Forest_Dump » February 24th, 2017, 6:22 am wrote:
d30 wrote:It will be better for everyone, 100%, if not immediately, then in not long, at least in the fact that both economic and ecological holocaust will be avoided. You wouldn't fault the U.S. Founding Fathers for intensely upsetting the large number of loyalists to the English throne for the sake of an enormous leap forward for all humanity - introducing democracy, the fabulous benefits of which were invisible to the closed-minded of that day too.
Give up that dream. It won't be better for all. Historically, for example ... In short, you are over-selling something that doesn't look anything like what you are suggesting it is and in fact might well be what you are opposed to.
It doesn't look anything like what I am suggesting because you're not seeing what I'm suggesting - have nowhere near the big picture of it yet; just a distorted fragment of a picture - and of your own making.
Saying "Give up that dream" speaks to your picture. You are the reincarnation of the naysaying majorities of all the ages: the monarchies and aristocrats of Europe who guffawed at the U.S. Founders dream of a new, non-autocratic way of government; the general consensus that laughed at the Wright brothers; at Edison's dream of artificial light;
unable to think outside their box, the huge mainframe computer, IBM and other computer "experts", who sneered at Steve Jobs' idea of a personal computer. "Why would anyone want a computer on their desk?"; the consensus in Boston, people and press, that a subway was a horrible idea, even while their city streets were almost impassably clogged every day by horse-drawn streetcars, and full of smelly, germ-spreading horse manure;
scoffed at liquid-fuel-rocket pioneer, Robert Goddard's dream of space travel: "Goddard received very little public support for his research and development work. The press sometimes ridiculed his theories of spaceflight." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_H._Goddard
Such is a constant throughout history to date, now manifest in the many like you who somehow can't dream, can't open their mind to fundamentally new, "sea change," "tectonic" thinking, judging a future that will be radically different by your ways, means and thinking of the obsolete present and past, as in your "Historically speaking, for example," your common resort: thinking backward. The 30HW solution is not for the past, nor present. It's for the future, but you keep challenging it based on the passé.
It's about the fundamentally (radically) different ways and means we have to advance to, if there's to be a future. 30HW (30-hour workweek) profoundly addresses the two all-threatening crises of our times: vanishing jobs creating increasing suffering, disorder, lawlessness and bloodshed, and second, coming ecological cataclysms.
Thinking only of past and present ways, nothing you or PA have said even mentions, let alone faces, those two new, unprecedented exigencies of a future that has come and is, of course, being ignored by most, like you two have in this thread - the indisputable mandate for 30HW, and none of the points you've made, which are quickly refuted in ensuing posts, negates the fact that 30HW is the desperately needed new advance whose time has come; in fact, is decades overdue.
The natural trajectory to it is clear in history: in the beginning, all humanoids had to work 24/7 hunting/gathering food to survive; it didn't get much better through ancient and medieval times; then the 60-70-hour weeks of the early Industrial Age "sweat shops," cave mines, etc. Finally came the 40-hour week. 30HW is the obvious next step in that progression. You don't, or can't, suggest another idea, yet treat the one proposed entirely negatively, while jobs keep vanishing en masse and the environment is devoured more, and faster, by the day.