Posted by TimP pp TimJ on Thu Sep 10 5:08:48 1998
In Reply to: Definitive Site posted by TimP on September 03, 1998 at 03:44:53:
| Distribution: | paneris@i-way.co.uk | lurker@paneris.co.uk |
|---|
I have a bit of a problem with any system that is designed, defined, or at all
prescriptive.I think that if you can take anything from the modern world, it is one thing:
CHANGE
In this respect Wired hit the nail on the head.
So, how do we construct a world system that both encourages change and
adjusts rapidly to the consequences of it?The only answer IMHO is not to construct systems at all, but rather let evolution
take care of it. But is evolution good enough, traditionaly it's a bit slow and can
lead to painful 'Neanderthal' dead ends.Ultimately it has to be good enough, if change is taking place more quickly
than we can adjust to it, we're fucked. But we can help ourselves:Encourage the innovative.
Encourage the alternative.
Discourage rules, laws and systems.So, to this end, I would like to see a wealth redistribution (using 100% death
duties) towards allowing the young to explore new ideas. I find the entire
concept of wellfare-to-work counter to youthful free thinking. (interesting point -
if you are a musician with demonstratable skills, you are not forced into a job,
but can rather remain on the dole). Why can't they do the same for all 'free
thinkers', or just everybody.Baby awake,
more later
TimJ