So efficient we all don't need to work to sustain society?

reply to post by dreamseeker

I will not debate the effects stress can have on a person; you are preaching to the choir on that subject.

However, I will debate the proposals offered thus far.

When you were working 65 hours a week and living with your parents, what exactly were you working for? I have both lived with my parents and have been a parent; being the parent means much more demands on your finances and much much more stress. I have been under-employed or unemployed for 2 years now, while raising two children (one of which moved out during that time). My income barely tops $10,000 a year, despite the fact that I worked well over 40 hours the past few weeks.

I know what I am working for. I need money to pay for electricity, food, and the few luxuries (TV, Internet, and phone) that my family and I enjoy. I need money to help my son get his start in life. I need money to continue to provide for my wife after he has moved away. I need money to pay the medical bills we have found ourselves facing. And I need money to pursue my personal goals.

I am also going to school full time on a state scholarship for the unemployed. That will (hopefully) ease the load on me once I receive my degree this spring. But if it doesn't... that is no one's fault but my own. I will not blame the banks, the oil companies, or the government for my failures. Instead I will try to learn from them and make new goals to achieve the things I want in life.

That's the difference I want you to see. It is no one's responsibility but yours for how your life works out, just as it is no one's responsibility but mine for how my life works out. I was born with the same opportunities as you, the same opportunities as anyone else. The difference is how I used those opportunities. Did I study hard enough? Did I work hard enough? Should I have gone into a different field? Should I have taken that job offer 15 years ago? Should I have saved my money rather than buying that hotrod back in the 70s?

I, me, myself, made those decisions. No one else did. No one else has responsibility. Just me.

Was everything fair all those years? No. I was hit by the vagrancies of life just as everyone is subject to being hit by. Some caught me; others did not. I handled each and every one the best I knew how at the time. Sometimes I came out good; sometimes I came out bad. Did I ask for three years income to be eaten by medical bills in one week? No. Was it fair? Maybe not. But no one ever told me life was fair.

I say it is time for 30 hour work weeks, higher pay and lower prices.

How do you propose to do that? If you get lower prices, then someone gets lower pay. If you get higher pay, someone gets higher prices. We are all interconnected in that way, and there is no way to make less equal more and more equal less.

Look at minimum wage laws, the attempt we as a society have made to ensure 'fairness'. Every time they are raised, jobs disappear and shortly thereafter prices go up more than the minimum wage. The system corrects itself, and usually to the detriment, not the benefit, of those who need help.

We also need more options to work from home.

We already have them. It's called private enterprise. I built a design firm on that very basis: I can do the same work your employees do, without health insurance, sick leave, office equipment and space, and the taxes that come with employing workers. It worked out great; I made a good living, provided the benefits for myself, and my customers got the same (or better) services for less.

Until I got sick and had to close the business. But that was a vagrancy of life. I'll be back, and stronger and wiser from the experience.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Cuervo

Ah, utopia! Wherefore art thou, utopia?

You can feed countless people on automated indoor farms that take up only an acre.

Actually, no. Hydroponics can increase the amount of food production, but the cost rises logarithmically. To feed "countless" people using an acre of land would require a literal skyscraper of pods, and the sunlight alone needed to promote growth would have to be recreated using energy from other sources or redirected from many many acres of land. The same with the water requirements, and the amount of chemicals needed as nutrients is still another insurmountable (at present) obstacle.

We can power the entire world on hyrdo, wind, and solar (including automobiles)

No. Solar energy cannot be transported long distances without massive inefficient conversions, since it is by nature DC current. Wind energy is fast approaching practical limits without itself changing the climate by slowing the prevailing winds. Hydro plants are covering almost every river in the US and still cannot keep up. The river near me has no fewer than 5 hydro dams within a few hours drive from me, and during the April tornado damage, none of them could provide us with power; the damage had to be repaired at the coal and nuclear plants before power was restored.

Wave energy looks promising, but it is still in development. I believe there may be a few test units producing power now if I am not mistaken, but the construction of enough such units to make a difference in the power grid will take some time.

And that doesn't cover the needs for transportation. A single semi truck produces 400-500 horsepower, which is barely enough to keep it moving when fully loaded. One horsepower is equal to 746 watts, so that's 300,000 to 375,000 watts to keep it moving. 300,000 watts is enough to power over 68 small homes on average. Now consider the thousands upon tens of thousands of semis needed to keep things on the local store shelves...

Nope. You're way, way, WAY off base with that statement.

When kids get out of high school, they would work for two years, maintaining the system.

So no more college? Wow, what a breakthrough! No more doctors to extend life, or engineers to design those hydroponics facilities or solar power plants, or entrepreneurs to concoct new technologies. You manage to get through 12 years of school, graduate with poor math skills and an inability to read, then you work for two years doing something that you can manage to not get fired at, and you get to look forward to doing... what? Sitting there in front of the TV watching automated CGI productions of Americaqn Idol? Playing XBox Live?

Sheesh, you must really love boredom...

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I was working because I was socialized to do so. I was taught hard work was a value. I understand now that you live in this current society you must work 40 hours a week. I do not think that is wrong for you to do so. I am agianst the system not the indivuals who are forced to live within it.
Wouldn't it be nice to have more time with your family. I know 10 hours does not seem like a lot but it makes a huge difference. I am sorry that you have to work so much to live yet only make $10,000 per year it is not your fault. I am embrassed for our overall society, government and corperations who allow this.
I commend you for going back to school to gain more knowledge to get into a better life postition. You do have the right ideas yet if we continue to agree that over hard work is a value we will be stuck back at sqaure one. I am glad you further qualified your statements because it makes sense what you are saying.
There would have to be a prize freeze in order for the higher wages to work but we would also have to work less hours. Peoples wages should match what the actual cost of living is. If people want to work more than 30 hours per week it is up to them. I don't think anyone would want to if they are able to make enough on 30 hours a week.
The work at home jobs should be the wave of the future but companies don't want to support it because it gives the indivual too much freedom. I have 2 freelance jobs, 1 sub contracted job and an on calljob plus disablity I make only $10K a year my self so I feel your pain. I still have stress due to lack of money but a lot less stress than when I worked myself to death. It was so bad I almost passed out at work several times. I just always hope for the best for the indivual and overall society.

Obviously not many people are familiar with the work of Buckminster Fuller, probably one of the USAs finest engineers. His work is NOT taught in school or college as the PTB know that we could all live better than kings if we used the most efficient methods for production of the necessities of life. JP Morgan told him that he would never be rich because he made everything look too easy. There is no shortage of anything we need on this planet, it is the distribution that is the problem. A short intro to Bucky's thoughts on the power structures of the world would be "GRUNCH of Giants", available free on-line.

reply to post by GaryN


If we were taught the simple concepts of life then wow how free we would be. I am going to have to look this guy up. The problem is we are taught overwork, overcomplicate and overconsume. If we are taught how to free ourselves though the apporiate use of technology and ideas we would be happier. This thinking is going ahead not going backwards. We can still have all the same things we desire and after a while we may not desire those same things if we really begin to enjoy life. People watch TV or buy things to enertian themselves to keep themseleves happy.
I actually feel freer when I get rid of things I don't need. I don't have a TV in my front room and I tend to do more; to think more and enjoy life more.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, no. Hydroponics can increase the amount of food production, but the cost rises logarithmically. To feed "countless" people using an acre of land would require a literal skyscraper of pods, and the sunlight alone needed to promote growth would have to be recreated using energy from other sources or redirected from many many acres of land. The same with the water requirements, and the amount of chemicals needed as nutrients is still another insurmountable (at present) obstacle.

Actually, yes. In fact, if you decentralize the process, each community can easily supply its own food supply. Light and water requirements have been recreated by several models in completely contained ecological centers that provide not only plant-based food but also fish. This isn't top secret stuff, these are things that students are doing even at a community college level. Agriculture has made incredible strides that fly in the face of mega farming and GMO practices that it goes largely unnoticed.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
No. Solar energy cannot be transported long distances without massive inefficient conversions, since it is by nature DC current. Wind energy is fast approaching practical limits without itself changing the climate by slowing the prevailing winds. Hydro plants are covering almost every river in the US and still cannot keep up. The river near me has no fewer than 5 hydro dams within a few hours drive from me, and during the April tornado damage, none of them could provide us with power; the damage had to be repaired at the coal and nuclear plants before power was restored.

Wave energy looks promising, but it is still in development. I believe there may be a few test units producing power now if I am not mistaken, but the construction of enough such units to make a difference in the power grid will take some time.

And that doesn't cover the needs for transportation. A single semi truck produces 400-500 horsepower, which is barely enough to keep it moving when fully loaded. One horsepower is equal to 746 watts, so that's 300,000 to 375,000 watts to keep it moving. 300,000 watts is enough to power over 68 small homes on average. Now consider the thousands upon tens of thousands of semis needed to keep things on the local store shelves...

Nope. You're way, way, WAY off base with that statement.

No, I am completely on base with this statement. Again, you are thinking of everything being centralized. You wouldn't need to constantly transport everything clear across the continent like we do today. We can't even afford that now so it's something we need to change anyway. You also wouldn't need to transport energy like you said. Every single climate has one natural power source they can utilize. There isn't a place I can think of that doesn't have either a strong water source, wind, or abundant sunlight. You would have several of these stations in each city, not just one or two per state. Not to mention geothermal energy that will be pretty damned sweet in about five years. All of these technologies would be much more advanced if we had to rely on them. Our lack of perfection in these fields are not a mistake; they are intentional pockets of ignorance to keep the energy industrial giants in business.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
So no more college? Wow, what a breakthrough! No more doctors to extend life, or engineers to design those hydroponics facilities or solar power plants, or entrepreneurs to concoct new technologies. You manage to get through 12 years of school, graduate with poor math skills and an inability to read, then you work for two years doing something that you can manage to not get fired at, and you get to look forward to doing... what? Sitting there in front of the TV watching automated CGI productions of Americaqn Idol? Playing XBox Live?

You totally missed the point. People would still work. You think doctors do that for the money? You think everybody who does what they do do it for the money? If so, then those are the people who the rest of us are waiting for to die. Many of us want to help and contribute to society because of a sense of civic duty. People could still get rich, that's not what is being taken away. What I'm saying is the minimum expectations for being an Earthling could easily include food, shelter, and water. No matter what. Because it's the right thing to do. And, yes, if a person starts saying that this is wrong, I will consider you evil and part of the problem.

reply to post by dreamseeker

Things can't just stay the same though!

You must be pretty young. I have memories of the 80s and early 90s - the clothes, the hair, the way movies looked, command-line interfaced computers (grew up on a 486 - all we had until 2001 when my dad bought a HP machine that is just as ancient as the 486 was in 2001, now).

Even in industry - twenty years ago, you had dies machined in pairs and that pair had to be matched with itself. Today, this is no longer the case - everything is precise enough that you can run dies for aluminum or zinc parts as a truly mass-produced deal.

Things are always changing.

We need POSTIVE change! I have friends who work 50-60 hours a week just to have the basics of life.

I work less than 30 and - granted - can barely afford a payment on my car, rent, food, etc. However, if I were working a full 40-hours, even at minimum wage, I would be putting away quite a bit in the bank. I live in a crappy trailer with two room mates - my largest expense is my car payment (which actually exceeds my present rent - it was designed for a higher income that I no longer have). But it's a nice car that was barely used when I bought it.

And that's the source of my generation's problem. We were raised thinking we would go to school and somehow inherit a smaller version of our parents' standard of living. It's just not practical.

However, we are living cheap right now and pooling some of our rent payments to save for a build in a year or so. I will still have to share space with other people - but the only reason I really need my own house is to share it with a family that I don't really have at the moment (nor do I have the income to support a wife and a kid - let alone the multiple kids I would like).

I worked years a go 65 hours a week and still lived with my parents. I nearly died and the dr told me I had to cut down to 30 hours a week or I may not make to 40.

Please tell me that you were saving the vast majority of that. There is not a whole lot you really need to be trying to pay for at that stage of your life.

As a psychology major I realize the importance of good mental health without you are giving yourself a death wish. We manifest within our body symptoms and illnesses due in part to STESS; yes STRESS; it is a big killer.

Stress is also a motivator - in healthy doses. Know what got me motivated to search out more gainful employment? The fact that both of my parents had died and I had no place to really call home, and the shame I felt living for free with a couple friends.

This is actually a pattern. I have one major weakness - my vast intelligence and imagination. I'm a dreamer, idealist, and very deep thinker. I know what I should be doing - even what I need to do. I can spend a whole day thinking about what I need to do to get ready in the morning. This means I am my own greatest frustration and I am continually living below my standards (I should not even be on these forums right now, to be honest - I have school work to do and responsibilities to keep up with in the Reserves that I have been horribly neglecting lately). But I am simply unable to resist the temptation to think on an issue.

It takes the stress and guilt I feel for inconveniencing another person to motivate me. When it comes to my own personal self - I have little concern and therefor little stress to actually motivate me to accomplish my own ambitions (I do, however, still feel disappointment).

Money is just paper created by man we can recreate our society into anything we want. I say it is time for 30 hour work weeks, higher pay and lower prices.
No need to maintain the status quo since that is what is killing us!

People will always need to do something. A person works to better their own situation. A person is paid for their contribution to the lives of others. I've been over this concept, before, in debates of socialism versus free market and don't really have the room to go over it in its entirety.

However - the crux of the free market is the individual's power to market their capabilities. An employee contracts with a company to perform a service (such as assembly, or welding). That person doesn't have to have their own shop or mess around with bidding for contracts. However - the individual is free to pursuits of their own business and projects. It can be as simple as someone, like me, going around and fixing computers (because basic troubleshooting ability is like #ing voodoo to most people, for whatever reason) in exchange for some kind of reward (could be money, could be food, could be that they jack up my car and take care of few mechanical issues that would have taken me hours without the facilities they have).

More efficiency should translate to more opportunities for that.

reply to post by dreamseeker

I did not post that information for pity; I am actually quite satisfied with the present course of my life.

We already have the ability to work less than 40 hours a week. We have the ability to work more than 40 hours a week. We always did. No one forced you to take that job you hated so much. No one can force you to take any job. It is always your decision, but all decisions have consequences. Every person must make the decision as to whether or not the job is worth his/her time and accept the consequences of that decision.

We do not need a specified shorter work week; we need people to be more knowledgeable of how much power they actually have already. We need people to understand that their place in society is whatever place they want it to be.

You just have to want it bad enough. There are always others who want it as well. The one who wants it worse gets it.

There would have to be a prize freeze in order for the higher wages to work but we would also have to work less hours. Peoples wages should match what the actual cost of living is.

Won't work. If you freeze prices, then you further destroy jobs, because no one is going to sell for less than it costs to make. If they can't make their necessary income by producing that product or service, they won't produce it. If they aren't producing it, they don't need help producing it.

The only way to succeed is to prepare yourself and take whatever steps you must take to succeed. You may not like some of those steps; I was not exactly thrilled by the requirement to take English or Speech to get my degree. But it was a necessary step, so I took it. I am not excited about the prospect of having to drive an older car; I would really rather have a Ram 3500 Diesel Quad-Cab. But I can't get that truck at this point, so I drive what I can get and what will further my goals.

Tomorrow I assemble a display. It's hard work getting that mass of metal into place. The store manager is not my favorite person. I'd rather be home with my family, maybe posting on ATS or testing a prototype. But right now, in order to allow for future work and make sure we have electricity and food, I need to do this. So I will, with a smile on my face and a cheerful outlook, because in the end I believe it will help me. Not because I "have to"... no one is going to shoot me if I don't show up tomorrow.

Wages can never be tied to the cost of living, because not all skills are the same. Doctors spend 8 years of their lives in med school, pay enormous costs to attend the school, then work for peanuts for more years as an intern to get the right to open up a practice. That practice makes up for the years lost, the mental difficulties learning about medicine, and the money spent for the privilege of doing all that, because it pays so well. If you tie the wages to the cost of living, no one in their right mind would go all the way through medical school. They can do just as well in life by answering the phone in an office building somewhere.

And of course, society will wind up with no doctors and an awful lot of phone answerers.

the same goes for engineers, architects, lawyers, and any other profession that presently makes money. They will simply die off, because there is no personal reward. Those services will no longer exist.

Without doctors and engineers, there will be no more medical advances, no more treatment for diseases, and our life span will again drop to 40-50 years. Without engineers, there will be no more improvements in technology, no gains in efficiency or new energy sources, no labor-saving devices. Society will stagnate technologically and revert to pre-Industrial-Age conditions.

The Capitalistic system of rewards is solely responsible for every advancement we enjoy today. Is it being abused by some? Yes. Should we correct that? Yes. But as my daddy used to say, "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." There is a wide difference between correcting a problem and throwing away a system that has made the US an economic superpower for 200 years.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Xeven

I wonder at times if we have reached a level where we simply don't all need to work?

Many jobs exist just so that people can shuffle papers from one entity to another.

Completely unproductive and most times they are actually counter-productive.

reply to post by TheRedneck


See we just overcomplicate things. It is simple;work less live healthier,happier more productive lives. Sure DRs should be paid more because of the training and loans they took out. Everyone deserves to live a happy fulfilled life. It can and will work. I am not adovcating for people to not work at all just work less. I believe in balance and simplicity. Just look up the budhist philoshies and you will see what I mean. (It is not my religion but I agree with it's principles.)
Even your answer was way too complex; it is not your fault you were taught to live in a world of extremes. Either a person has all or nothing, either person works way too much or not all. We live in a black and white thinking society. Just openup your mind and see the world is full of shades of gray.

reply to post by Cuervo

Actually, yes. In fact, if you decentralize the process, each community can easily supply its own food supply.

Then I challenge you: do it. Build one model that will create enough food for 1000 people from a single acre of land. I will eat my words gladly, and will even help you to publicize the technology.

Or, just as well, build one on one tenth of an acre, just 210 feet square, that will feed 100 people. Or maybe a smaller scale yet, feeding 10 people from a 20 foot square unit.

Until you can do that and demonstrate it as a viable solution, I'll stick with farmers I know personally who have been producing food for decades while others talked about producing food.

Again, you are thinking of everything being centralized. You wouldn't need to constantly transport everything clear across the continent like we do today. We can't even afford that now so it's something we need to change anyway.

So, you believe steel mines are possible anywhere? Perhaps salt is distributed in every area in sufficient quantities to make it usable? Maybe you think every town should have an integrated circuit factory (tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each)?

You are oversimplifying the situation. Transportation is a necessary part of any society. No one can do everything locally.

There isn't a place I can think of that doesn't have either a strong water source, wind, or abundant sunlight.

New York City.

They have sunlight, yes, but less than 1% of what is needed to supply electrical needs assuming 100% conversion, which is impossible with present technology.

They have some wind, but not regular sustained winds.

They have one river, the Hudson, which could perhaps support one small hydro plant... maybe 500 MW? Probably less. It moves pretty slow.

...and that's considering residential power... how about factories which use 50 times or more the power of a residence, at 440V triple-phase?

You think doctors do that for the money? You think everybody who does what they do do it for the money? If so, then those are the people who the rest of us are waiting for to die.

Yes, I do, and I think you do as well.

And don't worry; I'll get dead and out of your way in good time. My apologies for the delay, but it just doesn't fit with my present goals.

TheRedneck

reply to post by InformationAccount


We actually need a balance. After all balance equals peace which equals rest. In order to live a fulfilled life one must have a balance of work and rest. On this theory there are 7 days in a week plus we sleep 8 hours and there is commute time. A person should have to work 4 days a week 6 hours a day to equal around half of their life when they are awake. That is more balanced as opposed to working most of your awake time or not working at all.

reply to post by dreamseeker

Even your answer was way too complex; it is not your fault you were taught to live in a world of extremes. Either a person has all or nothing, either person works way too much or not all. We live in a black and white thinking society. Just openup your mind and see the world is full of shades of gray.

Sometimes things are not as simple as we would like.

My life is simple. I maintain a balance between work for profit and personal pursuits. That's my whole point; there does not have to be a black-and-white solution.

Any authoritarian change to society is by definition black and white. Laws and regulations are ultimatums by definition. Individual decisions are in shades of gray. Do I want to buy this new car and have little to no money? Do I want to buy a used car and have a little money? Do I want to drive this old clunker and have all my money? Should I do one for a while, and then go another route? How old a car am I willing to settle for? Would I be willing to work on it to save money?

One cannot force a change on society without involving laws and regulations. One cannot effectively pursue a change to society without either forcing such a change or allowing time for a change to happen naturally. If one wishes to allow a change to happen naturally, one is being counterproductive by actively pursuing said change.

Ergo, actively pursuing societal change involves black-and-white legislation at some point.

TheRedneck

reply to post by dreamseeker

See we just overcomplicate things. It is simple;work less live healthier,happier more productive lives.

This is, generally, what leads to landmark 'success' in history. Henry Ford made use of the assembly line method of production (likely not its first use - but often cited as the genesis of the strategy).

This freed up time for many people, and removed the need for teams to toil over the assembly of a single vehicle - which freed up labor for people to pursue other interests.

Even your answer was way too complex; it is not your fault you were taught to live in a world of extremes. Either a person has all or nothing, either person works way too much or not all. We live in a black and white thinking society. Just openup your mind and see the world is full of shades of gray.

I merely contend that we are an employee-centric culture. We go to school to get a good job and to appeal to an employer. This is a rather limited line of thinking that I have trouble tracing the origins of - but it has been quite destructive to our society.

It breeds dependence upon another entity for a living - which is always going to lead to an unhealthy business climate.

People need to figure out what kind of lifestyle they want to live. I could afford to live in a fairly nice apartment when I was working about 45 hours a week at a factory (I even enjoyed the job - I love manufacturing; I grew up with the smells and sounds of a factory) - I ended up quitting because it was an hour commute (one way) and work was about a 12-13 hour affair by time I figured out how much time of my day was spent devoted to work (that, and nearly falling asleep during the commute a couple times made me realize I needed to change something before I ended up as a hood ornament for a semi truck). I had no time to enjoy what I could afford.

So, I took a lesser paying job and a downgrade in my standard of living to compensate while looking for ways to get a local job more related to my expertise (unfortunately - there's not a huge market for component-level electronic technicians, computer technicians, or electrical engineers).

reply to post by dreamseeker

Huh?

There are 7 · 24 = 168 hours in a week. At 8 hours per night, we sleep 7 · 8 = 56 hours of that, leaving 112 hours of waking time in a week. At present, a typical work week is 40 hours or about 36% of our waking life; your suggestion of a 24 hour work week would be about 21%.

Where did you come up with

A person should have to work 4 days a week 6 hours a day to equal around half of their life when they are awake

?

In order for this to be true, commute time (which is really not work time; one contributes nothing when driving to do work) would have to be 6:24 per day... wow... who commutes that much to a regular job?

TheRedneck

@redneck:

Then I challenge you: do it. Build one model that will create enough food for 1000 people from a single acre of land. I will eat my words gladly, and will even help you to publicize the technology.

I saw this on ATS a while ago:
1 MILLION pounds of Food on 3 acres. 10,000 fish 500 yards compost
www.youtube.com...

I think there is a lot that communities could do to be self sufficient to some degree, but Big Agro doesn't want us to escape their clutches. As more and more people become long-term un or under-employed, I think we will see more interest in a less destructive, less stressful existence.
I now live an almost ascetic lifestyle, not for everyone I agree, but I don't miss the rat-race of the modern world at all. I admit I still have a car, but a 1984 Mazda B2000 pickup hardly seems like exuberance!

reply to post by TheRedneck


I narrowed to down to only working half of the week. I admit I am bad at math but good at everything else. My point is 5 days a week out of 7 is more than half. So honestly it should be 3 and a half days. 7/2 =3.5 I shave off a couple hours for commute and getting ready for work.

Originally posted by GaryN
@redneck:

Then I challenge you: do it. Build one model that will create enough food for 1000 people from a single acre of land. I will eat my words gladly, and will even help you to publicize the technology.

I saw this on ATS a while ago:
1 MILLION pounds of Food on 3 acres. 10,000 fish 500 yards compost
www.youtube.com...

I think there is a lot that communities could do to be self sufficient to some degree, but Big Agro doesn't want us to escape their clutches. As more and more people become long-term un or under-employed, I think we will see more interest in a less destructive, less stressful existence.
I now live an almost ascetic lifestyle, not for everyone I agree, but I don't miss the rat-race of the modern world at all. I admit I still have a car, but a 1984 Mazda B2000 pickup hardly seems like exuberance!

Nice. Thanks for the link. This is a great example and I feel it will become a gateway to the next standard of food production. Students and farmers are experimenting like this world-wide. To think we can't reach that state of self-sustainability is ridiculous. We have all the answers, we just need to do it. And that won't happen until people realize that we are being forced into this subservience to energy and food by people who "own" it. Meanwhile, countless people are dying of thirst! We have technology to fix that too!

The world of today will seem like an evil barbaric wild-west full of selfish cavemen 15 years from now. We are all waking up.

reply to post by GaryN

One of the hardest things to do is argue with success.

It would appear that my knowledge of hydroponics is lacking. This does appear to be a fantastic development. As a matter of fact, I may consider setting up my own hydroponics greenhouse based on these results.

As far as Big Agro goes... remember, I live in a farming community. My uncle (well, actually my cousin now that he is getting older) cultivates about 6000 acres, and that is one family farm among hundreds here. They are far from rich (although not poor either), and they work sunup to sundown, every day to produce food. Big Agro does not produce all the food; they process it. Food still comes from farms and ranches.

Thank you for the heads-up!

TheRedneck

reply to post by dreamseeker

But if you are considering days worked versus days not worked, then you should be talking about working 3 12-hour days (I allow the extra four for commute and personal essentials like food and hygiene) and one 6-hour day (half of that). That comes out to 42 hours per week.

In some ways I would like that. I once had a job that worked 9-hour days but only 4 on Friday. I loved it; I barely noticed the extra hour, and I had time Friday evening to handle any business in town. I actually got married on a Friday afternoon because of that

TheRedneck