I have to disagree with the idea of ‘tech-led abundance’. Technology is what has led us to where we are, probably more significantly than capitalism. More, or even different, mass-produced industrial technologies is not what we need so cheerleading technological innovations is, as Donella Meadows might argue, pushing in the wrong direction.
I do think (mostly influenced by all the things that have been cut with untold damage) that large institutions are too vulnerable to hijacking and not flexible enough to adapt quickly. A bunch of little local groups that can join to act together when needed seems better for many reasons.
It is techno-utopianism to expect some kind of variation of the current civilisation in a post-capitalist world. I see this regularly, people bargaining (and simultaneously trying to defy the laws of physics) to retain some variation of their existing level of privilege, or to retain some variation of the existing level of civilisation.
Indeed yes, capitalism is going away. So is communism, socialism, techno-fuedalism, theocracy and any other form of nationalism.
Degrowth will occur, whether we like it or not. Anyone attempting to maintain economy as a concept, or retain money as another faith, is not dealing with reality.
"Tech-led abundance" or work free societies where the robots do everything is a fantasy that many people employ to help them sleep at night. As Donella Meadows at al showed in the 1972 Limits to Growth, higher tech just leads to more pollution, thereby speeding up the collapse of the biosphere we were meant to be avoiding in the first place.
As Erik Michaels is oft to point out, it is civilisation itself that is unsustainable, especially one of 8.2 billion people. Paul Chefurka worked out the sustainable human population for the entire planet was 35 million approx, before we wrecked the biosphere. I reckon we have degraded the planet so much, amongst the current mass extinction, that the human population of the future will be 3 million or so (for multiple generations at least), assuming it's not to be zero.
Humans are mal-adapted to the existing world we have created (see for example the recent headline that 25% of the UK's children have mental health problems - now that's a pandemic), our senses and evolutionary traits are only suitable for a hunter-gatherer existence living with self-contraint (at a tribal level) in harmony with nature. Anything else is hopium/human hubris.
So, yes, planning for a post-capitalist society is a good idea, but don't expect to retain existing privileges, and certainly don't expect whatever comes next to include more than 1% of the current population levels.
Not having read the book I don't have the proper context for the 'tech-led abundance' reference so I would be interested to know more about how this fits into the vision. As for the general question of what comes next, I think this will depend very much on the extent to which we divest ourselves of the default individualistic mode that we are led into by the Capitalist model.
Rebuilding a sense of our interdependence with one another, a recognition that to hurt others ultimately hurts ourselves and conversely we become more ourselves in service to others will lead to a system that, though no doubt flawed as all human systems are, prioritises general sufficiency and wellbeing. What this looks like will be governed by what resources are available which is something almost impossible to predict but which we can - and have - modelled for a variety of scenarios.
The success and longevity of what emerges will largely depend on responding flexibly to what presents based on a set of shared values that honour all life - including all that we choose to call inanimate. For me, this is the work that we need to embark on now before all else.
Degrowth is certainly the approach I favour at the moment. It will happen either gracefully in a relatively planned way (ideal) or disgracefully in a more collapse-y sort of way. At the moment its difficult to see anything but a disgraceful exit from capitalism.
As the gentleman below says, tech led abundance seems problematic. I think for two reasons. 1. Tech is energy demanding and we are facing a decline in availability of dense, low cost energy 2. So far tech has always led to more resource use and more waste even when it is more efficient that a previous tech (jevon's paradox). It often requires new materials which mean more complex extraction processes, and opens up new 'markets' creating demand that didn't previously exist. The mere possibility of this can be enough to cause a 'gold-rush'.
I was listening to a podcast with Vinod Khosla recently and he also talked about tech-led abundance” and a world where humans no longer need to work (because machines do the work). The interviewer didn’t ask a single question about how we’re supposed to pay for housing, food or leisure in that world and Khosla didn’t offer any thoughts on that. I think it’s because that world would require a radically reimagined role of government (think: taxation of the machines) and our economy overall (perhaps a guaranteed income scheme?)
I have to disagree with the idea of ‘tech-led abundance’. Technology is what has led us to where we are, probably more significantly than capitalism. More, or even different, mass-produced industrial technologies is not what we need so cheerleading technological innovations is, as Donella Meadows might argue, pushing in the wrong direction.
I do think (mostly influenced by all the things that have been cut with untold damage) that large institutions are too vulnerable to hijacking and not flexible enough to adapt quickly. A bunch of little local groups that can join to act together when needed seems better for many reasons.
It is techno-utopianism to expect some kind of variation of the current civilisation in a post-capitalist world. I see this regularly, people bargaining (and simultaneously trying to defy the laws of physics) to retain some variation of their existing level of privilege, or to retain some variation of the existing level of civilisation.
Indeed yes, capitalism is going away. So is communism, socialism, techno-fuedalism, theocracy and any other form of nationalism.
Degrowth will occur, whether we like it or not. Anyone attempting to maintain economy as a concept, or retain money as another faith, is not dealing with reality.
"Tech-led abundance" or work free societies where the robots do everything is a fantasy that many people employ to help them sleep at night. As Donella Meadows at al showed in the 1972 Limits to Growth, higher tech just leads to more pollution, thereby speeding up the collapse of the biosphere we were meant to be avoiding in the first place.
As Erik Michaels is oft to point out, it is civilisation itself that is unsustainable, especially one of 8.2 billion people. Paul Chefurka worked out the sustainable human population for the entire planet was 35 million approx, before we wrecked the biosphere. I reckon we have degraded the planet so much, amongst the current mass extinction, that the human population of the future will be 3 million or so (for multiple generations at least), assuming it's not to be zero.
Humans are mal-adapted to the existing world we have created (see for example the recent headline that 25% of the UK's children have mental health problems - now that's a pandemic), our senses and evolutionary traits are only suitable for a hunter-gatherer existence living with self-contraint (at a tribal level) in harmony with nature. Anything else is hopium/human hubris.
So, yes, planning for a post-capitalist society is a good idea, but don't expect to retain existing privileges, and certainly don't expect whatever comes next to include more than 1% of the current population levels.
Not having read the book I don't have the proper context for the 'tech-led abundance' reference so I would be interested to know more about how this fits into the vision. As for the general question of what comes next, I think this will depend very much on the extent to which we divest ourselves of the default individualistic mode that we are led into by the Capitalist model.
Rebuilding a sense of our interdependence with one another, a recognition that to hurt others ultimately hurts ourselves and conversely we become more ourselves in service to others will lead to a system that, though no doubt flawed as all human systems are, prioritises general sufficiency and wellbeing. What this looks like will be governed by what resources are available which is something almost impossible to predict but which we can - and have - modelled for a variety of scenarios.
The success and longevity of what emerges will largely depend on responding flexibly to what presents based on a set of shared values that honour all life - including all that we choose to call inanimate. For me, this is the work that we need to embark on now before all else.
Degrowth is certainly the approach I favour at the moment. It will happen either gracefully in a relatively planned way (ideal) or disgracefully in a more collapse-y sort of way. At the moment its difficult to see anything but a disgraceful exit from capitalism.
As the gentleman below says, tech led abundance seems problematic. I think for two reasons. 1. Tech is energy demanding and we are facing a decline in availability of dense, low cost energy 2. So far tech has always led to more resource use and more waste even when it is more efficient that a previous tech (jevon's paradox). It often requires new materials which mean more complex extraction processes, and opens up new 'markets' creating demand that didn't previously exist. The mere possibility of this can be enough to cause a 'gold-rush'.
I was listening to a podcast with Vinod Khosla recently and he also talked about tech-led abundance” and a world where humans no longer need to work (because machines do the work). The interviewer didn’t ask a single question about how we’re supposed to pay for housing, food or leisure in that world and Khosla didn’t offer any thoughts on that. I think it’s because that world would require a radically reimagined role of government (think: taxation of the machines) and our economy overall (perhaps a guaranteed income scheme?)