Gary,
Very thoughtful response, and thanks. I agree with you. My interest lies in those people who are NOT aware of what people on this list are aware of, for the very reason that one person cannot solve these complex problems. I like your solutions.
I wonder, though, why we need to teach people to think, when I have never met an un-thinking child! Education seems to get rid of thinking skills.
Edryce
Charles Wankel <
wankelc@optonline.net> wrote:
From: Gary Lundquist [mailto:
garylundquist@earthlink.net]
Edryce,
I know it's been a month since you provided access to the Sampson
"Off-Peopling" article. I promised comments.
I was intrigued, then disappointed. Other than a new term (off-peopling),
which really doesn't work for me, he did not say anything new.
It's been obvious for a decade that job loss in manufacturing was going
to robots more than to China.
It's been apparent since the demise of the secretary in the 80's that
many jobs are going into computers.
And it's been a fact of life since the economic downturn of 2000 that
many employees in corporations are doing the jobs previously done by 2 or 3.
He isn't the first to point out parallels between industrial and
information revolutions.
Sampson is right about the disruption. It is already huge and will grow.
We will achieve higher and higher employment... for our systems.
The worst part is that he offered no solution. His hyper-human concept is
weak at best. An overblown language for so very little in the way of
suggestion.
This is too huge an issue to be addressed by individuals. As a global
problem, it needs attention at the level of national economies.
My inclination is to revise education, from K-12-college.
Currently, K-12's primary job is to create conforming citizens. People
with common language, sense of history, sense of morals, shared patriotism,
and basic tools for life.
Let's revise that. Let's create THINKING citizens who ask, "Why?" a
lot. Let's develop curricula that teach thinking, strategizing, decision
making, leadership, and change management... from the very beginning.
Let's make learning be about how to learn... how to make learning a way
of life, a way of being. Not something we finish when we graduate, but
something that is as basic to life as eating. Not about passing tests, but
about enabling productive and financially secure lives.
I know. That can't happen. Collusion of government, military, education,
and religion demand conforming citizens.
Kids are more into gaming and music than asking "Why?" then finding
answers by thinking for themselves. Parents are too stressed to put up with
why-ing, much less encourage it.
Some other Big Solutions - (a bit tongue in cheek)
30 hour work week - Do you remember those predictions? That would solve our
unemployment. Force people to share jobs instead of do 2 jobs. Imagine a
legislated 30 hour work week. 50 million jobs created with the stroke of a
pen.
Think about that. People are more and more monitoring and managing
systems. Monitors are interchangeable.
Globalization means work can go on 24x7. A company can work 240 hours a
week instead of 60. That opens up 8 jobs at 30 hours a week and allows the
productivity necessary to manage our systems for competitive edge in a
global economy.
Of course, this requires national health insurance. And, any time a
company fails, eight times as many people will be laid off.
Fewer people: Quite a few countries have birth rates below replacement. If
not for immigration, their populations would decline. So let's accelerate
that.
If too many people are unemployed, then we have too many people. Let's
set a global goal for population that matches predictions for the number of
humans needed in a systems-rich world. A billion? Maybe 100 million? Of
course, factor in productive lifetime as health care extends longevity.
Then start a worldwide campaign to meet that number as quickly as possible.
There will obviously be a delay... about 20 years before birth rates can
impact workforce. Indeed, this is a very long term solution. Since systems
consumption of jobs will continue, we need to start this one ASAP, and carry
it out aggressively.
Short term, wars are preferable to disease for reducing population.
Disease triggers compassion. We feel we must find a cure. War, on the
other hand, delivers a sense of righteousness. (remember tongue in cheek?)
All we need is to convince populations that those other folks are enemies,
and we'll have volunteers eager to help reduce population.
There is a gotcha here. You see, war results in invention of killing
systems. Our smartest, most self reliant systems today are military
systems. If we are not careful, and maybe even if we are, our systems will
become smart enough to not need us any more and decide to reduce human
population to zero.
Another huge gotcha is this. Every current market economy depends on
growth. Reducing population means changing the thrust of our economic
models. Let's call it a "reverse-growth model." Are we ready for that? If
not, when will we be?
So... sometime around the turn of the next century, we might have done four
things.
Teach people to think.
Force people into shorter work weeks and more leisure.
Reduce population to better match needs for employees.
Made peace with our smart systems.
Sampson doesn't bother with big ideas. His are small and short term. The
problem is huge and needs even bigger solutions.
Just my opinion.
Best to all,
Gary
----------------------------
Innovation Catalyst
Process Accelerator
Gary Lundquist
President - Market Engineering International
www.Market-Engineering.com
Chair - The Colorado Innovation Summit
www.InnovationSummit.com
303-840-9929
GaryL@Market-Engineering.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!