Henriksen. O. J. Simpson was on the shortlist but Cameron did not think that such a nice guy could be a ruthless killer. -From the Collector's Edition DVD of The Terminator

11-21-2008, 03:29 PM	#29 (permalink)
kurty[B] Sauce Puppet	So, would there be a predetermined amount of food given to people? You get xxxx amount of calories a day and that's all? What if my idea of enjoyment after I'm done with my 10 year working stint is riding my bike around the world, and because of the energy I exert I need to eat three times as much as the daily limit of calories to not feel like I'm starving at the end of each day? If that's the case, I'm going to pilfer someone's rations who is not paying attention. What if I impregnate women across the world. Am I in any way shape or form responsible for providing for those children? Or does the community of the world as a whole have to deal, and I can just keep pedaling the Earth with no consequence to my actions because I put in 10 years of work at some point? __________________ In the Absence of Information People Make Things Up.

11-22-2008, 05:01 PM	#30 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	And that is the downfall of communism. It has to force the rules on everybody to try and keep people equal. There are some good things about communism in small groups like families and Indian tribes. The problem with implementing modern day communism is that each person has to have as much as the top 1% has or as much as they want. Now, what will be interesting is if Hollywood would stop making movies about evil robots that want to kill humans, and show that a robot with some AI (that can be trained by watching what the human does and reproducing that, finding out from other robots what they figured out works the best, and also looking up whatever information it needs) can actually do 95% of the jobs out there. Maybe more. What will happen to society then if nobody needs to work? You should look into the work less political party. I think they are onto something there. Home - Work Less Party

11-26-2008, 11:44 PM	#31 (permalink)
Merlocke Location: Canada	Now THIS is an interesting thread! A mixture of utopia for some and hell for others. In my previous life as an employee, I would've agreed with the communism thought process of everyone lifting their own weight equally and everyone will get paid equally. Then I became an entrepreneur, and soon found out that some people actually enjoy working much more so than others. Everyone's definition of "Fair" is different and as such there will never be a true equality except in that we allow the best to thrive and survive, while the rest that don't make the cut fade away. __________________ -=[ Merlocke ]=-

12-24-2008, 12:35 PM	#33 (permalink)
ramone Upright Location: Long Island, South Shore, central Suffolk	Pai Mei- Have you read Tragedy of the Commons and commentary on it? Historically, taking only what you need fails because not everyone does what they have to do... That said, for the past twenty or so years, by living simply for the most part, I have managed to take a year or two off every five years or so. The most interesting part, to me, is the reaction of other people, and the hassle/disbelief from landlords, IRS, employers (when I decide to go back to work), cops, and other parts of the vast machine- which isn't so surprising. It's regular people that react with hostility- as though I were stealing something from them. When I work, I work hard, put in lots of hours, and put my work near the top of my priorities- I've left jobs and come back two years later at a raise from an employer who was happy to have me back. I make a decent wage, and live fairly well, and save without selling today cheap- nothing that couldn't be done by anyone. Still, when I am not working, most people are angered by it, as though by avoiding debt and living an uncluttered life, I am forcing them to overspend far beyond their means, to work at dissatisfying jobs, to hate their lives. Ramone __________________ I used to care... but things have changed.

12-25-2008, 03:12 AM	#34 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	Not read. But the system above works because of the idea of community. Were all know each other and their purpose. That is the natural organization for humans - small groups. Of course that everyone would take as much as they can carry if there was no group to which they belong, and there is no tribe to be part of, what we see today. __________________ Blog One day there will be so many houses, that people will be bored and will go live in tents. "Why are you living in tents ? Are there not enough houses ?" "Yes there are, but we play this Economy game"