His vision of life in 2050:
In his vision of 2050, upgrading to the latest smartphone handset is a thing of the past as the device is updated constantly and is designed to last for life.
‘What consumers would really love is what the physical product does. If you could make a smartphone for life and have just as much aspiration for software as a shiny new handset – why wouldn’t people be happy with that?’ he asked.
That’s fine as long as no one ever creates a faster chip, better screen, longer lasting battery or new and better method of doing broadband. Does the fool really think that technological innovation only comes in software?
The vision of 2050 is a world where ‘nearly everything is recycled, repaired or reused’ as laws have been passed and components standardised to cut waste.
Apparently, yes. For standardised components means that there can be no innovation in components. Imagine if we’d been stuck with the computer motherboard of the 1980s. 8 bit still, so no 16, 32 or 64 bit computers possible. Chip pins at one tenth of an inch and a limited number of them. Bus speeds limited…..the man’s a fucking half-wit to think that you can set hardware designs in stone.
In the vision of the UK in 2050 humans are doing less work – and not just because of robots.
In the fictional future, the EU’s ‘Maximum Working Time Directive’ is introduced and in 2045 people work for just under 25 hours a week in their regular job, compared to an average of 36.4 hours in 2010.
Alex writes that the change came about as unemployment continued to rise in the 1920s and there were protests to distribute jobs more fairly, resulting in GDP being scrapped in 2029 as a way of measuring a country’s wealth.
The ‘index of sustainable economic well being’ and a new model of working came in, which saw people swap labour for services via a local ‘time bank’ and earn extras outside their regular work.
And of course the man’s entirely ignorant of economics. He’s decided that we should all do less laour by doing more labour for any given lifestyle.
For he’s saying that we must do less work in the market, where we have a deep and wide division and specialisation of labour, and do more labour in direct swaps, where we have less division and specialisation of labour.
This means that for any given level of goods and services to be enjoyed we must in fact do more labour. For that direct swapping is less efficient than that deep and wide marketplace. This is moronic stuff: we’ve known this since Adam Smith published and surely 238 years is enough to get the point across?
In Porritt’s vision for the future, all young people do compulsory national service on environmental and community schemes and ‘overtime is banned.’
And the fucker’s a fascist to boot.
‘We can make material economies super efficient so that we can have the same standard of living with less cost on the environment.
Err, yes Johnny. This means that we must be efficient in our own use of our own labour. More in the marketplace and less in that less efficient time bank stuff.