Clouds on the Silver Lining

George Wright

1997

Published in:

The Northwest Technocrat, 1st quarter 1997, No. 346

Here in the Pacific Northwest, local news of late has been reporting on how well some industries in our area are faring. The Boeing Company has just logged it's best year for commercial aircraft orders. Many other industries, some related, also have been producing record levels of profits. It would seem that Seattle's future looks very bright. For some of us that have survived the recent downsizing and lay-offs, that may be quite true. The Boeing Company, because of its success, will be rehiring some of the people who were earlier discharged.

We, in this area, must feel relieved that our main employer has done so well. But what of the people who used to work for the Lockheed Aircraft Company? And, Martin Marietta and General Dynamics had been large players in the industry as well. And now MacDonald Douglas; we don't hear much about them anymore. Except for Boeing and Airbus, the European Consortium and all the others have mostly been relegated to minor support roles employing fewer people.

If we try to analyze the significance of this information, we should come to the conclusion that even with the need for large new aircraft fleets, there is no longer a need for a large aircraft industry. Could it be that technology and simplified systems have eroded the demand for human labor? Analyzing this situation; we arrive at that conclusion. We can see the same effects in most other industries as well. One may argue that the expansion of technology has created many new positions or jobs. And, if we consider the service sector and other marginal occupations, with lower wage scales, this may be true. But the time that it takes to produce anything has changed dramatically downward, and the net result is that the basis of our ancient economic system whereby we must "labor for our bread" is no longer valid.

We, as a society, have not, as yet, come to recognize the significance of the use of our technology. For the first time in the history of humanity, a society of people has developed the ability to go beyond the mere struggle for existence. Just think of it: Computers, spaceships, automobiles, television, telephones, a full array of technological wizardry. We have an agricultural system that not only supplies the needs for it's own, but has been able to divert surpluses to other parts of the world. Yet, something is very wrong with the scene we see all aroung us today. At this moment, the political leadership of our country is locked in heated debate as to how they can best eliminate services to people. They are trying to decide who among us is more qualified or deserving of the diminishing tax dollars to be distributed. Should it be a tax forgiveness for business, or maybe an outright monetary gift? And what of the so-called "entitlements", such as social security, welfare and medical aid for the elderly. The course of action that the politicians feel they must take is -- that in order to salvage our financial system, they must reduce or eliminate what had been achieved in social, environmental and economic services.

Ironically, many of the social programs in question were instituted in a time of severe national and international financial distress. The leadership at that time was forced to contain social unrest, and, as a consequence, they put in place some props to the Price System. What then has changed to make our position so precarious now that we must start to dismantle the very systems that resuscitated the money system? If we analyze the situation, we would see that the use of vast amounts of debt have been the real salvation for a failing system. And, with the ever increasing technological displacement of tax generating occupations, more and more debt has been needed to off-set that impact and to pay the interest on that debt. Today, we find ourselves in debt by trillions of dollars and climbing.

Whether we like it or not, the people of North America will have to face the fact that we cannot for very much longer, continue with the present method of operation. What is needed is a system that is designed to address and rectify the problems brought about by the misuse of technology. The word "misuse" is an important distinction. We can not do what the Luddites* of earlier industrial England tried to do -- destroying the machines that they felt were stealing their jobs. We have become so dependent on our technology that any sabotage of that kind would grind our country to a stand-still.

For many years now, there has been available for the consideration of the people of North America, a scientific social design for the functional control of the physical operations of our land area. That design is called Technocracy, and is the culmination of over a decade of scientific research. It is not a political party that can only offer cosmetic changes, and it is not a religious or philosophical ideology that suggests that if we somehow change our behavior, things will work out. Allegiance to some political charmer or chanting a mantra will not keep all the technical service lines open that we need for survival.

Never before has it become so imperative that we arm ourselves with correct information. Without proper knowledge we will never institute a system that allows all people access to the benefits that our technology can provide for us. Without proper knowledge, we will continue to over-populate our planet. Without proper knowledge we will continue to use our limited resources as fast as the "market place" will bear. Without proper knowledge we will not survive.

Investigate Technocracy. Arm yourself with the proper knowledge.

*Footnote: "Luddite" (from Webster) -- One of a body of English workmen who from 1811 to 1816 endeavoured to prevent the introduction of labor-saving machinery by burning factories and destroying machines: said to be named after Ned Lud, an imbecile who broke two improved stocking frames. [Another source of information claims that Ned Lud could very well be deserving of the description "imbecile" for daring to confront a "boss" of a textile mill at that time in history.]