How To Make Earth's Population Sustainable?

[PunkMaister]

A single Welder did not weld the whole building together but an engineer did made the plans for it.

[josie20]

I see your point. I don't even know what this has to do with the OP. I guess I'll start reading through all the posts.

[joeylovesgaia]

Originally Posted by Spock

Communism is collective ownership by the state. There is no such thing as a company. Everything is state run. Everyone has equal rights. Everyone is given according to "need" only. And paid according to "work".

Give a man power and he'll turn into a jerk. It doesn't matter whether you call his royal court a "government" or a "corporation"--they both breed *******s. I'm for cutting down all large power structures, because the more people you give orders to, the more they look like numbers. There are 280 million people in the US, do you think the government can be concerned about each one personally?

Vive la revolution!

[auroraglacialis]

joeylovesgaia is pulling out the green/black flag

But seriously - I am not sure if jobs that claim to have a higher responsability should be paid better. Why should they? Maybe jobs that people do not like to do have a good argument for better wages, but a higher responsability does not cost money for the person who does the job. As I probably said - if something goes wrong, like the building collapses or an oil rig blows up, people will start to push the responsability towards each other - the engineer to the welder, BP to Halliburton and in the end, the financial costs will be taken by the company/cooperative as a whole anyways.
I agree with big structures becoming too powerful and power corrupting people. This is why I, and some of the cooperatives or other groups I know, belive that there should be a size limit. Like some farmers who formed a cooperative (I think it was in Thailand) to work together on their lands. At a certain size they decided that they will help others to organize also, but not take up more people in their own cooperative as it gets to big - this would lead to a more difficult management and it would facilitate the buildup of hierarchical structures and inequality. Better to have small groups of people working together in all areas of life. From work to politics. People desire to be in smaller groups, social control mechanisms (for example feeling guilt for stealing from a member of the group) work only in smaller groups. People identify themselves often less with the nation than the state, less with the state than the city, less with the city than with their neighborhood.

[Spock]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

joeylovesgaia is pulling out the green/black flag

But seriously - I am not sure if jobs that claim to have a higher responsability should be paid better. Why should they? Maybe jobs that people do not like to do have a good argument for better wages, but a higher responsability does not cost money for the person who does the job. As I probably said - if something goes wrong, like the building collapses or an oil rig blows up, people will start to push the responsability towards each other - the engineer to the welder, BP to Halliburton and in the end, the financial costs will be taken by the company/cooperative as a whole anyways.
I agree with big structures becoming too powerful and power corrupting people. This is why I, and some of the cooperatives or other groups I know, belive that there should be a size limit. Like some farmers who formed a cooperative (I think it was in Thailand) to work together on their lands. At a certain size they decided that they will help others to organize also, but not take up more people in their own cooperative as it gets to big - this would lead to a more difficult management and it would facilitate the buildup of hierarchical structures and inequality. Better to have small groups of people working together in all areas of life. From work to politics. People desire to be in smaller groups, social control mechanisms (for example feeling guilt for stealing from a member of the group) work only in smaller groups. People identify themselves often less with the nation than the state, less with the state than the city, less with the city than with their neighborhood.

It's all about incentives, in the capitalist world anyway. If you don't get paid enough for that job then why do it when you can get just as much as a labourer.

As a socialist though I would see all corporations dissolved and their components nationalised.

[joeylovesgaia]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

A big problem with democracy obviouls is, that each democratic decision would have to be taken by a well educated person. Ideally, all people in a state would be well educated and interested in the decision enough to inform themselves about it. Sadly many people could not care less, are not well educated and mostly are influenced by propagandist media. That way, a democracy cannot really work well.

Why is the media propagandist, in your opinion? And why does the US school system suck?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by joeylovesgaia

Why is the media propagandist, in your opinion? And why does the US school system suck?

A lot of the media it politically driven, that inference can be made at least.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Spock

It's all about incentives, in the capitalist world anyway. If you don't get paid enough for that job then why do it when you can get just as much as a labourer.

I'd rather work as an engineer or scientist than a labourer, no matter what the money is. The key here is to do the work that suits oneself best or that one likes to do best. Not motivated by money, but by skill, ability and desire. In such a system, the most unwanted jobs could turn out to be the ones that actually earn a bit more benefits - so a window cleaner on a skyscraper who has a high risk may have better benefits than a person who sits at the computer all day. That way, the motivation would also be high for a cooperative to develop ways to make risky jobs safe or to automate unwanted jobs, as both would save the cooperative money and at the same time makes people in general happier.

Unlike the current systems in which nobody bothers to automate some simple and stupid tasks as it is cheaper to let low cost workers do the job.

Oh and I agree that the media is highly influenced. Whoever pays for it also chooses the direction. Or rather - who does not pay for it has less say in the direction.

[Human No More]

I wouldn't. Completely truthfully, if I could get by on an easy job the same as a harder one, I wouldn't have any motivation to do the harder one.

The bigger problem is lack of incentive to do anything if everything is handed out to everyone, and if every single person gets the same, so the work is never actually done and the whole system collapses. It has happened in every single attempt at communism to date.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

I wouldn't. Completely truthfully, if I could get by on an easy job the same as a harder one, I wouldn't have any motivation to do the harder one.

Ah but the question here is what is the harder one? For me, the harder one would be the simple labourers job. I would not like this at all, it would be boring and I would really do it only for more money than if I can work the same time in a lab or do engineering. For others it may be different, that way, each position is filled. Obviously some positions will be harder to fill, so for these, one would need a motivation in form of a bit higher income or other benefits, but these jobs would likely not be bankers or managers. Maybe the guy who cleans the sewers would earn more than the person doing accounting, simply because it is a job that needs additional motivation.

The bigger problem is lack of incentive to do anything if everything is handed out to everyone, and if every single person gets the same, so the work is never actually done and the whole system collapses. It has happened in every single attempt at communism to date.

Well - this is partly true. So there has to be a motivation for people do do some things, but as I said, it is enough to give people some bonuses for extra work, not dangle a carrot in front of them that says "if you are really really good you get 100 times more", so everybody works harder but only one of them gets the carrot. This is an unjust system. One thing that went wrong with communism attempts is in my opinion, that it was too early. I believe even Marx said, that Capitalism has to reach its limits before any change will happen.

The basis of some communist theories is indeed, that automation and technology would make much of human work easier and reduce the overall workload, so that people would have to work less. Everybody could work 2 or 3 days a week or even less in the future. Right now, I believe over 60% (I cannot quote this correctly as I have lost the source) of the Americans work in the "financial industry" - a sector that does produce zip - it is a big balloon created by capitalism. So maybe one day it will burst and people will realize that if all these people work in jobs that actually do something reasonable, all people could work half-time for the same money. Ok, this is a very simplified way to but it to make the point

[Spock]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I'd rather work as an engineer or scientist than a labourer, no matter what the money is. The key here is to do the work that suits oneself best or that one likes to do best. Not motivated by money, but by skill, ability and desire. In such a system, the most unwanted jobs could turn out to be the ones that actually earn a bit more benefits - so a window cleaner on a skyscraper who has a high risk may have better benefits than a person who sits at the computer all day. That way, the motivation would also be high for a cooperative to develop ways to make risky jobs safe or to automate unwanted jobs, as both would save the cooperative money and at the same time makes people in general happier.

Unlike the current systems in which nobody bothers to automate some simple and stupid tasks as it is cheaper to let low cost workers do the job.

Oh and I agree that the media is highly influenced. Whoever pays for it also chooses the direction. Or rather - who does not pay for it has less say in the direction.

That's the argument I've used against Capitalists many times over.

[madman]

Send all of the people that are in jail for more than 20 years, to Antarctica

[Spock]

Originally Posted by madman

Send all of the people that are in jail for more than 20 years, to Antarctica

High security Antarctica prison? Or just send them in spartan?

[auroraglacialis]

Oh yeah - that worked well for Australia :lol: - they may even find in 20 years, that they want to stay there if global warming hits deep. Enough land, plenty of resources... LOL

Well - but how is that on topic?

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Ah but the question here is what is the harder one? For me, the harder one would be the simple labourers job. I would not like this at all, it would be boring and I would really do it only for more money than if I can work the same time in a lab or do engineering. For others it may be different, that way, each position is filled. Obviously some positions will be harder to fill, so for these, one would need a motivation in form of a bit higher income or other benefits, but these jobs would likely not be bankers or managers. Maybe the guy who cleans the sewers would earn more than the person doing accounting, simply because it is a job that needs additional motivation.

I disagree. For me, I'd go for the job that's what I'm comfortable doing, but not needing to develop anything new, to improve. Since most people wouldn't (why kill yourself with hard work when you can get the same from a more comfortable job? - even one which is satisfying, but easier), everything stagnates.