Technocracy ->
Periodicals ->
Technocracy Digest ->
Q1, 98 #327 ->
Questions and Answers
|
Technocracy ->
Periodicals ->
Technocracy Digest ->
Q1, 98 #327 ->
Questions and Answers
|
Search |
Published in:
Spread out before all three groups (laborers, white-collar workers, professionals) is the spectacle of a gutted continent, its resources wasted and flung away in the crazy race for the profit that strangled the system.
These prophetic words were written in 1933, by the founder of Technocracy, the late Howard Scott.
Briefly, Technocracy is the method of science applied to the social order. What that means is that this Technocratic method should have been used to control the application of technology for the betterment of society as a whole. What we have, now, in North America is a political and monetary system (we labelled it a Price System) which has destroyed the social order. That means that the social system under which we now live is affected by money, strangled by money, and deteriorated by money.
Technocracy discovered, through its scientific research, that money is an interference in that social system. This was the conclusion reached after 14 years of research by an organization known as the Technical Alliance, the forerunner of the organization of Technocracy. The primary aim of this research was to ascertain the possibility of applying the achievements of science to social and industrial affairs -- for the benefit of all citizens.
Howard Scott, a young engineer-scientist-technologist, had friends and acquaintances in a very select group of people who, like himself, were the top experts in one field or other; but Howard Scott's thinking went further -- to a consideration of the workings of the entire social system. His views were of interest to the people listed below who formed the Technical Alliance in 1918, for the purpose of undertaking an energy survey of North America. The work went on for 14 years under the leadership of Howard Scott, whom they elected to serve as Chief Engineer of the Technical Alliance. These names are still recognized as the top innovators who developed many of the technological and scientific devices that we use today. Full details of their accomplishments can be found in any good encyclopedia.
Frederick L. Ackerman, Architect; Carl L. Alsberg, Biochemist; Allen Carpenter, M.D.; Stuart Chase, CPA; Louis K. Comstock, Electrical Engineer; Alice Barrows Fernandez, Educator; Bassett Jones, Mathematical Technologist; Sullivan W. Jones, Architect; Robert D. Kohn, Architect; Benton Mackay, Forester-Naturalist; Leland Olds, Statistician; Charles Proteus Steinmetz, Electrical Engineer; Richard C. Tolman, Physical Chemist; John C. Vaughn, Surgeon; Thorstein Veblen, Educator and Author; Charles H. Whitaker, Architect.
When it was incorporated as Technocracy Inc., its members became known as Technocrats.
One of our magazine issues, February 1974, which Technocracy Digest entitled Questions and Answers, answered questions most often asked about Technocracy. Now, 24 years later, in this issue, we try to bring to the reader answers to the problems brought to the forefront by this more complicated technological era. The questions and answers will point out why and how we have these problems, why they have become complicated, when there was no need of them becoming so, and what can be done to remedy them.
For instance, in this present Price System, if we go to build a hospital with the very latest medical equipment, what is it that determines its size, its equipment, its availability to the public? Money is the determinant! If the community purse is not large, or served by the wrong political party, that determines the type of hospital it can afford. No matter if the community's population is growing, or if they need specialized equipment to meet the new medical research, they cannot build what is really needed because they don't have the money. They have the building materials, the expertise to build the hospital, the expertise to operate the hospital, the most modern medical machines available, but they may be able to afford only the bare minimum because they don't have the money. Isn't that ridiculous? The only thing in the way is money -- those little bits of paper.
And that about sums up what we would like the reader to keep in mind: We don't need MONEY. The only thing keeping us from enjoying the benefits of our wonderful technology is the interference of money.
Oh, and, also, the apathy of people who won't join us to demand that a new social system be put in place of MONEY.
For one thing, the only information about Technocracy getting out to the public has come from the lectures and literature of this organization. We were "buried" in the late '30s, when the financial structure became worried that people were going to adopt the social system that we outlined for them.
During the Depression of the '30s, we had the fastest growing organization on this Continent. Nearly every little hamlet, town, and city in North America had people who met in homes, groups, and sections to learn about Technocracy. The newspapers all over the country printed glowing reports about us. In our Technocracy Digest No. 326, fourth quarter 1997, we re-reprinted one of those articles, from Liberty, a popular magazine at the time.
Then, in the late '30s, we began to see disparaging articles about Technocracy. Then they stopped printing anything about us. In 1939, of course, World War II was forced on us. The penniless began to get jobs and money jingling in their pockets, and all thought disappeared as they prospered in their jobs or went off to war to be killed.
After that, the false prosperity, for awhile, lulled most people into thinking that they "had it made" as they began to enjoy all the new gadgets and technology. They were amused and misinformed by television programs; so much so, that now, many of them don't know how to think or what to think. They can see their troubles piling up, but they don't know what to do about them.
In response to a Doug Todd column on spirituality, Vancouver Sun, Saturday Review, Nov. 15/97, one letter-writer to its editor wrote, "we need a deep thinker to help humanity "Grow up" and leave superstition behind.
"Each generation has thinkers who try to make us less superstitious -- less primitive. For their efforts, some thinkers suffer the fate of Socrates, Salman Rushdie, Ken Saro-Wiwa, and Madalyn O'Hair. Most enter oblivion, unknown. Deep thinkers we have. What we need is a brain that wants to listen to them rather than kill them."
He should have added to that list of thinkers, one more brilliant than those he mentioned: the late Howard Scott, Director-in-Chief of this organization of Technocracy, who, some time after saying these words in 1933, suffered the fate of anonymity through a silenced press:
"Spread out before all three groups (laborers, white-collar workers, professionals) is the spectacle of a gutted continent, its resources wasted and flung away in the crazy race for the profit that strangled the system."
The reason we extol Howard Scott is because he presented to the people of North America a valid, scientific Design which would have prevented the present `strangulation' of this social system. His words were not just a prophesy. This was information gleaned from 14 years of scientific research by the Technical Alliance, which proved that unless the new technology was used for the betterment of everyone in this society, we would inherit just what we are experiencing now: the misuse of technology, which has brought down upon us: resources wasted, poverty, environmental damage to air, soil and water. Since Scott spoke those words in 1933, the "crazy race for profit" has dealt us 63 more years of misuse, to gut and waste this Continent. It has strangled our social system.
At this point, we wonder if anyone can breathe air into it to save it.
The only ones, that we know of, still manning the pumps are the Technocrats.
You have told us that our present political system would be substituted by a Technate. Would you tell us how our leaders would be selected?
Leaders would be selected in much the same way that industry now selects its supervisory staff in the technical phases. (Note that we stressed technical. Many industries now have CEOs who are financial wizards but who would be lost if they were asked to perform any physical technical task, or to give instructions to anyone else to do the job. Accounting personnel would be needed, but only to record the amount of energy needed for these particular functions. No one needed to count money.)
This is called the vertical alignment method of promotion, and involves recommendation from below on the basis of competence, and appointment from above.
The basic unit of this organization is the Functional Sequence. A Functional Sequence is one of the larger industrial or service units, the various parts of which are related, one to the other, in a direct functional sequence. Thus, among the major Industrial Sequences, for instance, we have transportation, communication, agriculture, and the major industrial units. Among the Service Sequences are education, and health.
In the Technate, supervisory personnel would ascend through their respective Functional Sequences on the basis of demonstrated competence, reaching whatever plateaus of accomplishment their abilities allowed.
The most competent would become Sequence Directors, and would represent their Sequences on the Continental Control. There, they would coordinate the work of all Sequences to achieve maximum efficiency. Their chairperson would be the Continental Director, elected by them to that position, because there would be no one higher than the Director to appoint that person to the role.
These leaders would hold office, either until retirement at age 45, or until replaced by someone else from within their Sequences, for sufficient reason. People could be replaced, perhaps, for incompetence, or illness, or because they wished to retire from this position.
The Continental Director, elected by a two-thirds majority vote of the Continental Control, would serve in that capacity until retirement, unless earlier removed by the Board through a similar vote.
"Some day we make the good things of life for everybody." -- Charles P. Steinmetz.
What would become of political government under Technocracy?
It would cease to exist, having no vital relationship to the fundamental processes of modern society; namely, the industrial mechanism, and the rendering of necessary services.
Political government, however well-intentioned, is not competent to administer the complexities of modern technology to best social advantage; and moreover, its main reason for being is more to perpetuate the interests of its financial (business) supporters than to serve the needs of society as a whole. In other words, political government is a tool for the maintenance of the Price System (monetary system), and has no place in the functional governance of a predominantly technological society.
Will Technocracy take political party action? Never!
If a majority of people can see that in order for their survival it is mandatory there be a definite change to a new order, we suggest that they demand it. This could be accomplished by giving approval for a national, or even continental, referendum for the installation of a Technate -- the Technocracy Technological Social System that has been thoroughly researched, and that current events have proven, is still correct.
What does Technocracy propose to substitute for money?
An Energy Accounting System. Technocracy proposes to replace money, as a medium of exchange, with the Energy card -- a non-fluctuating medium of distribution.
Everything that is produced takes energy. It is an easy matter to determine how much energy it takes to produce each product. This is its true cost, and it would be expressed in a scientific term of physical measurement as units of energy.
Money relationships are all based upon `value', which, in turn, is a function of scarcity. You know: if it's scarce, the price goes up. Hence, money is not a `measure' of anything. Also, money is negotiable -- it can be traded, stolen, given or gambled away. Thirdly, money can be saved. Fourthly, money circulates and is not destroyed or cancelled out on being spent. It's absolutely not dependable.
The energy medium would eliminate these drawbacks and institute a balanced system of production and distribution in an economy of abundance.
Technocracy would use only ENERGY ACCOUNTING, which would provide a continuous inventory of goods and services, so it would be known when products needed to be replaced. It would give the widest latitude of choice in consuming for everyone's individual share of the Continental physical wealth.
After all, the purpose of a medium of distribution is to distribute. This is all part of the Technocracy Technological Social Design: to create a balance between production and distribution. Production should not be more than the amount it distributes. Production should be geared to the amount needed to distribute. Using this method would do away with waste of vital natural resources. The Price System method, of course, has wasted and pillaged our resources all across the Continent, so that it is now not known how much we have left to care for the constant growth of our population.
Technocracy proposes to substitute for the Price System:
First, a carefully planned production adjusted so as to maintain as high a physical standard of living for the people of North America, taking into account any limitation of non-replaceable natural resources. Many of our resources have been wasted since this plan was first devised, so every measure will be taken to conserve what we have left.
Secondly, it proposes a carefully planned distribution, based upon the total amount of energy consumed in production.
This plan for producing goods of optimal quality would give to each individual a substantial income.
This would provide a balance between production and distribution so that there would be no more waste.
Believe it or not, this is one of the most-asked questions we get.
The one asked the most is: What would you do with the people who wouldn't work? But, that's another question -- we'll answer that later.
This is a good question: Who would take out the garbage? And who would do the jobs no one wants to do? These questions came up one time at a lecture given by one of our speakers, Ron Miller, of Portland, speaking to a college class. Before he could answer the question, one of the students, obviously a logical thinker, answered for him. She said, "If it was a job nobody wanted to do, everybody would have to take their turn."
Mr. Miller explained that "there will be problems in a society like this, but there will be solutions for us."
Of course, there will. First of all, in our households, now, each of us usually has some little chores which must be done, sometimes shared by family members, as they have done for years. Each year, though, as new refined technology is advanced, many mundane and distasteful jobs will no longer exist. It will just be a matter of pushing the right button -- for instance, to see all the garbage disappear.
And those jobs nobody wants to do, maybe somebody would love to do them. Perhaps with the new tools available, those dirty jobs wouldn't be too difficult. Here are a few examples: Some people like to work outdoors and like mowing lawns and doing gardening. Or, another example, without the cost to worry about, snow removal in colder areas of the Continent would be done very quickly with fleets of machines -- that's "fleets" -- run by operators working in nice warm cabs.
Electrical and telephone lines would be all underground (as they should be now) which would not entail workers to be in the freezing cold trying to repair snapped lines. (As Canada witnessed what these brave workers had to suffer with this winter's ice storms in Quebec and Ontario, which left over one million of its citizens without heat, water and lights for many weeks.)
Many new inventions would be there for those jobs no one likes to do, and many of those new gadgets are there right now, if we could afford them.
In a Technate, every able person would have to contribute four hours a day, four days a week, for which they would be trained and competent to do. In a Technate, schooling and training and being exposed to types of jobs all over the Continent, would enable workers to pick out a job for which they would be most suited, and would expose whether they would have the ability for it. There would be no job market -- only functions -- and you would not be doing a job because you had to in order to make a living.
At the time Technocracy's Technological Social Design was proposed, it was stated that every individual's annual operating schedule would be 41 work periods, 4 days on, 3 days off -- 287 days (165 of which are work days) plus 78 consecutive days of vacation. The first clean-up stage might entail more hours; but, as time went on, adjustments would be made as more technology released more workers.
What is a Price System?
Any social system whatsoever that effects its distribution of goods and services by means of a system of trade or commerce based on commodity valuation and employing any form of debt tokens, or money, constitutes a Price System.
What would you do with the people who don't want to work?
And here is the most-asked question we get.
This surely seems to bother a lot of people. Many seem to begrudge those who are getting welfare. They accuse them, without any evidence, of not wanting to work.
People do not ordinarily refuse performing work they like doing, and for the performance of which they have received specialized training; unless, as so often happens in the Price System, artificial obstructions have been introduced. As these would be totally absent in a Technate, any refusal to perform functional service would initially be treated as a medical problem. There would be a discussion about it to find out if there was any logical reason for this refusal to do their share to help their fellow-beings. If a medical examination uncovered either a physical or mental reason for non-participation, the subjects would be excused from function for as long as necessary, without any loss of consuming power.
On the other hand, if no medical reason for non-participation in performing some needed tasks were discovered, and these individuals still did not understand why everyone should do their part to help society, they would become the objects of rather severe social disapprobation from their fellow citizens, until such time as they decided to cease being public parasites. Actually, it is not expected that enough such instances will occur to be of any social significance.
In a Technate, there would be a great change in attitude when people did not have to worry about their survival, or being stuck in jobs leading nowhere.
How "secure" would we be in a Technate? Secure from what?
The social implications of Technocracy would be many. Take, for instance, the attainment of leisure. For the first time in history, man would be released from drudgery, and his creative energies set free.
Technocracy would abolish all litigation, as at present understood in the meaning of that term in our existing legal system. It would be impossible in a Technate to sue for breach of promise, alimony, breach of contract, damages, or to probate a will.
As practically all crime in the Price System results from the attempts of individuals to acquire the property of others, illegally, to alleviate their own insecurity, crime would practically cease to exist in a Technocratic society. Technocracy defines a criminal to be a human being with predatory instincts, living under a Price System, without sufficient capital to start a corporation.
(Crimes where death results would, of course, be treated in a different manner. Even these criminal acts are largely as a result of Price System negligence, and if proper steps were taken before these people reached this stage, these types of crime would also be non- existent in a Technate.)
In a Technate, human beings would be treated, for the first time in social history, not as willful entities, subject to legalistic prohibitions, restraints and penalisations, but as energy-consuming devices whose capacities as producers and consumers necessitate the development of the highest state of both capacities in order that human beings may be conditioned to living in a world of plenty where one person's advantage over another person will no longer be socially profitable.
All worthy social projects are implied in the one big objective of Technocracy, which is to give to every human being adequate security.
What would happen in a Technate to all the charitable organizations which help the poor?
What charitable organizations? What poor? In a Technate there would be no charitable organizations; nor poor, if you are thinking in the context of doling out money to them.
There would be people who are poor in health. The organization that would help them would be in the Health Sequence.
In a Technocracy Digest, 2nd quarter 1992, we printed an article by Dr. Thomas E. Carver, entitled CHARITY. Here are a few excerpts from that article -- written in 1934.
"It is said that "Charity Begins At Home", and like many other old saws founded in the "dark ages" and perfectly fitting and appropriate a few hundred years ago, it should now be relegated to the age that begat them, and forgotten.
Like the Production Age in which we are living today, and which is universal in its application, charity to be Charity, must be universal and not local.
The danger of localising Charity and the founding of an organization for distribution purposes, is very much like setting up machinery to irritate a condition to make it incurable, so that the machinery set up for this specific purpose shall continue to be used for that purpose and for that purpose only.
It must be admitted that Charity, by becoming organized, has dissipated the purity of its original intentions in that they have become lost in the organization. As the most casual observer will inform us, the retention of this branch of social service, also founded during the dark ages, instead of curing a disease, is actually making it an incurable condition, for which they are largely responsible, and actually foster.
In an era of rapid communication between districts, countries, and continents, and in an era of magnificent abundance of all conceivable things necessary for the happiness of humans, we have such a scarcity that a great danger is existent of many people dying of actual privations and want.
To maintain a relic necessary during the dark ages is not a sign of Social Progress; and it is more significant even than that, in that, again, here is shown that only scientific efforts have progressed, but Social Progress, if reflected in our charitable institutions, is lamentably lagging behind, and has not made an inch of progress.
It also indicates that where Science takes control, progress eventually follows. Charitable organizations which exist only for the distribution of funds donated for that purpose, cannot be scientific, nor are they operating under any specific natural law, but seem to exist for two things: first, as an outlet for the emotions of those who wish to glorify themselves to themselves or to others; second, to maintain a condition necessary to the continuity of these emotions, which necessitates organization.
What is the sense of distributing charity if the thing that causes the necessity is not removed?"
This article was first written in 1934. For over one hundred years we have been supporting "alms for the poor", obviously to no avail, because, as Dr. Carver says, the need for charity just keeps growing. A "guilt trip" is laid on us to support charities, not only at home, but to send alms to foreign countries, although we have even been informed that many times these monies and goods fall into the hands of their wealthy scoundrels.
Technocracy recognizes the many kind and generous people who give of themselves to help others in need. However, we would advise them to use their generosity to join in a Technocratic movement that would erase the problems that have sprung up in the first place, due to the ruthless mismanagement brought on by the political and financial system. The many problems people face, caused by famine or weather conditions or economic circumstances, will never be solved unless the basic reasons for them are resolved.
In a Technate, of course, the thing that causes the necessity for charity -- the Price System (the money system) -- would be removed totally.
Since there would be no money involved, hospitals would be built with sections catering especially to the aged, to the infirm, and to the mentally impaired people. Right now, most of these groups lead a very precarious existence. Many of the elderly are threatened by cuts to their already below-poverty pensions, and cuts to their health care. Even in Canada they must pay a token amount for any prescribed medicines, but a "token", to many of them, presents a real hardship. In the U.S., their health care is almost non-existent, unless they have some sort of medical insurance.
Making up the "street people" in the slums of every city across Canada and the United States, are many of these same people, needing special medical care, or just good lodgings and food. The well-to-do people now live in cozy apartments where they can afford to have care-givers to do their housework, their shopping, drive them to medical appointments, or to entertainment. No reason why all the now poverty- stricken people couldn't live in the same style. Without a money- system, they could receive the best medical care and comfortable lodgings so that their lives would not be in the misery they are now - - in this Price System.
The basic reasons always filter down to one: the Price System. We are capable of solving most physical and economic problems if there was no money involved. It is as simple as that!
Crime is on the increase. People are demanding that police be more efficient, that the law courts give stronger sentences, and that the death penalty be reinstated. The police say their forces are cut back and they can't be everywhere, and when they do catch a criminal, the high-priced lawyers get them off with a slap on the wrist. How could crime be solved in a Technate?
You have to remember that crime is a major component of a monetary exchange system. Crime is a very lucrative business for a lot of people, and not just for the so-called "criminals." In fact, one wonders why many more so-called "legal" practices should not be categorized as crimes. How about this one? In the United States, the government pays many private prisons to house inmates, making it "America's newest growth industry," as one newspaper commented. Also, the article stated, there is no assurance that it saves the country money, or that inmates will be treated adequately, or that they will not have their sentences lengthened so the money would continue to roll in.
Poverty propels many young people into crime. They are well equipped in the skills of violence to get what they want. Their schooling and home life had not explained to them that most of the violent programs they see on television are just make-believe. Many parents also don't enforce the "off" switch. Even when behaviour experts point out that many senseless violent and murderous acts are the result of acceptance of this type of behaviour, no company producing these TV programs would stop showing them when it meant losing the millions of dollars they are making. And no laws are enacted to make them stop.
Approximately 98 percent of crime stems from economic causes. The rest is probably of a medical nature. In a Technate both would be remedied when money would be taken out of the social system.
Narcotics, for instance. A recent newspaper article was headlined: "New Focus On Addicts Needed In Battle Against Heroin."
"Heroin addiction is a cancerous growth that affects every major city in the world. Fueled by the insatiable demand of its users, organized crime flourishes because of the vast profits in supplying the product to these users."
If a drug dealer wasn't getting those huge amounts of money for his drugs, do you think he would be doling them out, free? The selling of drugs would disappear, and the crime caused by the need for drugs would cease, plus that "need" could be overcome through medical treatment.
The health of children would also be a prime consideration. Some children have mental problems which can begin at a very early age, can continue on into adulthood, and cause some young people in this category to do criminal acts, especially when they are put out on the streets, making up a lot of the "street" population. Doctors and teachers and parents can recognize the symptoms at an early age, but very little medical care is administered. For some of them, their mental instability could be resulting from cruelty at home, or from disease, or from being exposed to viewing violence, or from an inherited mental disability; or poverty, one of the biggest disturbances for the healthy stability of children, where there is a lack of good food, or lack of food of any kind. In a Technate, all children would be given full medical comfort and care.
The many women who now suffer the indignities of prostitution would now not have to depend upon anyone for their living, and help would be given to them to overcome any health or drug problems.
With no money controlling our social system, a crime syndicate would have nothing to syndicate. There would be no crime to organize.
Also, because of a brighter future offered to young people in a Technate, their attitudes would change. They would be stimulated to learn things that really motivated them -- things that had previously been out of their reach because they couldn't possibly afford them, or were not encouraged to do so.
In a Technate, imagine! NO CRIME! Because the cause of most crime would automatically be eliminated by the design of the Technate!
It may reasonably be expected that the proportion of crime stemming from economic causes would disappear along with the elimination of the cause. The great reduction in crime would be matched by a corresponding reduction in the number of police, lawyers, judges, and prisons. There would no longer be any expensive law courts or proceedings, although there would have to be some sort of judiciary to settle minor disputes and crimes not related to economic causes.
Most of our troubles, today, seem to come from big business. Many of the things they do are outside the law and yet they get away with it. Shouldn't they be charged for WHITE COLLAR CRIME?
As we have been trying to tell people for years: Take MONEY out of the social system, and you pull the rug out from under the financial system.
If there was no control by money, and a scientific viewpoint taken before any technological actions were taken on the environment, safety, education, health care, those sorts of things, neither big business nor anyone else would be able to jeopardize our welfare by thoughtlessly using any dangerous methods or actions.
As long as people think this present society is the only way of doing things, then they can expect that worse is to come in the race for money. The rights given to North American corporations with APEC and MAI agreements point in that direction.
In your literature, you state that we would not survive if violence damaged our technology. Do you think people would deliberately destroy our technology? Do you think we wouldn't survive if things were damaged?
Yes to both questions.
We had a small sample, this winter, of technology being damaged and the chaos caused just by Nature. An ice storm knocked out the electrical system in Eastern Canada, the worst part being in Montreal, a city where one million people were suffering without heat, light, and water for days, the downtown core was closed down, and it was weeks before full utilities could be restored.
And violence? It only takes a hockey game with the wrong outcome for fans to become enraged enough to storm the streets, breaking everything in sight. People have been injured in these fracases. All this when the young people are having fun.
Just think what will happen when the Price System collapses. The panic that would ensue would cause people to grasp whatever they could to save themselves. Troops would be called in to try to quell people from helping themselves, and this would add to the violence. In retaliation, some people, in their fury, would be smashing valuable technology without thinking of the consequences. This has all been done before, but on a smaller scale, where it has just interrupted equipment in some small communities.
Electrical plants, water plants, telephone plants, could be closed down abruptly by the directors of the companies, because of lack of money to keep them going. These mindless acts could happen because of the mind-set that we must have MONEY to keep this technology going.
Unless people change that mind-set about money, and install the type of social design that Technocracy has suggested, then there is not going to be anyone there to keep all this technology going.
Using Technocracy's Technological Social Design, there would be installed sequences with competent technical people who would immediately determine what is to be done in case of any interruption. Barring earthquakes, there probably would be no interruptions at all. For instance, in the case of power lines, they would have all been put underground in conduits. The present Price System farce is that, in some districts, the telephone company puts its lines underground, and the power lines could have been installed there, at the same time; but, of course, Price System-wise, that is another company.
The present incompetent social system that is in place today would be incapable of preventing chaos. They could only add to it.
How will education be handled in a Technate?
First of all, we'll give you a glimpse of any promise of education for the poor children. In Maclean's, one of Canada's national weekly magazines, one of their editors, Victor Dwyer, has suddenly discovered "The Roots of Failure. Two new studies link poverty and illiteracy." Now, where has this editor been all these years?
"They are both, broadly speaking, report cards on the state of public education," he writes.
He mentions two surveys, one by Statistics Canada, and the other by Economic Cooperation and Development, which two have also just discovered this surprising link. So, it's an international study of why kids fail at school.
He writes: "And both draw remarkably similar conclusions. Among them: children from poor families have much higher illiteracy and failure rates than their middle-class peers; parents play a critical role in producing literate children; and governments, communities and teachers need to take a stronger hand in promoting the goals of public education," the surveyors conclude.
Of course, children from poor families have trouble getting a good education. Pretty hard to concentrate on your studies when you're hungry. Some schools try to provide some kind of meals for these children, but it's a hit and miss proposition. Some school boards have dropped the meal programs in order to cut costs. This program doesn't have much priority in their minds. Many teachers provide food out of their own pockets; but, there again, this is not adequate or dependable.
One of the conclusions, mentioned above, is that parents should play a critical role in producing literate children. This is also not necessarily adequate. For one thing, many of these parents are having to work at two or three jobs just to keep a roof over their heads, so they can't spare the time. And possibly, they also do not have any of the skills needed to help in the children's studies.
And another of the conclusions: "Communities need to take a stronger hand in promoting the goals of public education."
Now we're in the political domain. Every political government has countered that they must slash schooling costs. Schools in poorer and middle-class neighborhoods feel these cuts the most. If nothing else, their extra-curricular activities, like music, art, excursions to museums etc. are curtailed. If the parents are prosperous, their children will receive a well-rounded education because they can afford to pay for it.
In poorer schools, their extra-curricular activities may include hoodlumism, bullying, and fear for their lives, because these schools no longer provide enough play-ground safety in the way of more supervisory help by auxiliary staff.
What is the underlying cause of poor education? It's economic, isn't it?
Technocracy's plan for education was this (after removing the present political and monetary obstructions):
With these out of the way, the only barrier in any student's path would be his or her own ability to proceed to higher levels of academic attainment, or to further their interests in any subject they wished.
While earlier stages of education would, undoubtedly, benefit from an input of new teaching techniques and equipment, it would be at the more advanced levels that students would experience the principal advantages of the Technate's approach to education. Expert counseling advice would be constantly available, and as soon as students showed special aptitudes toward particular careers -- medical, engineering, or otherwise -- they would be encouraged, henceforth, to specialize their studies in those directions. Then, in the latter stages of their educational periods, they would receive direct on-the-job training from qualified instructors at the very location where they would commence their functional service.
During their studies, one attractive idea that Technocracy presented, was that students could travel throughout the Continent, on freighters plying the waterways of the Continent, which, besides carrying cargoes, could also provide quarters for schools so that education could be done right on these water trains.
This is certainly not a far-fetched idea. An example of this (certainly on a minor scale than what Technocracy suggests) was started this year, here in the Fraser Valley. Classes are held on the West Coast Express commuter train, which runs from Mission into Vancouver, allowing commuters to learn subjects they needed or in which they were interested, for the hour they are on the tracks.
Another example, for those who could afford it, was that whole classes of students have been, and, perhaps still are, taken on ships to different parts of the world to study the geography, arts, and music, etc., of each country they were visiting.
The Technocracy version projected that, during their travels, students would see how industries operated, and how arts were performed, etc., which would help them choose their future vocation. This would teach them how to put back into the social system the functional arts they had learned. This practical knowledge would enable them to use their skills efficiently for whatever they had trained.
What would Technocracy do to clean up the environment?
We've been doing our best, for over 60 years, to get people to help us; but, talk about apathy! Only a few listened to our idea for caring for the environment. If they had, there would be nothing to clean up.
"Shopping malls and subdivisions continue to roll, east, up the Fraser Valley" (from Vancouver, British Columbia) wrote Russ Akins, in a recent Abbotsford News article. "But is rampant population growth, and the pollution that comes with it, paving a freeway toward environmental disaster?" Ask Dr. Michael Healey, principal investigator of the Fraser River Basin Ecosystem Study, and you'll get this reply: "In many ways, present human activity in the lower Fraser Basin is not sustainable. Basically, clean air in the Valley is a thing of the past."
Further, Akins writes: "That air pollution, along with nitrate contamination of the Abbotsford Aquifer, should be wake-up calls to local residents."
We don't know what it takes to wake up these Valley folks, as they have been seeing yellowing clouds of air wafting down through the Fraser Valley for years. A few complain, but with a "guess that's the way it is" attitude.
Professor Healey challenged the Fraser Valley University audience to start fighting to save the environment. "If we do not change the ways in which we manage population, land, and resources, consumption and waste management in the Lower Mainland -- the rapidly growing urban environment will overwhelm the region's natural resource base."
We hope this Professor `got through' to this audience. Many scientists have been sounding alarms for years; but few people have listened. The degradation of our environment surely should be visible to everyone, by this time. But it obviously isn't, because we still hear the wails of the financiers, quoted from the same newspaper today: "The Clean Air Act will destroy our economy!" 'The Clean Water Act will destroy our economy!" "Auto Emissions Controls will destroy our economy." "Acid Rain Limits will destroy our economy!" "The Wilderness Act will destroy our economy!" "The Global Warming Treaty will destroy our Economy." The most frightful part of the above comments is that those industries have convinced most of their workers into believing that any environmental clean-up will affect their economy, too, by doing away with their jobs; so they, also, join in the same wailing chorus.
But Professor Healey told his audience: "It's not business as usual in terms of the ecology -- we simply can't afford to make bad decisions any more. We can't carry on as we have in the past," he said.
It was well said. But, the professor's suggestions to remedy this, was for people to become more involved; and remind their council members of their responsibility to base their decisions on sustainability principles. Final Report: Prospect for Sustainability makes 44 recommendations to federal, provincial and local governments.
The only trouble with those recommendations is that no political or monetary action can ever put 44 recommendations into effect, or 10, or even one. The three government agencies, each with its different political party agendas, would be tumbling all over each other, scrambling to please their voters, holding their party lines, scrimping on the money they would have to dole out (which wouldn't make a dent in even a dump site), and just getting in the way, delaying any functional solution.
Furthermore, consider the amount of money it will take to clean up the environment even in this small area, the Fraser Valley (which area we are using here as an example. But you know this is happening in every part of this Continent.)
First of all, just to get clean air, since most of the poisonous stuff billowing down the Valley comes from the Vancouver region, that region would have to clean up its act first, just to preserve this Valley region.
Next, we would have to get automobiles off the road, the main cause of nitrate contamination of the Abbotsford Aquifer. Since the Valley is the bedroom of Vancouver, traffic now, all day long, is bumper to bumper for 40 miles, going to and from work. Imagine the cost of installing mass transportation! But this is certainly what should have been done even 60 years ago. It still would make a difference if it was done now -- which it could be.
We have used this small area in the Fraser Valley to describe what pollution is doing to our part of the world, but there isn't a part of this Continent that isn't having the same troubles, caused by pollution.
Of course, you can't just clean up one small area of the country without considering the whole Continental structure, as each place is dependent upon the other. We couldn't clean the water in the Valley when smog and garbage are spewed into the air or dumped in the rivers and streams farther up-stream than the Valley.
Even one province cannot clean its streams when the source is in another province, unless that province does the same thing. And, still, there are contaminants coming through the air from the next country and even from countries far away.
However, even while trying to do something about the environment, continentally, there is no way of cleaning up the air, the soil, and the water by pouring in billions and billions of dollars. For one thing, there just isn't that amount of money in the world to begin paying for all this cleaning.
No amount of money is going to make this Continent livable.
A new system has to be found. It should be obvious that Technocracy is that system. There is the technology in place to clean up this Continent. There is the expertise to do it. And the will to do it. We cannot use this excuse any more: lack of money. Money is unable to clean up the environment.
So the answer to that problem is that you can't depend on the present political and monetary system to do it, because they can't. Even if they had the best intentions in the world (although they have never shown this side of themselves to us, yet) it is an impossibility because there isn't enough money in the world to pay for such a clean- up, using the present political and monetary system. Which means that soon we will not be able to survive in the environment we are presently building up.
Technocracy can't do anything more than it has for the environment -- we've tried to inform the public what they must do. And what the public must do is demand a new social system; nothing else will suffice.
At this stage, a new social system could still do a lot; but even we don't know just how much damage has been done, and whether it can all be repaired. However, there are so many known ways now to get toxins out of the air, that a new approach would make a tremendous difference almost immediately.
But you, the public, have to initiate the installation of a new social system. Don't wait too long!
How long will fuels, like oil and gas, last?
Fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, were made by earth processes which occurred millions of years ago. They lay unused by humans for perhaps as much as a billion years. Now, in only 200 years, humans have increased the use of, and dependence on, these fuels to such an extent that oil is now used by the cubic mile, some 60 million barrels per day. Coal is used by the millions of tons, and gas by the trillions of cubic feet per day. At the above rate of consumption, how long will these fuels last?
Any sudden halt to the use of these fuels would result in the greatest state of chaos ever known by the human species. People would have about as much chance of surviving a sudden stoppage as they would of surviving a collision of Mars with earth, or a complete blackout of the sun.
The U.S. now imports about one-half of the oil it consumes. As the oil supply diminishes, the use of coal and gas will be increased, in an attempt to prolong the use of all the energy-consuming devices now in operation. As coal and gas production declines, other substitutes will be desperately needed. How long will the "change-over" require? Is it possible to substitute solar, wind, and thermal energy in the quantities required to support SIX billion world population?
The fossil fuel age has lasted 200 years, to date, and at the present rate of consumption it is highly improbable that it can last another century.
Our present "modern" civilization is built of non-replaceable natural resources, not only the energy fuels, but also iron, lead, tin, zinc, aluminum, and other important minerals. Glass and ceramics, wood, straw, brick, masonry, made from re-occurring resources can, no doubt, be substituted in many cases.
To date, very few plans to overcome these problems have been made. The job will not be easy, if it can be done at all. Scientists now think it is possible that the earth can support only about one-half the present population, at best.
The growth in population would have to be curbed -- that is a problem that would have to be solved, no matter if the idea is painful to some people. If measures are not taken to do this, Nature will do it in a most `painful' and cruel manner.
In a Technate, scientists would be given free rein to try to discover and manufacture other materials that did not require the use of our limited natural resources. By building things of optimum quality so that they would last indefinitely would be another way of saving materials.
With the money system out of the way, all kinds of exploration can take place, and even good ideas that have been buried because of fear of competition, could now be put in place and enlarged upon. Electric cars comes to mind; this sort of thing.
What is Technocracy's attitude toward immigration?
Under the rules of the Price System game, an ever-increasing population is demanded by those who have special interests and their own private axes to grind. For instance, in 1991, a million-dollar report says 100 million people are needed for Canada to operate at peak economic efficiency. This was sponsored by The Economic Council of Canada (a vested interest?) says increasing the country's population nearly four times to 100 million people would create economies of scale and domestic markets that would boost productivity. Canada's population is gradually increasing as more people have been allowed in; but, to date, 1998, the people already here have not benefited. Unemployment is up, personal bankruptcies up, and the country is being plundered in the name of productivity while our natural resources are being sent out of the country.
Millions of dollars in Canada have been spent on a social scheme that the government calls "Multiculturism." They want the people from other countries to be accepted, as there has been resentment from established Canadians that there are not enough jobs to go around. Of course, they are all missing the point. This is not a racial problem: it's an over-population problem.
But from the point of view of social well-being, it is obvious that if the population is not stabilized it will expand until finally checked by lack of the means of sustenance. This would mean a cruel fate for millions of people.
Here, in North America, we face many crises, many of them being brought on by the immigration of more people. Water, in many areas, is both in short supply, and polluted. Soil is polluted and suffering from erosion. Our infrastructure is in serious disrepair; educational facilities are inadequate; access to health care is strained to the breaking point. There is so much poverty; there is poor or non- existent housing, and there are severely malnourished children. All of these are a further indication of the present system's politicians to adequately care for the population we now have, much less more, which they are advocating.
Our population must be stabilized; our environment must be cleaned up; our resources must be conserved, and we must do whatever is necessary to preserve this planet for the benefit of all the species still left on this earth we call home.
To do this, we must apply our technological expertise for the benefit of humankind -- not to their detriment. This can be done if we introduce functional government, as outlined in Technocracy's design set out for this purpose.
Here in North America we have the resources, know-how, and trained personnel to show the world how this concept can be applied. We then can lead by example, and show the rest of the world how to make the best use of the resources of the world, not only to save this planet but also to build a worthwhile and secure future for all that live on it. By improving the status of their own countries, there would be no need for people to immigrate; to leave their homes for a foreign country.
If you are concerned, as you should be, about our chances of survival, then investigate Technocracy.
Science may challenge cherished beliefs, but one thing you must say is that it delivers the goods. -- Carl Sagan
What would Technocracy do about Labour Unions?
There would be no need of Labour Unions. Since there would be no money being paid out for salaries, there would be no use for bargaining for better wages. There could probably be some kind of grievance committees within each industry to bring major or minor disputes before some judicial persons knowledgeable about the handling of such controversies, without a raucous discord disrupting the work of other employees or other public services.
Some people say: "The poor will always be with us." Yet, according to Technocracy, there won't be any poor in a Technate.
By the word "poor", we mean people who are in a state of poverty, where they suffer from lack of food and lodging and are deprived of a comfortable life.
There will not be any people in poverty in a Technate. How could there be? Once we were rid of the Price System? People would be able to live in decent dwellings; they would be able to have good food; good clothing.
Some people say to us that these poor would squander all these things; that they would be grabbing everything they could lay their hands on. No, they wouldn't. As soon as they realized that these essentials were available to them at any time they wanted, they would settle down to enjoy their existence, and explore all the other things open to them that had heretofore been beyond their reach.
Wouldn't you, if you were in their place?
And, it wouldn't just be the destitute people who would benefit from a Technate social system. In our present Price System life, when you think about it, we are all poor in one way or another. Without the interference of money, this old world would be a nicer place to live. The environment would be cleaner; there would be no crime; there would be more opportunities for everyone to delve into pastimes they would like to do, instead of the rush-rush-rush just to make a living.
One of your magazines stated that probably there never would have been World War II, or any other wars since then. Can you explain that?
Technocracy offered its Technological Social Design to the people of this Continent in 1932. If the program had been put in place at that time, and the political and Price System disarmed, then the citizens here would have been living full and satisfying lives. They would all have flourished both in prosperity and well-being. They would have been an example for the world to follow.
Instead of that, the people in Europe, still in the throes of a depression after the disastrous World War I, were enticed into planning a planned World War II, and the people of this Continent, also deprived in our depression, were conned into participating in it.
A Technate certainly would have been a model for European nations, and if the citizens of this Continent had not been misled into denying this new social system in 1932, and if we could have shown other countries how to prosper without money, there doubtless would not have been that war, nor all these other killing atrocities, since.
Considering the deteriorating trend of current events and the still widespread public apathy, are not Technocracy's present efforts an exercise in futility?
They well could be; but, if so, where do we go from here? No one has yet come up with a factual refutation of Technocracy's social analysis, which states that the impact of technologically-produced abundance is steadily breaking down the scarcity-conceived structure of the North American Price System, and it will eventually become completely inoperable. To our knowledge, no one has yet come up with an alternative program to Technocracy's social program to succeed the Price System's demise.
Technocracy's social program is the natural synthesis of the application of the scientific method to a particular social problem -- that of determining how to keep the physical equipment of North America operating when the Price System control ceased to operate. This was the prime consideration; for, roughly 90 percent of North Americans are completely dependent upon the continuous operation of their technological equipment for their very survival. Without the uninterrupted operation of that equipment, we not only would not have abundance; we would not have our lives.
We had a sample this winter, in Quebec and Ontario, of what can happen when there is an interruption in the continuous operation of technological equipment as Nature interrupted with ice storms so that one million people in Montreal, alone, were without heat, light, and water for days.
Whether Technocracy's continued efforts are an exercise in futility still remains to be seen; but if they are, it will be because most North Americans were not sufficiently interested in their future to investigate the only social program which could have saved them from oblivion.
But we are not discouraged. If we were, we wouldn't be here. The apathy in general is tolerated; people go along with it and go about their lives on a day-to-day basis. They think that some politicians will look after them, even though they are going to make a bigger mess than when they first started. We all realize, in our minds, that things are getting worse; things are not getting any better. In the last 40 years, our lifestyle has deteriorated. Our environment has deteriorated -- everything that we depend upon as a species. Our lifestyle is deteriorating at a rapid rate. But people do nothing about it. At least, Technocrats, if this whole society comes down around our ears, can stand and say "We tried."
Technocracy is an educational research organization. It is not here for any other purpose than to attempt to inform the people of North America of the nature of the problems which now confront us, and what can be done to alleviate these problems to bring about a society more in keeping with the age in which we live. Technocracy is not responsible for the problems we have, today. Technocracy can do little or nothing about them, except talk to people to try to make them understand what is happening. And these people will have to join together to demand that the changes suggested by Technocracy be instituted.
If Technocracy disappeared tomorrow, the problems that we talk about will still exist, and they will still continue to degrade our society. Nothing will change until people think in terms of function, and not in terms of `the bottom line' -- money.
We can only hope that we reach enough people so that when social dislocation becomes serious enough so that the majority of people realize that we are not going to get through it; that we are not going to survive it; that at some time they will remember they went to a Technocracy lecture, or read some Technocracy literature, and the light will come on, and they will realize that maybe what these Technocrats had to say was worth listening to; that it will give them a glimmer of hope that all is not hopeless; and that a new social system must be installed.
Our hope is that when social dislocation occurs, violence will not occur to damage the technology and equipment which is keeping us alive. Because, if that happens, and the technology of today becomes incapacitated and destroyed, then we have no hope of survival.
We can only hope people realize that when the monetary system collapses all that is lost is only money. All the other functions can continue -- your communication systems; your transportation systems; your health sequence, and education, etc. They do not rely on money. They only rely on the highly trained technological personnel who understand that particular sequence and can keep it operating.
Only if we realize that the essential thing in North America, and other parts of the world, is to keep all the modern technology operating for the benefit of everybody, will we have any hope of survival. If we resort to violence and chaos, then it's game over.
So, let's think about what keeps us alive. Let's think about what can improve our living standards today, and let's be prepared for what lies ahead.
When you see these headlines in your newspapers or magazines, don't they make you wonder what is wrong with our social system? Don't you go on to read the whole article? These are all recent headlines. Seems like we didn't make too much progress in 1997.
1. We are all on welfare; everyone gets welfare for a significant part of their lives, and we're all on welfare right now. When they say they're cutting welfare back, don't worry. Nobody is suggesting we cut back on your welfare. It's only that welfare that provides shelter and food that's to be cut back.
2. Dose of reality big chill for young seeking work. The number of Canadians with jobs dropped, and tens of thousands of discouraged young people fled the labor force.
3. Earth not able to support standard of living desired.
4. Money is mightier than the sword. CEOs will be the warlords of the 21st century.
5. More than a bandage is needed to cure these ills....We must start by changing the way we view how we live together. The solution lies in knowing that it takes a thousand people living in poverty to make one rich person.
6. Being poor means being less healthy.
7. Limit the number of mouths to feed, Worldwatch tells UN forum.
8. San Francisco considers permanent campground for poor living in cars.
9. Progress sought on child-poverty plans.
10. U.S. rich get richer and poor poorer as middle a bit better off, data shows. In Canada, family incomes remain well below the levels of the late 1980s, due to small pay hikes and higher taxes.
11. Care of the elderly borders on catastrophic.
12. Newest medicare figures aid doctors' privatization drive.
13. Wanted: Jobs. Unemployment is top issue, yet no party has an answer.
14. Despair as bad as cigarettes in triggering ills, study says.
15. 1 in 5 workers does overtime, figures show.
16. UN says poor food kills 6 million children a year. Even in the U.S., children are living in "horrible" conditions...
17. 29 Mayors (in U.S.) see hunger as growing problem.
18. APEC, Vancouver's biggest-ever international gathering, to cost more than $64 million, with direct spending benefits estimated at $23 million.
19. Over 90 per cent of the transactions of the world economy now are speculative and abstract -- currency trades, derivatives and the like. Over 50 percent of all world trade is made up of internal transfers within big transnational corporations.
20. Oh Canada! Land of Equal Opportunity?! One of the big Canadian myths is that, unlike other Third World countries, the difference in wealth between the rich and the poor is minimal. The truth is that the wealthiest 20 percent of the population enjoy a massive 68 percent of the national wealth. The top 10 percent own more than half of the country's wealth. The bottom 20 percent own less than 1 percent.
Commentary:
These are just a few of the disturbing headlines which appeared in local and national papers in 1997. We haven't even touched the ones about the declining environment, the endangered species, and the present political and monetary schemes that are dangerous to our health. Very, very frightening! Especially after you read books like, When Corporations Rule the World -- The ABCs of Finance Capitalism, by David Korten -- an indication of what is to come.
None of it should have happened, nor needs to happen. Perhaps people will awake in '98! Demand a Technate in '98!