Robert Bradbury wrote:
If you are going to live 2000 years, sooner or later you are going to have
to deal with the cleaning up the mess of your miss-spent youth (e.g.
pollution). So a *real* "long-term" perspective includes an accounting for
the commons, a desire to utilize and allocate resources most efficiently,
and a desire to uplift others to your level (because its going to get damn
boring talking to 10^10 copies of yourself), etc.
(end)
Zero wrote:
Agreed. In addition, if the "have-nots" aren't permitted to join the haves"
you run the risk of envy, which leads to things like looting and burning and
other behavior by the lumpen masses which tends to annoy the elite. History
has shown that the prols are not happy eating cake, while he elite dine on
fine beef.- -Zero
(end)
This also hinges on the power difference between the "haves" and
"have-nots." I would hope that the access to knowledge and technology will
not be so limited to the public that they are not simply at the mercy of the
government and corporate elite. I would hope that the continued rise in
influence, wealth and education of the 'middle-classes' will continue and it
would seem that this will happen.
In 2050, there will still be "haves" and "have-nots" but the definitions
will have changed. This has been talked about on the list before,
certainly. A 2050 "have-not" may have a lifestyle that only a
multi-millioniare has now, and yet will feel frustrated by living when
looking at the "haves" who can afford certain services and luxuries that
they cannot.
I am curious to know what the list members think will be the real
differences between the "haves and the have-nots" a half-century from now?
best regards,
John Grigg
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:13 MDT