Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? Episode 08: YouTube

Some interesting aspects, but In considering justice – Why focus on winning races?
Races are, by definition, one winner.
Existence isn’t like that.
We do all exist.

There does not need to be, one winner.

Existence does not need to be a competition.

The very notion of “winning” is anathema to justice in this sense.

We can all freely enter into various sorts of races.
Many of us do so in the full knowledge that we will never “win”.

It is our own personal performance, our out there doing it, and our personal improvement that interests us.

In a world of infinite possibility, and finite people, we can all find things that interest us, are meaningful to us.

What seems most important in terms of justice is having the resources, tools, and freedom to invest our existence in whatever way we responsibly choose.

We are now in an age of exponentially expanding computation and automation.
We are not short of energy – there is ample sunlight for every person on the planet to have what any westerner would consider a high basic standard of living. Beyond that basic, there need be no hard limit. Certainly limits on how much energy we can use on the planet, and if we go into space, the sun has enough energy for every person to have as much as humanity as a whole currently uses. That is not a practical limit at this time.

We are not short of matter.
We live on a massive ball of it, and another one orbits nearby.

Most people only need a few tens of tons of mass to do all they reasonable want to do.

Our current economic system does not deliver that sort of justice.

We have the technology to easily deliver that sort of justice.

Automation allows us to produce all that most people reasonably want, with no need to involve anyone else.

That sort of production was never an option in our past.
Our economic system cannot deal with that sort of universal abundance.

Sandel’s thinking is trapped inside a market capitalist box.
Markets cannot give a positive value to universal abundance.
Most people strongly value universal abundance (think of air – vital to all of us, universally abundant, zero market value).

Automation allows us to produce a vast set of goods and services in the same sort of abundance as air.

But markets will always work against such universal abundance, as it destroys market value.

Hence we see an explosion of Intellectual Property (IP) laws – that serve no real purpose other than to maintain scarcity for the masses, and thereby deliver value to the few.

Markets undoubtedly had utility in an age when most things were genuinely scarce.
Automation and universal abundance changes everything.

[followed by in response to “Hey, existentialist:)”]

Kinda – I think we have the ability to influence our development through the exercise of free will, and at the same time I acknowledge the profound complexity (on many levels) of both our genetic and cultural heritages, and the vast array of subconscious processes required for consciousness to exist.

So yes – choice and free will are important, and all human beings exist in complex realities with many different aspects, physical, biological, social, cultural, conceptual, strategic, ….

Individuals are important, and no individual will survive for long without a social and technological context.
So I don’t really fit neatly in the existentialist camp, and I am perhaps closer to that camp than any other.?

[Followed by] {added 17/8/17}

That is a possible game to play.
In one sense it is the lowest level of the game of the existence of chemical and cellular evolutionary entities.

And we have many levels.
We can play many different types of games at different levels.

I have worked with computers for over 40 years, and have owned and operated a software business for 31 years.
It seems entirely likely to me, based on several different intersecting sets of exponential trends, that all jobs, including CEOs, mining, manufacturing and distribution, will be able to be fully automated within 15 years.

That does in fact seem to be what the data is indicating is most likely to happen.

The big question is: what are we going to do about that?

Do we hold onto the idea of valuing things in markets, which is a scarcity based valuation system, or do we move to an abundance based valuation system?

And I acknowledge that the markets perform several levels of very complex sets of functions, so transition is not a trivial issue. And we have the technical tools to develop alternative mechanisms to solve those other levels of problems that markets currently solve (most particularly distributed governance and active tolerance).

And transition does seem to be both possible and necessary.

Universal Basic Income would seem to provide the basis of the least risk transition pathway.

And I certainly align with the notion that we all have responsibilities to both the ecological and social contexts that allow us to be what we are. Freedom is not an absence of restraints, but rather operating within the sets of constraints necessary for our survival and empowerment and optimised freedom over time and context.

About Ted Howard NZ

Seems like I might be a cancer survivor. Thinking about the systemic incentives within the world we find ourselves in, and how we might adjust them to provide an environment that supports everyone (no exceptions) - see www.tedhowardnz.com/money
This entry was posted in Ideas, Our Future, Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Comment and critique welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s