From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Nov 16 2002 - 05:11:50 MST
Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>
>>Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>### You can have your cake and eat it, too, if you give guaranteed
>>>survival but only those who prove they want it. Full-time work for
>>>1500kcal/day assures no mooches come but then no sane people die,
>>>either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>But what the heck is "work" when increasingly large groups of people
>>have no skills that are not subsumed by or made irrelevant by
>>accelerating technology?
>>
>>
>
>### This is not quite true. I conceptualize the overall goal of the society
>as maximization of my survival and welfare.
>
The society could frankly care less about your survival and welfare per se.
>This entails the need to
>maximize resource utilization efficiency, to get maximum bang=minimum buck.
>
Assuming you actually use "bucks" for everything and that you are
maximizing what is actually relatively scarce like use of talent.
>Since the subgoal subserved by the Poorhouse is the minimization of my risk
>of dying in poverty in a lifeboat situation, the Poorhouse should provide
>all that is needed for survival at the minimum possible cost, in the
>unlikely case I might need such services.
>
Who says a poorhouse is the best solution though? This argument only
says such very obliquely assuming your scenario gives reasonable
coverage of all that is important. But that itself is very much in
question.
>One of the methods for reducing
>the cost of the Poorhouse program (important as long as I am doing well -
>this is the buck part of the equation) is to ask the inmates to work, e.g.
>clean the grounds, cook, provide gardening and maid services, etc.
>
So now they are "inmates"? An interesting choice of words. What about
simply people who have no skills relatively rare enough to demand a
living wage? Do they all get turned into "inmates"?
> The work
>requirement also reduces demand for this type of assistance, without
>impairing its usefulness to me (if I am in trouble, I will use the Poorhouse
>even if I need to work for it, this is the bang part of the equation). Of
>course, once full automation is available, the relative cost of providing
>survival assistance to non-reproducing un-enhanced sentients will be
>essentially unaffected by their efforts. In that case, I could consider a
>Poorhouse for free, especially for all who forgo reproduction and
>life-extension.
>
>
Why should they forgo life-extension? Who says that we could not come
up with options that would allow them to revamp their intelligence and
abilities if they so desired? Who says that even the enhanced need to
do something for money in order to have enough to live and follow their
interests?
>Until then, however, failing to extract a price for survival assistance will
>inevitably result in significant difficulties.
>
>
>
Actually, I do agree with this until we have MNT well in hand.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:10 MST