[p2p-research] P2P, Basic Income, and Bankruptcy Law

[John Haltiwanger]

I always personally envisioned an enlightened approach to technologic
progress that has its entire focus on efficiency. For instance, using water
and chemicals to clean a floor that could otherwise clean itself by being
converted at a single stage to a self-cleaning surface is inefficient. Just
because janitors will lose their jobs should not be a deterrent for
developing and deploying self-cleaning surfaces: shifts in gender relations
(no more "house work", at least of the surface cleaning kind) and potential
benefits in preventing diseases should trump jobs. But only if those jobs
were to be phased out in planned obsolescence. In other words, we should
strive to make as many jobs redundant as possible, with the caveat that when
your job sector disappears you will get the benefit of a universal living
wage as well as options for education, etc.

As it stands right now, self-cleaning surfaces are far too destabilizing to
economies for them to be installed in anything but the highest rated hotels
and other elite housing. This will continue to be the situation, as the
benefits of increased efficiency are suppressed because that efficiency
threatens capitalist economic models (molecular manufacturing is the final
edge case of the efficiency potentials we could proactively develop): rich
people will get the benefits, and the world will labor in unnecessary fields
simply to keep the current economic order running, even if at drastically
reduced capacity. Developing technology in order to reduce the unnecessary
labor of the world seems to be a great entry point for pushing adoption of
universal liviing wage. Even if it does feel like science fiction to imagine
that humans today could ever get over their work obsession..

Sincerely,
John Haltiwanger


On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:17 PM, Samuel Rose <samuel.rose at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> About basic income:
>>
>> I have a theory that basic income is only really achievable via a
>> majority of people who actively decide to apply this standard (vs
>> regulation by governments). Basic income could come in the form of
>> food, energy, and goods in addition to money.
>>
>> Right now, we have very little in the way of capabilities of mapping
>> what basic needs are, and little in the way of allowing people to
>> directly connect those needs. So, it is very difficult for people to
>> even actively help one another achieve a "basic income".  Real basic
>> income isn't just about money, though. It is a plurality of ways of
>> sharing surpluses.
>>
>> I second the idea that basic income will be in a variety of forms.
>  Through my survey work I have become convinced that networks of
> people interrogating, sharing, and building towards a consensus on what
> 'basic quality of life' means is the answer to a lot of questions that
> haven't been asked yet.
>
> A
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100301/e78b4c61/attachment.html>