On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 19:02:58 -0500, "Jeff McCann"
wrote:


"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
.. .
On 5 Aug 2006 09:30:43 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I think you have a good point Robert.

In my opinion the more technologically advanced a society is, the more
"fragile" it becomes.

A miracle! We agree on something. Great.

I think the reverse is true. Technological advancement gives a society
options, redundancies, flexibility and the ability to assess and remediate
problems.

Perhaps. I don't know. I was thinking the other day of
what would happen to the metropolitan area just to the
northwest of where I live -- millions of people who are
primarily living in the symbolic economy -- in the event of
a societal collapse caused by, say, a series of nuclear
detonations in 5 or 6 of our major financial and
governmental centers: say, DC, NYC, LA, Chicago, Seattle,
etc. People smarter than me have estimated that even such
"limited" destruction would inevitably cause the collapse of
the U.S. economy and society. I don't see these millions of
symbolic workers being able to survive a return to a more
material economy.

My (possibly wrong) conclusion is that the post-modern
symbolic economy/society is much more fragile than the
industrial economy/society it replaced. Too many of us are
no longer able to create goods, including food, and instead
are now only able to engage in symbol manipulation -- the
information/entertainment economy, a.k.a the post-modern
economy. Lawyers, data entry clerks, web masters, writers,
actors, singers, photographers, programmers, personal
trainers, relationship counselors, what have you. Can any
of them put actual food on an actual table? What happens to
them if their post-modern services are no longer in demand?
And that ignores entirely those dependent on
"entitlements"...

I don't see redundancy and flexibility -- to the contrary, I
see fragility and extreme vulnerability. But I could be
wrong.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/