Traditional Methods Have Become Antiquated

L.W. Nicholson

1994

Published in:

The Northwest Technocrat, 4th quarter 1994, No. 337

How many North Americans have seriously asked themselves or their leaders why we should have poverty in the midst of plenty? If we can produce plenty, why should we have poverty? Why do we destroy our abundance to keep prices up, and if so many people are not needed in the workforce, why should anyone have to work so hard? North Americans need answers to these questions, and there is no school anywhere in the country that teaches students to understand these things.

The graduating classes from today's institutions of higher learning are entering the most depressed economic conditions since the "great" depression of the 1930s. In addition, many are in debt by thousands of dollars that they borrowed to finance their education. The days when a student could "work" his way through college have all but disappeared since tuition fees have dramatically increased along with the cost of living.

Universities have failed to provide their students with the information required to solve economic problems. With all the talk about political democracy, freedom of speech and human rights, it would seem that someone should suggest economic democracy, economic equality and freedom from poverty.

Traditional beliefs haven't solved these problems, therefore untraditional thinking is required. It should be obvious that the welfare of the country and its people is more important than traditions.

If the problems of poverty are solved, as a consequence many other very important problems will be solved also. We have poverty either because we are not doing something correctly, or there is something we are doing that is incorrect. Shouldn't that be obvious? So -- which is it?

Since we can produce plenty, the problem isn't in the production process. Then the only place it could be is in distribution. How do we effect the distribution of goods and services at the present time? After living with it all our lives, we certainly should be able to answer that. How many can?

We effect the distribution of goods and services by a system of trade or commerce, based on commodity valuation. Some buy as cheaply as possible and sell for as much as they can get. So, what is wrong with that? If we look up the word "value" in Encyclopedia Americana, we find that for any commodity to have value, it must not only be desirable, it must also be scarce. Well, nothing can be scarce if we produce plenty of it, unless we destroy some if it to keep it scarce. Any commodity that is plentiful, including the air we breathe, is not scarce and therefore has no value in trade. It can't be bought and sold for a price with or without a profit.

This little bit of information explains why our whole system of trade and commerce cannot operate in a condition of abundance. Further, it explains why we have poverty in the U.S. and Canada. It explains why farmers have been paid to produce less and farm products destroyed to keep prices up. It explains why we destroy vast quantities of non- replaceable natural resources and pollute the only environment in which we can live. It explains the production of shoddy products, products made shoddy so that they will wear out quickly and need replacing to increase sales and profits. It explains why we can't eliminate crime unless we remove the profits made from it.

If we can't see those things, even when they have become so obvious, then we can't solve the major problems that exist as a result of North America's enormous ability to produce with the most advanced technology the world has ever known. If we can't change our way of thinking from the scarcity concepts of all past history, then it will be impossible to take the next most probable step in human progress. If we can't overcome our own misconceptions about the world in which we live, the problems resulting will continue to accelerate. The debt, unemployment, ill health, crime, riots, wars and an exploding population will render this planet uninhabitable. It will then be too late to be sorry. If anything useful is done, it must be done before a state of chaos has been reached. We must change our way of thinking and consider more effective methods.

As Albert Einstein once said, "Now everything has changed except our manner of thinking. If we don't change, mankind will suffer an incalculable catastrophe."

We hunt for ways to provide jobs, jobs, and more jobs. We should be examining the economic system itself to determine why so many jobs no longer exist, and why they should be needed in this technological society in the first place.

We have entered a period of increasing social dissatisfaction made notable by its violence and crime. Unemployment and underemployment increase the social dissatisfaction still further. These are conditions which precede a major social change.

Our society has yet to demonstrate the intelligence required to change social operations as they are needed. We still require the pressure of increasing social distress to provide the incentive. We allow social leadership to be provided by the very people who need social change the least. As a result there is much suffering by those on the bottom of the heap, and a real threat of rebellion is often resorted to preceding any important social change.

The educational process, including schools, news media, political and business leaders have failed to provide North Americans with the information required to solve the problems of poverty. That is entirely too obvious to be questioned. The 1929 breakdown and the following economic distress of the 1930s should have been warning enough. Since then the "recessions", the increasing debt, the declining jobs in industry and social unrest, should have been enough for any intelligent leadership to be totally convinced that the economic system was in need of major changes or a complete redesign.

What is an economic system? No economic system exists in nature; none of the earth's animals have found it necessary to use one. Only man has designed a plan, or method, to "simplify" the distribution process. What man has designed, he can redesign, if and when he has the intelligence to do so.

When an economic system is so designed that its chief motivating characteristic is greed, one must expect greed. This must be the same regardless of who is in power, or who owns the earth, or who is trying to become its owner. If the only method for becoming wealthy is at the expense of others, then those with a talent for theft will take more than their "fair" share. Society follows the rules of the social system, and encourages politicians to do the same. Everyone, even scientists must live according to society's rules. So why blame any individual, or group, for conforming.

Our society has become entirely too complex, too technical, to be efficiently operated by political methods. Isn't that obvious? Unfortunately, the only people who have the training to operate a highly technical society are the technical people who developed it, scientists, engineers, technologists. And even they can't operate a high-energy, highly technical society by a set of rules which were handed down from the dark ages.

Only an entirely new set of rules, an entirely new economic system designed for a modern technological age, will suffice. Since it must control the world's most sophisticated technological mechanism, it must have the direction of the most highly trained technologists available. What other choice do we have except chaos?

For the past sixty years there has been a scientifically designed economic system ready for use when the present system can no longer operate -- and when North Americans become willing to investigate it. That scientific design is Technocracy. May we have the intelligence to realize that it is necessary while there is still time.