----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
Prabhu Guptara argues that the transition [from Capital- to 
Markets-needing economy] "is due to the impact of  
technology in moving us from a resource-deficient society to a  
resource-abundant society". 
 
    Such a cornucopian dream has been propagated for centuries  
by social reformers, as far back as the French Revolution. 
But now it isn't necessarily bad or impossible, it is even probable. 
 
    It has been technically possible for many years, perhaps  
from the 1930's, but it was always was conveniently postponed 
by hot wars, cold wars, space races etc. 
 
    Of course, there IS the unavoidable limited environment. 
Harsh to say, but the means to live happily with restricted 
external resources is to use self-restraint early enough 
(not just in population growth, but also in energy and other 
resource usage) and keep at bay "lesser" threats before they  
need a major effort to counterbalance them. 
 
    I think that the main cause for change will be, besides  
technology that greatly improved the productivity of most  
resources,  basic *human* traits such as satiability and laziness.  
 
    Humans were greedy and envious when a full-efort struggle  
was needed for bare survival, but now, the new technologies  
could promote  the substitution of income (&associated goods)  
with leisure. Now this struggle is mostly the domain of a  
power-seeking elite, and will be more so in the future. 
 
    Current marketing is desperately needed by businesses 
to keep people 'wanting' this, then that. Governments accept 
it because this keeps taxable income high. But, like pollution, 
it incurs huge external costs on the receivers, by the time 
used involuntarily when exposed to marketing messages 
and the mental skill and effort used to filter information. 
 
    A good effort to concentrate on, if someone would want a  
stabler, lower-activity society, is some kind of overall  
*countermarketing*, that would make buyers more aware 
and less vulnerable to manipulation. Then rational business  
leaders will spend less on marketing if it is less efficient. 
    Alternatively, the State could tax marketing and pollution 
instead of incomes and wealth. 
 
    The assumption of limited resources will still be useful, 
but the main limited resource will be the *motivation* of people 
to work when a moderate effort is enough to satisfy wants. 
 
    Mircea 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]