SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the are-utilities-really-optional dept.
Broadband Internet access is a "core utility" that people need in order to participate in modern society– just like electricity, running water, and sewers, the White House said on Tuesday. A report written by the Broadband Opportunity Council, a group created earlier this year by President Obama and co-chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce and Agriculture, says that even though broadband "has steadily shifted from an optional amenity to a core utility," millions of Americans still lack high-speed Internet access.
The report cites 2013 data indicating that about 51 million Americans, or about 16 percent of the population, cannot purchase broadband access at their homes. That number may have dropped by now, but the White House says the government needs to make a bigger push to expand broadband deployment, especially in rural areas and low-income communities.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday September 25 2015, @06:35PM
Just from a brief reading of that page it doesn't seem like Technocracy is really eliminating currency. Rather, it seems to propose replacing dollar accounting with "energy accounting". I would instead prefer a more decentralized approach, which is why I generally categorize myself as an anarcho-syndicalist. The problem isn't wealth; the problem isn't government; the problem is centralization of power. Technocracy eliminates wealth, but it still seems to require a powerful central government to allocate resources. And that seems rather needless if we're considering a society of abundance. Maybe I just need to read a bit more though...
Lately I've also been considering a philosophy I'm currently referring to as "Hive Humanism" (if anyone can suggest an existing name for this I'd be glad to hear it...I'm sure there's probably something.) Given that we've already got research labs wiring the brains of multiple animals together, how long can it really be before all of humanity is acting as a single organism? Can't have a government of one; can't have an economy of one. The question is merely how we best get there from here. Because right now if you consider humanity as a single entity we've got some serious problems: Frostbite, cancers, graft vs. host disease, autoimmune disorders, etc...
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Friday September 25 2015, @06:57PM
Just from a brief reading of that page it doesn't seem like Technocracy is really eliminating currency. Rather, it seems to propose replacing dollar accounting with "energy accounting".
They are very different things. Energy Accounting is not a currency or form of exchange. It is simply a way to measure how much people consume in order to know how much to produce, so that there is no waste or shortages. There would be no way to "accumulate" wealth, as you pointed out, because you could only try with physical items which would be burdensome (and noticeable). Some more on it here [technocracy.ca].
I would instead prefer a more decentralized approach, which is why I generally categorize myself as an anarcho-syndicalist.
Anarcho-syndicalism, as far as I can tell from my cursory research into it, may be the closest idea to Technocracy I've seen, but I still have more to learn about it.
The problem isn't wealth; the problem isn't government; the problem is centralization of power. Technocracy eliminates wealth, but it still seems to require a powerful central government to allocate resources. And that seems rather needless if we're considering a society of abundance.
Completely the opposite in fact. Technocracy does not even use any form of political government. Politically speaking it is anarchist. The "administration" that you see in Technocracy only involves itself in objective, technical matters, not subjective ones. People would be just as free, and probably more so, than they are today. (In depth look on that here [technocracy.ca].
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday September 25 2015, @08:05PM
OK, that's helpful and makes a bit more sense. But telling people what to produce and where to allocate it is still a form of power which could be corrupted, so I'd prefer that the administration is as decentralized as possible. Perhaps something like a global, automated search engine for labor. Instead of a government saying "We need X houses, which needs Y hours of builder time and Z feet of lumber..." the person who needs a house would find someone who knows how to build a house. And that person would know a lumberjack, or an automated tree farm and mill, or someone who enjoys experimenting with alternative composites...whatever gets the job done. The more traditional anarcho-syndicalist concept would be something like the builders union gets a request from the housing coop and they all vote if they can fulfill that request.
But a global index of labor probably wouldn't actually be much of a problem I think...that's not much more complex than Facebook. Although...let's use GNUSocial as the model, not Facebook :) The bigger problems might be organizing large-scale and potentially undesirable work. Chip fabs? Oil wells? Maybe if nobody wants to work the wells, some robotics engineer would find the challenge interesting enough, or people could find alternatives, but the challenge would be getting to that point without everything falling apart. And of course there's some societal change necessary to create that level of cooperation, although that could solve itself if we eliminate the possibility of hoarding resources. And it's also worth keeping in mind that ANY positive economic or political revolution will likely require significant societal change -- otherwise it would have already happened!
(Score: 1) by Murdoc on Friday September 25 2015, @09:40PM
No one "tells" people what to produce except the people themselves through Energy Accountung. EA figures out how much people are consuming, then uses that data to determine how much of those things to make for the next cycle. Simple as that. It's giving people exactly what they want. Centralizing technical decisions like this in no way infringes on anyone's freedoms, it's the only way to achieve the kind of efficiency you nees to create abundance.