blogging for michigan
michigan liberal
new deal 2.0
strange death of liberal america

joe bageant
blended purple
breaking ranks
critiques of libertarianism
death by car
divorce your car
fare-free michigan
'good communication skills'
occasional links & commentary
jack saturday
solidarity economy
trench coat exposed
ultimate superset
underclass rising

anarchist writers
anarhilisme
angel economics
collectif emma goldman
dead time pacifies
robert graham
ideas & action
institute for anarchist studies
poor richard
property is theft!
queering the singularity
spaces of hope
truth, reason & liberty

06 April 2010

The Ultralight Society

David Brin writes of what he calls the 'diamond-shaped society;' shape in this case being the shape of the socio-economic structure of society. This is proposed as an alternative to the 'pyramid-shaped society,' which is very small at the top and very large at the bottom:

Ever since human beings discovered metals and agriculture, nearly all complex civilizations shared a common structure, a hierarchy of privilege reminiscent of a pyramid, with a super-empowered few on top, directing the labors of obedient masses below. Across 4,000 years and nearly every continent, aristocracies (and the clerics who preached on their behalf) colluded to ensure that the ruling oligarchy would stay on top.

The 'diamond' configuration is wide in the middle and small at both top and bottom. This represents a society dominated by its middle class:

The so-called "American Dream" represents a radical departure from this near-universal theme. Our ideal of a middle-class society is best pictured as a flattened diamond… with a few people getting rich by providing honest goods and services, but the vast majority living not far below this elite in comfort, education, and even political clout. In such a society, a respected millionaire will have earned his or her wealth personally—by helping engender competitive services, solutions and products—rather than just inheriting it.
Below the middle class, numbers are supposed to narrow again. (Hence the diamond shape.) If we must cynically accept that “the poor will always be with us,” then they should be few—sporadic unfortunates who have fallen temporarily, due to bad luck or perhaps bad habits. Either way, society ought to be able to lend a hand so they can rise up again. Or if not them, certainly their children.

I have a number of problems with this:

  • I'm not willing to cynically accept that the poor we will always have with us. My political economy agenda is to prove Jesus wrong on that particular prophecy.
  • While poverty may be more avoidable in the diamond configuration than in the pyramid; it is a more humiliating experience in the former. Combined with America's cultural tendency toward 'kick-em-when-they're-down,' this could be a positively hellish experience.
  • When poor people are a tiny voting bloc, the interests of poor people are especially poorly represented.
  • I've been rebelling against middle class social norms for most of my life. Likewise, I reject the popular notion that the middle class is uniquely qualified to implement democracy and other forms of accountability.

These objections raise the question: What social geometry is palatable to me? The mandate to abolish poverty necessitates a form that is not in contact with the ground. The socialist (yeah, guilty as charged) ideal of a 0.5 Gini coefficient is exemplified by a zero-thickness or planar object, such as a horizontal sheet of paper. So, the ideal social geometry is a sheet of paper hovering above the ground. Perhaps a small amount of equality can be traded for some efficiency by folding the sheet into a paper airplane. Unfortunately, every glider must run aground sooner or later. It's a point I must concede for the sake of realism, in spite of my distaste for the hacks and snarks at the American Petroleum Institute and similar astroturfs who delight in such dismalities. In the spirit of the dismal science, we now attempt to negotiate a tradeoff between the fact that we insist on a poverty-free-society, and the Iron Law to the effect that energy-consumption-driven technologies (such as the steam engine) are an apparent prerequisite for the development of a mass middle class; a 'middle mass.' For the sake of sustainability, efficiency should be heavily emphasized over power in this tradeoff; hence the ultralight society.

4 comments:

Lorraine said...

The Reform The LP website has been moved. The URL of the David Brin essay referenced above is now http://www.reformthelp.org/reformthelp/rights/generalizing/foe.php

Lorraine said...

It happens yet again. Try http://issuepedia.org/David_Brin/The_Other_Foe_of_Free_Enterprise

Poor Richard said...

"When poor people are a tiny voting bloc, the interests of poor people are especially poorly represented."

LOL. Give me that kind of problem, please.

"Perhaps a small amount of equality can be traded for some efficiency by folding the sheet into a paper airplane."

Brilliant.

Lorraine, you raise some good issues but I think Brin might say something like this: Diamonds can vary in the ratio of their width and height. That ratio should reflect the Gini coefficient that is desired. As the height decreases the flatness of the diamond approaches a plane, the Gini coefficient approaches zero, and David Brin approaches Lorraine.

Lorraine said...

I could really care less about the shape and or relative sizes of the middle and top. I'm a negative utilitarian, so my only concern, really, is with the bottom. First consideration is minimizing the number of people "below poverty line" (although I think the line between survivability and not is a little more complex an issue) with high priority. Second consideration, is raising the lowest point in the configuration. Assuming levitation or powered/unpowered flight is somehow not permissable/possible or is outside the parameters of the exercise, I suppose Brin's concentration of the weight of society on a very small base area (a single point) is the optimal satisfaction of the first consideration. Also, if the lowest organic (i.e. human) portion of the structure is above ground, supported by the inorganic portion (say, automation), that is also acceptable, as long as the automated industrial substructure can support the entire social structure sustainably. If not, my next suspicion is that there are too many people. But don't blame me, I'm child-free.

contrary brin
miscellanea agnostica

anarcho-pragmatisme
freedom to tinker
friendly atheist
human iterations
orcinus
p2p foundation
polycentric order

Subscribe in a reader

About Me

this affects you
ventrue capital

econlog

freedom & flourishing

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 G d-@>-- s+>:+>- !a C++>$ ULU++++>-$ P+ L+++>++++$ E->++$ !W++>--$ N+ o K-?> w--- !O-- !M- V>+++$ PS++>+++ PE>$ !Y PGP t- !5- X R>-* tv>-- b++>++++$ DI !D G>+++ e++>++++$ h--- r+++ x? ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Blog Archive

Followers

Es un Alimento Muy Completo Copyleft ↄ⃝ 2003-2010 by Lorraine Lee