Brown Stuff

[William S. Lear]

On Wednesday, August 11, 1999 at 10:01:40 (+0100) Jim heartfield writes:
>Earlier in the 'Brown Stuff' debate, Nathan (I think) argued the case
>that more labour intensive production (in farming) would generally be a
>good thing, by implication because it would absorb surplus labour. This
>argument that capital-intensive production is bad and labour-intensive
>production good, because of its effects on unemployment, seems very
>wrong to me.
>
>In the grand scheme of things, the substitution of labour by means of
>production is a good thing. In principle it enlarges the amount of free
>time available to humanity as a whole.

I think you are missing the fundamental point.  When you substitute
capital for onerous labor, your point is quite reasonable.  When you
substitute it for fulfilling work, you lose something, and you must
begin to ask much more complex questions.  The goal seems to me to be
to attempt to convert farming, much of it anyway, to more fulfilling
work.  Perhaps this is not possible, of course, but that is another
question.

Bill