Should everyone be forced to work, on pain of being banned from the company of "normal" people, or even death?
What is work for? A majority of people, men and women, want to work because they enjoy working at something that interests them and that they're good at. But the typical piece of work in the past that was done by five people frequently now is being done by two or even no people (e.g. secretaries being replaced by computers). So we as a society need to act as prudent managers and (i) find work for those who feel a need for it, and (ii) enable the community to provide the basic necessities for everyone - in my opinion, those "not-working-for-a-living-wage" will soon include more than half of the adults between 18 and 53, and virtually all those outside this range.
The immediate reaction to this is: "But who's going to pay to keep all those dependents alive - the oldies, children and bludgers?"
I see that as the wrong question. I see community as the basis of such decisions, not money. Community depends on reciprocal obligations, and friendship. Money and the economy must be subservient to this, a tool for achieving some end, not an end in itself. So the end or goal must be first specified, then the means (barter, money, whatever) considered.
For me, modest, frugal living (since we are too many) for everyone, is the goal, with a subsidiary aim being to increase one's standing, mana, in this community. Being useful, valuable, is an obvious way of increasing one's mana, being strong and skilful is another way, being a caring person that children and adults turn to when needed is yet another. Note that there's no obvious connection with or need for money here. So the above 'immediate reaction' is just a learned response after the last score of decades during which economics has been taken as mankind's guiding principle. Some people would actually accept that last statement, not seeing the scorn I pour into it!
That still leaves some question about the provision of basic necessities, even after SUVehicles and huge houses are no longer the way to achieve mana. Lester Brown and the Worldwatch Institute have proven, to my satisfaction, that there is enough food being produced now and at least in the near future, for a basic diet of starch, vegetables, fruit, milk products (and occasional meat if desired) to be available for everyone on earth, and in most cases without long-distance transport (with the possible exception of flour, since wheat grows in drier areas less suited to high-density population). All that's needed is (i) for world population to stabilise at no more than 7 billion, then start falling, (ii) for the richest half of OECD-nations' population to be willing to drop their material standard-of-living to that of a small-town Italian, and (iii) for everyone in the North to admire and learn from the peasants of Vietnam, China and even the India of a generation ago, so the hinterland of these small-area high-density towns would be easily able to provide the necessities for their inhabitants. Only half or less of the population would need to work in the gardens and fields full-time, year-round, for the provision of these necessities. This would leave some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, with no necessary work to do; they could follow their individual interests without detracting from the necessary work of the whole community.
I know this makes people throw up their hands in horror, but I believe what I've described is certainly achievable, though not under the current "me first!" exploitative economic rule. My opinion relies on virtually everyone realising the necessity of modest living, using only the basic requirements.
An economist approves of this view: it is one of "Three Ways of Contributing to Society".
Humans share most characteristics with other mammals, especially other primates, but I think complexity and a wide range of available choices might be a particular feature of being human. 'Mana-seeking' is certainly shared with many other species, but most have a tiny number of ways to achieve it: grooming, being big-and-strong, discovering something new, be it food or a game, and so on. Not many. I actually regard the current narrowing of mana-achievement to not much more than getting a lot of money, as sinking "below" being human to being porcine.
Simply because there is such a wide range of human abilities, there has to be a wide range of ways to gain at least a modest degree of mana. Everyone, even the proverbial village idiot, should be able to feel they have a valued place in the community. So working modestly and reliably, or outstandingly but rarely, and everything in between, have their place as one of a great number of ways to gain and keep a satisfactory degree of mana. There are so many people now, that there will almost always be more capable people than there are necessary jobs to be done. Of course, there's always the opportunity to do some less-necessary i.e. desirable work, or even work that is quite un-necessary (as most of today's work is, in my opinion), but doing this last should be frowned-upon, rather than praised.
So: "is there something about work that is essential for being human?" No, not work itself; only work that either relieves boredom and provides "something to do", or work which increases one's mana. But both of these are common to at least primates, so working is not essential to being human.
|
|
Please send any questions or comments to the site Editor |
This is: http://www.oocities.org/davdd.geo/Work-Human-QuMk.html#top
Return to David's main page 
Go to David's RainForest page