Wow, hectic week at work (as usual just before
holidays), so not much time to develop this series. Also, there were a number
of points I wanted to present that were not covered in my previous post (The economy of the future)
and I’ve been having some difficulties finding a way to do so coherently. Rather
than keep it simmering until I find the perfect theme to broach such disparate
musings, I will comment on them in no particular order:
·
Savings
and investment: In an economy like the one I envision 500 years from now the
propensity of people to save would be severely undercut, as you would have your
basics (food and shelter) covered for life, at whatever age, so one major
reason (to prepare for the proverbial rainy day) would not be so salient. Also,
due to minimal regulation there would be an almost infinitely elastic labor
market, so there would always be some job available at the going wages. Which
is a good thing, because given the reality of a fast falling population for
most of the period (remember it would ideally stabilize around 2500 AD) the
market for most goods (either consumption goods or means of production) would
be shrinking and thus the need for investment in new capacity would be at a
global level, nonexistent. The minimal investment required would be to repair
the wear and tear of machinery and infrastructure, so minimal savings would be
enough (and that would push the interest rate pretty low, although having been
these many years close to the zero bound we probably do not find that
particularly alien). A relatively low interest rate is a good thing, as it
prevents capital from accumulating excessively (as it has been doing in most of
the Western economies for the last forty years) and helps to prevent the
appearance of a politically influential rentier class that can attempt to
monopolize the political process.
·
Innovation
and productivity: As I mentioned in an older post, the latter has stopped
improving in part as a consequence of the deceleration of the former (Why technology has stopped improving), and the reason for such
deceleration is the corporatist nature of our current stage of capitalism (big
corporations and the state find it more convenient to erect barriers to entry
in most areas of activity to protect current players, which then can extract
monopoly rents from their respective turfs, leaving little energy or resources
to pursue real innovation out of them). The kind of future I envision has
little space for big corporations, and I explicitly avoided talking about
patent systems or intellectual property rights. People will pursue their
passions (in the arts or in science, more about that one later on) for the fun
of it, not to gain some outsized chrematistic advantage (aka loads of money).
Most digital goods will be freely shared, and writers, painters, musicians
(philosophers, sociologists, economists, psychologists…) will be invited and
celebrated, sought after and recognized in the digital realm, but not
necessarily paid. Current capitalism maintains that such system of social
recognition not accompanied by a system to guarantee creation produces a strong
monetary reward for the creators would spell doom for creativity itself, but I
am ultra skeptical of that claim. I can imagine much more innovation taking
place not just in the humanities and artistic fields, but in more everyday,
down to earth activities. A thousand small and middle sized factories manned by
engaged workers decently paid are much better laboratories to imagine and
refine new technologies than today’s few gigantic R&D centers ,where a few
freaks (selected from an unimaginably vast talent pool, but strongly biased
towards certain personality features that do not take into account things like
empathy and practicality) devote their intellectual powers to the resolution of
increasingly small and specific problems…
·
Education:
another source of hope for the increased innovation of our descendant’s
technical milieu is the very likely seismic change in the way they will educate
their children. Let’s face it, our current educational system can only be
understood as an offshoot of the corporatist, material-production-maximizing
system I’ve been both describing and denouncing. We force kids to rote learning
of the most inconsequential matters during 16-22 years just because it a) it
helps to instill in the vast majority of them the discipline (read: tolerance
for drudgery and soulless, repetitious work) we think will be required in most
jobs; b) it sorts out the ones better adorned with the quality most indicative
of the ability to do such works (general IQ, which does not include things like
curiosity, kindness, empathy or even clarity of purpose, but does include the
ability to manipulate abstract symbols, a retentive memory and a knack for
numerical calculations)… but to weed out the better ones at that we could just
force them to memorize Kuala Lumpur telephone listings (which are probably as
relevant to their future jobs as 99% of what kids are taught today in school
and college); and finally c) given how they behave after their academic
formation is finished, it obviously transmits to them values like
competitiveness, ability to interpret symbols of status and social hierarchy
and envy/ jealousy complex we define under the umbrella term “keeping up with
the Joneses”. I would expect the state of the future just to provide some
general guidelines of what the kids should know at certain ages. Very basic
skills like reading and writing (of course), elementary math (algebra and some
geometry and trigonometry, calculus and topography are more advanced and
optional), foundational mechanical skills (using a lathe, a mill, repairing and
tuning a motor, a transformer and a valve), concepts of physiology (including
sports) and hygiene, agriculture and husbandry (how to open a furrow, seed a
field, harvest and thrash, feed cattle and skin a rabbit). Everybody should be
bilingual, with one language common to all humanity (let’s face it, English is
the obvious candidate, although only God knows how it will sound and look like
500 years hence). All the rest (history, literature, religion, even my beloved
physics, chemistry, psychology, secondary language, politics, etc.) would be
pursued only by choice. Now for the first basic elements of education I would
expect some places where kids gather physically (specially when they are very
young and can benefit with more frequent interaction with their peers) to be
provided by the villages free of charge (either manned by paid staff or by the
parents who volunteer their time to be present in some of the most magic
moments in the development of their children). But at some point, it would be
done in an unstructured way, just by playing, chatting, seeing others do it and
just traveling the world in groups and learning from those with a recognized
level of mastery in each subject. There would be one single exam in all their
life, to be taken between 16 and 18 years, where they would show their dominion
of the skills required to be productive citizens, after which they would gain
the right to vote (or to attend the assembly where the major affairs of the
village are decided, as regulated in the village charter) and would be eligible
for the communal work in the 4% of their time allotted for it.
·
Technological
advance/ big science: the organization of the society I’ve expounded may seem
too agrarian, atomized in small villages unable individually to engage in the
big projects required for the advancement of modern science, and thus condemned
to scientific stagnation, and ultimately decline. This doesn’t necessarily
follow, as those small villages are linked in two way: electronically (they all
have ultra high bandwidth and can share information in much more fluid ways
that we can not even dream of) and by the constant flow and interchange of
people physically travelling the world for the sheer pleasure of it (remember I
mentioned up to 30% of the time would be spent freely travelling, working in
some places if needs be to pay for additional travel expenses in a world with
one single universal language and one single universal currency –more on that
later- which means in each village at any given time 30% of the population is
made by people born outside of it, just passing by or temporarily settled there
because they like it). Those two linkages would prevent animosity and
competition between villages to arise, and would make infinitely easier for
them to collaborate in the kind of projects each one separately may be too
small to pursue. A lot of material production will be decentralized, not just
at village level, but even at individual’s houses (thanks to 3D printing), but
there are elements needed in a modern economy that can not be produced at small
scale facilities (wind turbines or solar panel production facilities, for
example). People of multiple villages would pool resources to build and
maintain those facilities, and village federations would oversee where they are
made to ensure they are evenly distributed. Now some facilities (the ones to
carry truly fundamental research, think in
NASA’s JPL, Geneva’s CERN or Cadarache’s ITER) would still be too big
for a village federation. The erection and maintenance of those would be
decided by the world council (where the representatives of the different
village federations meet), and they would be run as if they were independent
administrative units, where all of their citizens are full time “employees” for
as long as they want, which receive their victuals from the rest of the
villages (so each one has to produce may be a 1-5% above what they need so they
can jointly contribute to sustain those centers of development). Would that
system work better than today somewhat anarchic, uncoordinated, unnecessarily
competitive system? I very much think so, but recognize that it is difficult to
say with any certainty.
·
Money,
credit, currency, inflation: In an economy with a very low propensity towards
savings and very low investment needs (as the market has been shrinking for
five centuries, and is only beginning to stabilize) I don’t see much need to
resort to credit by corporations, and I’d love to see the irrationality of
stock exchanges that has gripped the imagination of humanity (starting in the
West) for the past 400 years go away once and for all. There will be people who
love gambling, of course, and I can imagine every sort of racetrack, casino,
betting parlor or games of luck taking place to satisfy that desire without
those temples of random distribution of imaginary wealth. I’m sure there will
be banks, hopefully retail ones, to finance small and medium enterprises,
startups, maybe some consumer credit for those merchants that want to pursue thoughtfully
some commercial opportunity and certainly many kinds of insurance, but I expect
no group of people to function (to “do business”) resorting only to credit and
fictitious tokens they never expect to pay. I’ve mentioned commerce, as in the
world of densely interconnected villages I dream of I would expect a lot of
exchanges taking place, and it seems just reasonable there will be a universal
unit of value, and hence a universal currency. I would expect that currency to
be entirely electronic, and its value to be decoupled from any relationship
with any physical asset (so we finally
overcome our reliance on what Keynes famously called a “barbarous relic”).
Remember that in the future society I’ve been describing money is not needed to
discharge your obligation towards the state (taxes are paid in time, working
for the common good under the direction of freely chosen elders, not in money),
and it is not needed to satisfy human’s most basic needs (enough food and a
home are provided free of cost to everybody), which lowers the need to have
money at all, and makes it possible to entirely forego having it (as has
happened during most of human history). However, if for some reason any citizen
wants to earn it there will be a robust market of non-essential goods, traded
and paid in the universal currency, he can seek to contribute to and benefit
from. And all the profits he can make in any commercial or productive endeavor
he devotes himself to is his for the keeping, free of taxes.
So I think with that I’m done describing the society I would define as
“ideal”. It would mean correcting the three main deviations from human’s
millenary history, hatched in the West in the XVIth century, which have
greatly hampered and blocked human flourishing:
1. Work specialization, which has
driven people to devote more and more of their time to lesser and lesser tasks.
Yes, it has allowed societies that adopted it to produce incalculably bigger
amounts of tchotchkes, but at the price of making the vast majority of the
producers incalculably sadder, gloomier and stunted, their capacities unable to
develop and the enjoyment of their time taken away from them (“them” being
everybody, from the factory worker doing horribly repetitive work to the
apparently successful executive pretending the decisions he takes make any difference
other than tying him tighter to the hamster wheel of a life devoid of human relationships)
2. Population explosion that has
cheapened the experience of human life and forced an insane competition for
ever dwindling resources, whilst taking a (most likely) irrecoverable toll on
the natural environment
3. A uni dimensional value system predicated
on the recognition of a single measure of value: how many material goods you
can claim exclusive control of (or how much money you have, money being the
medium for the acquisition of those goods… although in the end even the goods
could be done with, as just money for money’s sake was measure enough,
regardless of having time or not for the enjoyment of the supposed things it
was originally intended to acquire).
Would that state of things be the
peaceful, benign, true end of history, the dawn of an era of prosperity (not necessarily
traduced in more material goods, but in more refined ways of living) and
contentment that leverages our millennia of experience with (mostly) dreadful societies,
in which humans will leave happily ever after? You can bet it will not. We are a restless species,
and things have a way of changing and evolving that tends to lay waste to the
best thought plans (and I am not claiming this one is specially well thought).
People will change, and adapt, and at some point become restless. Groups will
develop differentially, mutations may happen, some violent strain in the form
of a totalitarian alternative ideology may arise and become popular…
Every attempt at realizing a Utopia in this life has failed because few
of them have contemplated seriously the unavoidability of change, and fell
short for not building in their proposed ideal configurations of society
mechanisms to adapt to the unexpected. But the unexpected, the unplanned is
almost the only thing we know for certain we will have to face at one point or
another.
Be it as it may, in my next post on this topic I’d like to reflect on
the likely developments that may nudge our current, more imperfect social
arrangement, towards a society of this kind, and what major events may happen
in the next five centuries that may completely derail such evolution, and guide
the world-system in entirely directions
No comments:
Post a Comment