THE FUTURE AND BEYOND
By Jacque Fresco
BEYOND UTOPIA
With the advent of future developments in science and
technology, we will assign more and more decision making
to machines. At present this is evident in military systems
in which electronic sensors maintain the ideal flight
characteristics in advanced aircraft. The capacities of
computers today exceed five hundred trillion bits of information
per second. The complexity of today’s civilization is
far too complex for human systems to manage without the
assistance of electronic computers. Computers of today
are relatively primitive compared to those that will evolve
in the future. Eventually the management of social systems
will call for require electronic sensors interconnected
with all phases of the social sequences thus eliminating
the need for politics.
Today modern industrial plants have built in automatic
inventory systems, which order materials such as bearings
and other mechanical replacements well in advance.
We believe it is now possible to achieve a society where
people would be able to live longer, healthier, longer
and more meaningful productive lives. In such a society,
the measure of success would be based upon the fulfillment
of one’s individual pursuits rather than the acquisition
of wealth, property, and power. Although many of the concepts
presented here may appear as unattainable goals, all of
the ideas are based upon known scientific principles.
It is not my purpose to write an article that would be
acceptable to people this is not the concern of science.
The social direction being proposed here has no parallel
in history with any other previous political ideology
or economic strategy. Establishing the parameters of this
new civilization will require transcending many of the
traditions, values, and methods of the past. The future
will evolve its own new paradigms, appropriate to each
successive phase of human and technological development.
Throughout the history of civilization few national leaders
or politicians have ever proposed a comprehensive plan
to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction.
Although such individuals as Plato, Edward Bellamy, H.G.
Wells, Karl Marx, and Howard Scott all made some attempts
to present a new civilization, the established social
order considered them impractical dreamers with Utopian
designs that ran contrary to the innate elements of human
nature. Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable
status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable
with the way things were, and a populace at large that,
out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted
no radical changes. These were the millions of unappointed
guardians of the status quo. The outlook and philosophy
of the leaders were consistent with their positions of
differential advantage.
In 1898, Edward Bellamy wrote the book Looking Backward.
He conceived of an ideal egalitarian social system with
many advanced ideas for its time. This bestseller generated
a great deal of interest, and many people inquired as
to how this type of cooperative Utopian society could
be brought about. But Bellamy replied that he was just
a writer and did not know how to create such a society.
The proposals he presented, and those of Plato's Republic,
the writings of Karl Marx, H. G. Wells in his book The
Shape of Things to Come, and many others all represent
attempts to find workable solutions to the many problems
that earlier civilizations were unable to resolve. There
is little doubt that at the time of Bellamy’s books the
social conditions were abominable, which made the Utopian
ideal extremely appealing. What appears to be lacking
in most of these concepts, however, has been an overall
plan and the necessary methods for a transitional system
to enable the idea to become a reality. Most of the early
visions of a better world did not allow for changes in
either technology or human values, tending to arrest innovative
efforts. Additionally, all have lacked a comprehensive
set of blueprints, models, and a methodology for implementation.
Finally, they lacked competent individuals to bring about
such a transition.
The answers do not lie in debate or philosophical discussion
of values, but rather in methodology. Thus what is needed
is an operational definition of a better world, which
is as follows: To constantly maximize existing and
future technologies with the sole purpose of enhancing
all human life and protecting the environment.
Today we have developed the necessary technology to surpass
the fondest hopes and dreams of any social innovators
of the past. The fact that previous attempts at social
change have failed is no justification for us to stop
trying. The real danger lies in complacence. The only
limitations to the future of humankind are those that
we impose upon ourselves. It is now possible to relieve
humanity of many of its unresolved problems through the
humane application of technology.
Many years ago an attempt was made in the U. S. to understand
a social and economic system different from our own. A
film called "The March of Time" had this to say about
Soviet Communism: "We believe that the American free-enterprise
system will function better than the collective system.
However, we wish you the best of luck on your new and
unusual social experiment." The failure of communism to
provide for human needs and to enrich the lives of its
citizens is not unlike our own failures. Both failure
and success are inherent in the on-going experiment that
is social evolution. In all established social systems
it is necessary to devise different approaches to improve
the workings of the system.
Science is replete with examples of experiments that
have failed, as well as those that have been successful.
In the development of the airplane, for example, there
were thousands of failures before the first workable model
was produced. In the field of medicine, Dr. Erlich attempted
over 600 different approaches to controlling syphilis
before one was finally proven successful. All of the technology
we use today, such as computers, cellular phones, the
Internet, aircraft, and automobiles, are in a constant
state of improvement and modification. Yet our social
system and values remain largely static.
An inscription on one of our government buildings reads
as follows: "Where there is no vision, the people perish."
Attaining visions requires change. The major reason for
resisting change is that it tends to threaten the established
interests.
Actually, the fear of social change is somewhat unfounded
when we consider that the entire history of civilization
has been, in a sense, an experiment. Even the American
free-enterprise system, during its earliest stages, faced
a multitude of problems much more severe than they are
today. These included long work hours, exploitation of
child labor, inadequate ventilation in industrial plants,
lack of rights for women and minorities, hazardous conditions
in mines, and racial prejudice. Despite its many problems,
it was the greatest social experiment in history in terms
of diversity of lifestyles and individual freedoms, innovations
in architecture and technology, and overall progress in
general. It is imperative that we continue the process
of social experimentation in order to transcend our present
limitations and enhance the lives of everyone.
The future does not depend on our present-day beliefs
or social customs, but will continue to evolve a set of
values unique to its own time. There are no "Utopias."
The very notion of "Utopia" is static. However, the survival
of any social system ultimately depends upon its ability
to allow for appropriate change to improve society as
a whole. The paths that we choose will ultimately determine
whether or not there is intelligent life on earth.
NEW FRONTIERS OF SOCIAL CHANGE
It has often been observed that common crises create
common bonds. While people seek advantage during the times
of prosperity, shared suffering tends to draw people closer
together. We have seen this behavior repeated time and
time again throughout the centuries, during times of flood,
famine, fire, or other natural disasters. Once the threat
is resolved, however, scarcity patterns once again begin
to steer people back to their behaviors of seeking individual
advantage.
Sensationalist motion pictures such as Independence
Day depict a world united for the purpose of repelling
an invasion by a hostile alien culture. Indeed, it seems
that the only force that would mobilize the world in a
unified direction would be one that poses a common threat,
such as a colossal meteor hurling towards the earth, or
some other major catastrophic event. If such an event
were to occur, all border disputes would become irrelevant
in the face of impending disaster. While many would call
upon divine intervention for salvation, all nations would
surely combine their efforts and call upon science and
technology to deal with this common threat. Bankers, lawyers,
businessmen, and politicians would all be bypassed. Every
resource would be harnessed and mobilized, without any
concern for monetary cost or profit. Under this
kind of threatening condition, most people realize where
the key to their survival lies. For example, during
the Second World War, it was the collective mobilization
of both human and material resources that lead to a successful
resolution for the U.S. and its allies.
As the amount of scientific information grows, nations
and people are coming to realize that even in today's
divided world there are, in fact, many common threats
that transcend national boundaries. These include overpopulation,
energy shortages, pollution, water shortages, economic
catastrophe, the spread of uncontrollable disease and
so forth. However, faced even with threats of this magnitude,
which are common to all nations, the direction of human
action will not be altered so long as powerful nations
are able to maintain control of the limited resources
available.
Although many people, publications, and multi-media presentations
portray various aspects of the future and paint spectacular
pictures of the developments to come in such areas as
transportation, housing, and medicine, they ignore the
fact that in a monetary-based economy the full benefits
of these developments continue to be available to a relative
few. What is not touched upon is how these new technologies
of the future can be used to organize societies and economies
efficiently and equitably, without the necessity of uniformity,
so that everyone would benefit from them. The few think
tanks devoted to brainstorming newer approaches to bring
social organization up to speed with today’s technological
capabilities do not deal with social change as a global
systems plan.
Neither are there any overall social plans in government
or industry to totally eliminate the negative effects
of the displacement of people by machines, nor does there
seem to be any genuine concern to do so. Many people believe
that in the event of any social breakdown the government
will bring about the necessary changes for their survival.
This is highly improbable. In the event of such a breakdown
the existing government would most likely declare a state
of emergency in an attempt to prevent total chaos. It
would then institute measures that may address immediate
problems, at the same time attempting to preserve existing
institutions and power structures, even though these may
be a chief contributing factor to the problems.
Many people throughout history have taken politicians
to task for actions that have not been entirely in society’s
best interest. The reasons for this become clearer when
one realizes that even in modern democracies, these leaders
do not benefit the lives of the average person. Rather,
they maintain the preferential positions of much of the
established order.
There are growing indications of awareness on the part
of people in many areas of the world that events have
gone beyond the control of their political leaders. Everywhere
we see political figures and parties come and go, political
strategies adopted and discarded for their inability to
satisfy the demands of one faction or another.
The reason that we do not suggest writing your congressman,
or any number of governmental agencies, is that they lack
the necessary knowledge to deal with our problems. Their
focus is to preserve existing systems, not to change them.
It appears that there are few within present-day societies
who want to phase themselves out. In modern industrial
societies the cause of inaction lies within the cumbersome
political process itself, an anachronism in an era when
most decisions can be made on any important issue in a
split second by the objective entry of relevant data into
computers.
The prime conditions that would really effect social
change will come about when conditions have deteriorated
to such an extent that governments, politicians, and social
institutions no longer have the support and confidence
of the people. What once worked is acknowledged to be
no longer relevant. If the public were better informed,
only then would it be possible to introduce a new and
improved social arrangement.
Unfortunately, today the majority of people respond to
simplistic answers, which tend to repeat the cycle of
events. When faced with intolerable social conditions,
many of the older patterns will emerge again as people
attempt to find someone or something to blame for the
conditions, e.g. minorities, immigrants, negligence in
adhering to religious principles or family values, and
the influences of some inexplicable supernatural forces.
True social change is not brought about by men and women
of reason and good will on a personal level. The notion
that one can sit and talk to individuals and alter their
values is highly improbable. If the person one is talking
to does not have the fundamental knowledge of the operation
of scientific principles and the processes of natural
laws, it is difficult for them to understand how the pieces
fit together on a holistic level.
The solutions to our problems will not come about through
the application of reason or logic. Unfortunately, at
present we do not live in a reasonable or logical world.
There appears to be no historical record of any established
society’s leader who deliberately and comprehensively
redesigned a culture to fit the changing times. While
there is no question that political leaders, to a limited
extent, modify some modes of behavior, the real factors
responsible for social change are brought about by bio-social
pressures, which are inherent in all social systems. Change
is brought about by natural or economic occurrences that
adversely affect the immediate circumstances of large
numbers of people.
Some bio-social pressures responsible for social change
are limited resources, war, overpopulation, epidemics,
natural disasters, economic recession, downsizing on a
mass scale, technological displacement of people by machines,
and the failure of elected officials to overcome such
problems. The introduction of the medium of money to the
exchange process brought about a significant change in
society, as did the introduction of mechanized agriculture
and the Industrial Revolution.
Unfortunately, the world’s outmoded social, political,
and international order is no longer appropriate to these
times. These obsolete social institutions are unable to
grasp the significance of innovative technology to achieve
the greatest good for all people, and to overcome the
inequities forced upon so many. Competition and scarcity
have caused an atmosphere of jealousy and mistrust to
develop between individuals and nations. The concepts
of proprietary rights, intellectual property, copyrights,
and patents manifested in corporate entities and in the
sovereignty of nations, preclude the free exchange of
information that is necessary to meet global challenges.
The European Union represents an attempt to bridge the
present with the future, but it falls far short in that
it relies on the crutch of the monetary system.
We cannot regress to traditional values, which no longer
apply. Any attempt to retreat to the methods of the past
would condemn untold millions to a life of needless misery,
toil, and suffering.
However, it is not enough to point out the limiting factors
that may threaten the survivability of all nations. The
challenge that all cultures will encounter in this technological
age - some more than others - is that of providing a smoother
transition, which would introduce a more appropriate way
of thinking about ourselves, the environment and the management
of human affairs.
The ultimate survival of the human species depends upon
planning on a global scale and to cooperatively seek out
new alternatives with a relative orientation for improved
social arrangements. If humankind is to achieve mutual
prosperity, universal access to resources is essential.
Along with the introduction of new paradigms towards
human and environmental concern, there must be a methodology
for making this a reality. If these ends are to be achieved,
the monetary system must eventually be surpassed by a
world resource-based economy. In order to effectively
and economically utilize resources, the necessary cybernated
and computerized technology could eventually be applied
to ensure a higher standard of living for everyone. With
the intelligent and humane application of science and
technology, the nations of the world could guide and shape
the future for the preservation of the environment and
humankind.
What is needed to attain a global society is a practical
and internationally acceptable comprehensive blueprint.
Also needed is an international planning council capable
of translating the blueprint and the advantages that would
be gained through world unification. This proposal could
be presented in the vernacular, in a way that non-technical
people can easily understand.
In actuality, no one should make decisions as to how
this blueprint will be designed. It must be based on the
carrying capacity of our planet, its resources, human
needs and the like. In order to sustain our civilization
we must coordinate advanced technology and available resources
in a total, humane, global systems approach.
There is no doubt that many of the professions that are
familiar to us today will eventually be phased out. With
the rate of change now taking place, a vast array of obsolete
occupations will disappear more rapidly and more extensively
than at any other time in history. In a society that applies
a systems approach, these professions will be replaced
by interdisciplinary teams – the systems analysts, computer
programmers, operation researchers, and those who link
the world together in vast communications networks that
are assisted by high-speed digital computers. They will
eventually lead us to large-scale computer-based methods
of social operation. Social operations are far too complex
today for any elected politicians to handle.
It appears that most politicians do not give serious
attention to this and other problems. Only in times of
war or national emergencies do we call upon and assemble
interdisciplinary teams to help find workable solutions
to varying social problems. If we apply the same efforts
of scientific mobilization as we do during a war, large-scale
beneficial effects can be achieved in a relatively short
time. This could readily be accomplished by utilizing
many of our universities, training facilities, and staff
to best determine possible alternative methods to solving
these problems. This could eventually help us to define
the possible transitional parameters for the future of
a sustainable global civilization.
The process of social change must allow for changing
conditions that would continuously update the design parameters
and allow for the infusion of new technologies into emerging
cultures. Design teams utilizing socially integrated computers
could automatically be informed of new developments. As
this process is continuously updated, it would generate
a more appropriate code of conduct. By appropriate conduct
we mean the necessary procedures to accomplish a given
task.
All the limitations imposed upon us by our present-day
monetary system could be surpassed by adopting a global
consensus for a worldwide resource-based economy, in
which all the planetary resources are viewed and treated
as the common heritage of all the earth's inhabitants.
In this manner, the earth and our technological procedures
could provide us with a limitless supply of material goods
and services without the creation of debt or taxation
whatsoever.
MONETARY SYSTEM
Although skillful advertisers lead us to believe otherwise,
in today’s monetary-based economies, whenever new technology
is introduced, the human consequences are of little concern
to those introducing the technology - except, of course,
as customers. In a monetary-based system, the major concerns
of industry are profit, maintaining a competitive edge,
and watching the bottom line, rather than the wellbeing
of humanity. The social problems that arise from mass
unemployment of people, who are rendered obsolete by the
infusion of automation, are considered irrelevant, if
they are considered at all.
Any need that may be met is secondary to acquiring a
profit for the business. If the profit is insufficient,
the service will be withdrawn. What industry seeks to
do is improve the competitive edge to increase the profit
margin for their shareholders. It does not serve the interest
of a monetary based society to engage in the production
of goods and services to enhance the lives of people as
a goal. With rising public concern regarding the greenhouse
effect, acid rain, polluted air and water, etc. some companies
are also beginning to realize that for sustained market
presence it is in their best interest to heed social and
environmental concerns. While such trends are commendable,
they are insufficient as a method of solving the overall
problems of waste, environmental degradation and unnecessary
human suffering.
The monetary system has been a useful, but interim tool,
it came into being as a means of placing a value on scarce
objects and labor. The monetary system of course replaced
the barter system, which involved direct trading of objects
and labor. However, just as there was no universal-bartering
standard in the past, there is no global monetary system
today. Individuals and groups, now as in the past, however,
still need to exchange objects and labor for today’s goods
and services. The unequal distribution of skills, resources
and materials throughout the world necessitates global
trade.
Until the last few decades, the monetary system functioned
to a degree. The global population of three billion was
not over consuming world resources and energy, global
warming was not evident, and air and water pollution were
only recognized by a relative few. The start of the 21st
century however finds global population at an exponentially
rising six billion, with resources and energy supplies
dwindling, global warming a reality, and pollution evident
worldwide. Planet earth is in crises and the majority
of world population cannot meet their basic needs because
people do not have the means to purchase increasingly
expensive resources. Money is now the determinant of people’s
standard of living rather than the availability of resources.
The monetary system is now an impediment to survival
rather than a means of facilitating individual existence
and growth. This imaginary tool has outlived its usefulness.
The limitations on earth’s population now caused by the
monetary construct can be phased out. It is not money
that people need but the access to goods and services.
Since humanity requires resources to exist, the replacement
system should provide those resources directly to people
without the impediment of financial and political interest
for their private gain at the expense of the lives and
livelihood of the populous. The replacement system is
therefor logically a resource-based economy. This global
resource based economy would be gradually phased in while
the monetary system is phased out.
All of the world's economic systems - socialism, communism,
fascism, and even the vaunted free enterprise capitalist
system - perpetuate social stratification, elitism, nationalism
and racism, primarily based on economic disparity. As
long as a social system uses money or barter, people and
nations will seek to maintain positions of differential
advantage. If they cannot do so by means of commerce they
will resort to military intervention.
War represents the supreme failure of nations to resolve
their differences. From a strictly pragmatic standpoint
it is the most inefficient waste of lives and resources
ever conceived by any creature on the planet. This crude
and violent way of attempting to resolve international
differences has taken on even more ominous overtones with
the advent of elaborate computerized thermonuclear delivery
systems, deadly diseases and gases, and the threat of
sabotage of a nation's computer networks. Despite the
desire of nations to achieve peace, they usually lack
the knowledge of how to arrive at peaceful solutions.
War is not the only form of violence in the developed
and underdeveloped countries that is superimposed upon
the populace by inadequate social arrangements. There
is also hunger, poverty, and scarcity. As long as there
is the use of money, the creation of debt, and economic
insecurity these conditions will perpetuate crime, lawlessness,
and resentment. Paper proclamations and treaties do not
alter conditions of scarcity and insecurity. And nationalism
only tends to help propagate the separation of nations
and the world's people.
Even the signing of a peace treaty cannot avoid another
war if the underlying causes are not addressed. The unworkable
aspects of international law tend to freeze things as
they are. All of the nations that have conquered land
all over the world by force and violence would still retain
their positions of territorial and resource advantage.
Whether we realize it or not, such agreements only serve
as temporary suspensions to conflict.
Attempting to find solutions to the monumental problems
within our present society will only serve as temporary
patchwork, prolonging an obsolete system.
In this world of constant change it is no longer a question
of whether we choose to make the necessary changes; it
is now mandatory that we take on this challenge and adopt
these new requirements or face the inevitable decay of
our present social and economic institution.
This is the dilemma we must face head-on, and the solutions
we arrive at must fit the circumstances of the "real-world."
There appears to be no other way than to update our outlook
and create a newer direction by relegating the old values
to past civilizations. Unfortunately, this may not be
accomplished prior to the point of no return in the global
economy.
RESOURCE-BASED ECONOMY
Presented here is a straightforward approach to the redesign
of a culture, in which the age-old inadequacies of war,
poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human suffering
are viewed not only as avoidable, but totally unacceptable.
This new social design works towards eliminating the underlying
causes that are responsible for many of our problems.
But, as stated previously, they cannot be eliminated within
the framework of the present monetary and political establishment.
Human behavior is subject to the same laws that govern
all other physical phenomena. Our customs, behaviors,
and values are byproducts of our culture. No one is born
with greed, prejudice, bigotry and hatred - they are learned.
If the environment is unaltered similar problems will
reoccur.
These aspirations cannot be accomplished in a monetary
based society of waste and human exploitation. With its
planned obsolescence, neglect of the environment, outrageous
military expenditures and the outworn methods of attempting
to solve problems through the enactment of laws, these
methods are bound to fail. Furthermore the belief that
advanced technologies would lead to an improvement in
the quality of life for most people is not the case in
a monetary system. More and more companies are adopting
the tremendous benefits of automation, resulting in increased
production with fewer employees.
Corporations’ short-term concern with profit will ultimately
result in the demise of the world monetary based economies.
If the monetary system continues to operate, we will be
faced with the condition of more technological unemployment,
today referred to as downsizing. From 1990 to 1995, companies
dismissed a staggering 17.1 million employees, many of
these due to automation. Automation will continue to replace
people well into the foreseeable future, resulting in
the lack of purchasing power for these displaced workers.
Despite expanding global markets, the human cost in terms
of displaced workers and a disenfranchised populous, will
inevitably bring about massive and unmanageable social
problems.
During the 1930's, at the height of the Great Depression,
the Roosevelt administration enacted new social legislation
designed to minimize revolutionary tendencies and to address
the problems of unemployment. Jobs were provided through
the Works Progress Administration, Civilian Conservation
Corps, National Recovery Act, transient camps, and Federal
Arts projects. Ultimately, however, World War II pulled
the U.S. out of that worldwide depression. If we permit
current conditions to take their natural course, we will
soon be faced with another international recession of
potentially greater magnitude.
At the time of this depression the US had only 600 first
class fighting aircraft at the beginning of World War
II, we rapidly increased production to 90,000 planes per
year. Did we have enough money to pay for the required
implements of war? The answer is no. Neither did we have
enough gold. But, we did have more than enough resources.
It was the available resources and personnel that enabled
the U. S. to achieve the production and efficiency required
to win the war. Unfortunately, such an all-out effort
is only considered in times of war or disaster.
We live in a culture that seems to work collectively
only in response to a crisis. Only in times of war do
we call upon and assemble interdisciplinary teams to meet
a threat from human aggression. Only in times of national
emergency do we do the same to resolve a natural or man-made
threat. Rarely, if ever, do we employ a concerted effort
to help find workable solutions to social problems. If
we apply the same efforts of scientific mobilization toward
social betterment as we do during a war or disaster, large-scale
results could be achieved in a relatively short time.
The Earth is still abundant with resources. Today our
practice of rationing resources through monetary methods
is irrelevant and counter-productive to the well-being
of people. Today’s society has access to highly advanced
technologies and can easily provide more than enough for
a very high standard of living for all the earth’s people.
This is possible through the implementation of a resource-based
economy.
Simply stated, a resource-based economy utilizes existing
resources rather than money, and provides an equitable
method of distribution in the most humane and efficient
manner for the entire population. It is a system in which
all natural, man-made, machine-made, and synthetic resources
would be available without the use of money, credits,
barter, or any other form of symbolic exchange. A resource-based
economy would utilize existing resources from the land
and sea, and the means of production, such as physical
equipment and industrial plants, to enhance the lives
of the total population. In an economy based on resources
rather than money, we could easily produce all of the
necessities of life and provide a high standard of living
for all.
To further clarify the concept of a resource based economy
consider this example: A group of people is stranded on
an island with enormous purchasing power including gold,
silver and diamonds. All this wealth would be irrelevant
to their survival if the island had few resources such
as food, clean air, and water. Only when population exceeds
the productive capacity of the land do problems such as
greed, crime, and violence emerge. On the other hand,
if people were stranded on an island that was abundant
with natural resources producing more than the necessities
for survival, then a monetary system would be irrelevant.
It is only when resources are scarce that money can
be used to control their distribution. One could
not, for example, sell the air we breathe, the sand on
the beach, or the salt water in the ocean to someone else
on the island who has equal access to all these things.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources
would be held as the common heritage of all of the earth’s
people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial
boundaries that separate people – this is the unifying
imperative.
We must emphasize here that this approach to global
governance has nothing whatever in common with the present
aims of a corporate elite to form a world government with
themselves and large corporations in control, and the
vast majority of the world's population subservient to
them. Globalization in a resource-based economy empowers
each and every person on the planet to be the very best
they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate
governing body.
All social systems, regardless of political philosophy,
religious beliefs, or social customs, ultimately depend
upon natural resources, e.g. clean air and water, arable
land, and the necessary technology and personnel to maintain
a high standard of living. This can be accomplished through
the intelligent and humane application of science and
technology. The real wealth of any nation lies in its
developed and potential resources and the people who are
working toward the elimination of scarcity and the development
of a more humane way of life. A resource-based economy
would use technology to overcome scarce resources by utilizing
renewable sources of energy; computerizing and automating
manufacturing, inventory and distribution; designing safe,
energy-efficient cities; providing universal health care
and relevant education; and most of all, by generating
a new incentive system based on human and environmental
concern.
Unfortunately, today science and technology have been
diverted from these ends for reasons of self-interest
and monetary gain through the conscious withdrawal of
efficiency, or through planned obsolescence. For example,
it is an ironic state of affairs when the U. S. Department
of Agriculture, whose function is to conduct research
into ways of achieving higher crop yields per acre, pays
farmers not to produce at full capacity while many people
go hungry. Another example is the choice of some companies
to illegally dump solid waste into oceans and rivers to
save money, when more ecologically sound disposal methods
are available. A third example is the failure of some
industries to install electrostatic precipitators in their
factories’ smokestacks to prevent particulate matter from
being released into the atmosphere, even though the technology
has been available for over 75 years. The monetary system
does not always apply known methods that would best serve
people and the environment.
In a resource-based economy, the human aspect would
be of prime concern, and technology would be subordinate
to this. This would result in a considerable increase
in leisure time. In an economy in which production is
accomplished primarily by machines, and products and services
are available to all, the concepts of "work" and "earning
a living" would become irrelevant. But if the human consequences
of automation are unresolved, as they are today, then
it renders all the advances of science and technology
of much less significance.
The utilization of today’s high speed and large capacity
computer systems, otherwise known as the "Information
Superhighway" or Internet, could assist us in defining
the variables and parameters required for the operation
of a resource-based economy that conforms to environmental
needs. Over-exploitation of resources would be unnecessary
and surpassed.
Many people believe that there is too much technology
in the world today, and that technology is the major cause
of our environmental pollution. This is not the case.
Rather, it is the abuse and misuse of technology that
should be our major concern. In very simple terms, a hammer
can be used to construct a building, or to kill another
person. It is not the hammer that is the issue, but how
it is used.
Cybernation, or the application of computers and automation
to the social system, could be regarded as an emancipation
proclamation for humankind if used humanely and intelligently.
Its thorough application could eventually enable people
to have the highest conceivable standard of living with
practically no labor. It could free people for the first
time in human history from a highly structured and outwardly
imposed routine of repetitive and mundane activity. It
could enable one to return to the Greek concept of leisure,
where slaves did most of the work and men had time to
cultivate their minds. The essential difference is that
in the future, each of us will command more than a million
slaves - but they will be mechanical and electrical slaves,
not fellow human beings. This will end forever the degrading
exploitation of any human being by another so that he
or she lives an abundant, productive, and less stressful
life. Perhaps the greatest aid in enhancing the survival
of the human race is the introduction of cybernation,
the electronic computer, and artificial intelligence,
which may very well save the human race from its own inadequacies.
A resource-based economy calls for the redesign of our
cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants
so that they are energy efficient, clean, and conveniently
provide the needs of all people both materially and spiritually.
These new cybernated cities would have their electrical
sensors' autonomic nervous system extended into all areas
of the social complex. Their function would be to coordinate
a balance between production and distribution and to operate
a balance-load economy. Decisions would be arrived at
on the basis of feedback from the environment. Despite
today’s mania for national security, and subsequent intrusions
into everyone’s personal affairs, in a world-wide resource-based
economy where no one need take from another, it will be
considered socially offensive and counterproductive for
machines to monitor the activities of individuals. In
fact, such intrusion would serve no useful purpose.
To further understand the operation of cybernation in
the city system, for example, in the agricultural belt
the electronic probes imbedded in the soil would automatically
keep a constant inventory of the water table, soil conditions,
nutrients, etc. and act appropriately without the need
for human intervention. This method of industrial electronic
feedback could be applied to the entire management of
a global economy.
All raw materials used to manufacture products can be
transported directly to the manufacturing facilities by
automated transportation "sequences" such as ships, monorails,
trains, pipelines, and pneumatic tubes, and the like.
All transportation systems are fully utilized in both
directions. There would be no empty trucks, trains, or
transport units on return trips. There would be no freight
trains stored in yards, awaiting a business cycle for
their use. An automated inventory system would be connected
to both the distribution centers and the manufacturing
facilities, thus coordinating production to meet demand
and providing a constant evaluation of preferences and
consumption statistics. In this way a balanced-load economy
can be assured and shortages, over-runs, and waste could
be eliminated.
The method for the distribution of goods and services
in a resource-based economy without the use of money or
tokens could be accomplished through the establishment
of distribution centers. These distribution centers would
be similar to a public library or an exposition, where
the advantages of new products can be explained and demonstrated.
For example, if one were to visit Yellowstone National
Park, one could check out a still or video camera on-site,
use the camera, and if they do not want to keep it, return
it to another readily accessible distribution center or
drop-off point, thus eliminating the individual’s need
to store and maintain the equipment.
In addition to computerized centers, which would be located
throughout the various communities, there would be 3-D,
flat-screen televised imaging capabilities right in the
convenience of one's own home. If an item is desired,
an order would be placed, and the item could be automatically
delivered directly to a person's place of residence.
With the infusion of a resource-based, world economy
and an all-out effort to develop new, clean, renewable
sources of energy, (such as geothermal, controlled fusion,
solar heat concentrators, photovoltaics, wind, wave, tidal
power, and fuel from the oceans), we will eventually be
able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could serve
civilization for thousands of years.
To better understand the meaning of a resource-based
economy consider this: If all the money in the world were
to suddenly disappear, as long as topsoil, factories,
and other resources were left intact, we could build anything
we chose to build and fulfill any human need. It is
not money that people need, but rather it is freedom of
access to most of their necessities without ever having
to appeal to a government bureaucracy or any other agency.
In a resource-based economy money would become irrelevant.
All that would be required are the resources, manufacturing,
and distribution of the products.
In a monetary system purchasing power is not related
to our capacity to produce goods and services. For example,
in a recession there are CD’s in store windows and automobiles
in car lots, but many people do not have the purchasing
power to buy them. The earth is still the same place;
it is just the rules of the game that are obsolete and
create strife, deprivation, and unnecessary human suffering.
In today's culture of profit, we do not produce goods
based on human need. We do not build houses based on population
needs. We do not grow food to feed people. Industry's
major motivation is profit.
Take the automobile. In order to service conventional
automobiles today we have to remove a great deal of hardware
before we can get to the engine. Why are they made so
complicated? This reason is simply because ease of repair
is not the concern of the manufacturers. They do not have
to pay to service the car. If they did, I can assure you,
they would design automobiles that consist of modular
components that could be easily disengaged, thus facilitating
easier access to the engine.
Such construction would be typical in a resource-based
economy. Many of the components in the automobile would
be easily detachable to save time and energy in the rare
case of repair, because no one would profit by servicing
automobiles or any other products. Consequentially all
products would be of the highest quality, and they would
be simplified for convenience of service. Automotive transport
units engineered in this way can easily be designed to
be service-free for many years. All the components within
the car could be easily replaced when needed with improved
technologies. Eventually, with the development of magnetically
suspended bearings, lubrication and wear would be relegated
to the past. Proximity sensors in the vehicles would prevent
collisions, further reducing servicing and repair requirements.
This same process would be carried out for all other
products. All industrial devices would be designed
for recycling. However, the life span of products would
be significantly increased through intelligent and efficient
design, thereby reducing waste. There would be no "planned
obsolescence," where products are deliberately designed
to wear out or break down. In a resource-based economy
technology intelligently and efficiently applied will
conserve energy, reduce waste, and provide more leisure
time. During the transition, the workweek could be staggered
thus eliminating traffic jams or crowding in all areas
of human activity, including beaches and recreation areas.
Most packaging systems would be standardized, requiring
less storage space and facilitating easy handling. To
eliminate waste such as newsprint, books, and other publications,
these could be replaced, for example, by an electronic
process in which a light-sensitive film is placed over
a monitor or TV, producing a temporary printout. This
material would be capable of storing the information until
it is deleted. This would conserve our forests and millions
of pounds of paper, which is a major part of the recycling
process. Eventually, most paperwork would no longer be
required, i.e. advertising, money, mail, newspaper, phonebook.
As we outgrow the need for professions that are based
on the monetary system, such as lawyers, accountants,
bankers, insurance companies, advertising, sales personnel,
and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste and non
productive personnel could be eliminated. Enormous amounts
of time and energy would also be saved by eliminating
the duplication of competing products. Instead of having
hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the
paperwork and personnel that are required to turn out
similar products, only very few of the highest quality
would be needed to serve the entire population. In a resource-base
economy planned obsolescence would not exist.
MOTIVATION, INCENTIVE & CREATIVITY
It is claimed that the so-called free-enterprise system
creates incentive. This may be true, but it also perpetuates
greed, embezzlement, corruption, crime, stress, economic
hardship, and insecurity. In addition, the argument that
the monetary system and competition generate incentive
does not always hold true. Most of our major developments
in science and technology have been the result of the
efforts of very few individuals working independently
and often against great opposition. Such contributors
as Goddard, Galileo, Darwin, Tesla, Edison, and Einstein
were individuals who were genuinely concerned with solving
problems and improving processes rather than with mere
financial gain. Actually, very often there is much mistrust
in those whose incentive is entirely motivated by monetary
gain, this can be said for lawyers, businessmen, salesman
and those in just about any field.
Some may question that if the basic necessities are accessible
to all people, what will motivate them? This is tantamount
to saying that children reared in affluent environments,
in which their parents provide all the necessary food,
clothing, shelter, nutrition, and extensive education,
will demonstrate a lack of incentive or initiative. There
is no evidence to support this fallacious assumption.
There is overwhelming evidence to support the facts that
malnutrition, lack of employment, low wages, poor health,
lack of direction, lack of education, homelessness, little
or no reinforcement for one's efforts, poor role models,
poverty, and a bleak prospect for the future do create
monumental individual and social problems, and significantly
reduce an individual’s drive to achieve.
The aim of a recourse based economy is to encourage and
develop a new incentive system, one no longer directed
toward the shallow and self-centered goals of wealth,
property, and power. These new incentives would encourage
people to pursue different goals, such as self-fulfillment
and creativity, the elimination of scarcity, the protection
of the environment, and the alleviation of suffering in
their fellow human beings.
People, provided with good nutrition in a highly productive
and humane society, will evolve a new incentive system
unattainable in a monetary system. There would be such
a wealth of new wonders to experience, explore, and invent
that the notion of boredom and apathy would be absurd.
Incentive is often squelched in our present culture, where
a person dare not dream of a future that seems unattainable
to him or her. The vision of the future that too many
see today consists of endless days of mindless toil, and
a wasted life, squandered for the sake of merely earning
enough money to survive from one day to the next.
Each successive period in time creates it’s own incentive
system. In earlier times the incentive to hunt for food
was generated by hunger; the incentive to create a javelin
or a bow and arrow evolved as a process supportive to
the hunt. With the advent of an agrarian society the motivation
for hunting was no longer relevant, and incentives shifted
toward the cultivation of crops, the domestication of
animals, and toward the protection of personal property.
In a civilization where people receive food, medical care,
education, and housing, incentives would again undergo
change and would be redirected: People would be free to
explore other possibilities and lifestyles that could
not be anticipated in earlier times.
The nature of incentive and motivation is dependent upon
many factors. We know, for example, that the physical
and mental health of an individual is directly related
to that person's sense of self-worth and well-being. Furthermore,
we know that all healthy babies are inquisitive; it is
the culture that shapes the particular kind of inquiry
and motivation. For example, in India and other areas
of great scarcity there are many people who are motivated
not to accumulate wealth and material property; they renounce
all worldly goods. Under the conditions in which they
find themselves, this is not difficult. This would seem
to be in direct conflict with other cultures that value
the accumulation of material wealth. Yet, which view is
more valid? Your answer to this question would depend
upon your frame of reference, that is, your culturally
influenced value-system.
Many experimental psychologists and sociologist have
shown that the effects of environment play a major role
in shaping our behavior and values. If constructive behavior
is appropriately rewarded during early childhood, the
child becomes motivated to repeat the rewarded behavior,
provided that the reinforcement meets the individual needs
of the child. For example, if a football were given to
a child who is interested in botany, this would not be
a reward from the child's point of view. It is very unfortunate
that so many individuals in our society today are not
appropriately rewarded for their creative efforts.
In some instances individuals are seemingly able to overcome
the shortcomings of their environment in spite of an apparent
lack of positive reinforcements. This is due to their
own "self-reinforcement" in which they can see an improvement
in whatever activity they are engaged in, and achieve
an intrinsic sense of accomplishment; their reinforcement
does not depend on the approval of others, nor on monetary
reward. Those children who do depend on the approval of
a group tend to be afflicted with a sense of low self-esteem,
while children who do not depend on group approval usually
acquire a sense of self-approval by improving upon their
own performance.
Throughout history, there have been many innovators and
inventors who have been ruthlessly exploited, ridiculed,
and abused while receiving very little financial reward.
Yet, they endured such hardship because they were motivated
to learn and to discover new ways of doing things. While
creative individuals like Leonardo de Vinci, Michelangelo,
and Beethoven received the generous sponsorship of wealthy
patrons, this did not diminish their incentive in the
least. On the contrary, it empowered them to reach new
heights of creativity, perseverance and individual accomplishments.
This is a difficult concept to grasp because most of
us have been brought up with the value system that has
given us a set of notions about the way that we ought
to think and behave about money and motivation. These
are based upon ancient ideas that are really irrelevant
today.
It has been stated that war generates creativity. This
deliberately falsified concept has no basis in fact. It
is government financing of war industries that helped
to develop many new materials and inventions. There is
no question that a saner society would be able to create
a more constructive incentive system if our knowledge
of the conditions that shape human motivation were applied.
In this new social arrangement of a resource-based economy,
motivation and incentive will be encouraged through recognition
of, and concern for, the needs of the individual. This
means providing the necessary environment, educational
facilities, nutrition, health care, compassion, love,
and security that all people need.
THE HUMAN ASPECT
In today's society, there is much concern about the dissolution
of the conventional core family structure, and the societal
values associated with it. The family is seen as the primary,
most basic venue for acquiring such life skills as caring,
sociability, responsibility, stability and concern for
others. The increasing unrest and lack of direction exhibited
by many young people today seem to validate these concerns.
At present, it is necessary for both husbands and wives
to work. Monetary economics have to a large extent undermined
family cohesion. Parents lack adequate time to spend with
their children, and they are constantly stressed by ever-rising
medical bills, insurance payments, educational expenses,
and the high cost of living. It is in this area that one
of the most profound benefits of this new civilization
could be realized. The proposed shorter workdays would
provide more time for family relationships. Free access
to goods and services would make the home a much more
pleasant place, with the removal of economic stress that
causes so much family turmoil.
With the enhanced level of sociability that would naturally
come from not having to compete for access to goods and
services, we would see a tendency toward extension of
the family unit into the community. As may already be
observed in other cultures, the rearing and development
of children would become the responsibility of both the
family and the community at large.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's
job will no longer be a threat; this assurance, combined
with education on how to relate to one another in a much
more meaningful way, could considerably reduce conflict
and stress both mentally and physically. When education
and resources are available to all without a price tag,
there would be no limit to the human potential.
The fear of uniform behavior in a cybernated resource-based
economy of the future is unfounded. The only uniformity
one would find would be a concern for the environment
and the importance of extending maximum courtesy to all
nations and to one another. All would likewise share
an intense curiosity for all that is new and challenging.
With a better understanding, people could possess a flexibility
of outlook unknown in previous times, free of bigotry
and prejudice. In addition, the people of this innovative
society would have concern for their fellow human beings,
and for the protection, maintenance, and stewardship of
the Earth’s natural environment. Additionally, everyone,
regardless of race, color, or creed would have equal access
to all of the amenities that this highly productive culture
could supply.
In more advanced and humane systems of education people
would acquire this new type of value system. They would
also realize the many advantages of cooperation rather
than competition. In a society without vested interest
it would be impossible to harness the talents of scientists
and technicians to engage in weapons research or any other
socially hostile endeavor. We call this approach "functional
morality." This newer, more humane, and more productive
approach would advocate finding non-military solutions
to international differences. This calls for a global
view, which would be a considerable improvement over narrow
national and self-interests. We could use knowledge and
information as tools that would be surrendered when evidence
of more appropriate methods are introduced.
Some people question the morality of seemingly receiving
something for nothing. At a recent college lecture one
student was opposed to the idea of "getting something
for nothing." I then asked him if he were paying his own
way through school, or if his parents were paying for
him. He admitted that his parents were. I also pointed
out that if he really did believe that people should not
receive something for nothing, then in the event of the
death of his rich relative he would prefer that their
inheritance be left to the heart or cancer fund, rather
than being passed on to him. But the student, needless
to say, was opposed to this idea.
By merely being born in a developed country, we have
access to many things that we put no effort whatsoever
towards, such as the telephone, the automobile, electricity,
running water, etc. These gifts of human ingenuity and
invention do not degrade our lives, but rather they enrich
and enhance us. What degrades us is our lack of concern
for those unfortunate enough to experience poverty, hunger,
and homelessness. The social designs that are proposed
in this writing merely provide the opportunity for individuals
to develop their fullest potential in whatever endeavor
they choose without the fear of loss of individuality
or submission to uniformity.
A resource-based economy by definition includes the participation
of all people in its benefits. In a monetary system there
is an inherent reason for corruption and that is to gain
a competitive advantage over someone else. Without vested
interests or the use of money, there is no benefit to
squelching one’s opinion or falsifying information or
taking advantage of anyone. There would be no need for
any underlying rigid social barriers that would limit
the participation of anyone or restrain the introduction
of new ideas. The main objective is the access of information
and the availability of goods and services to all people.
