I am taking piano and jazz theory lessons for $50/hour. It's entirely tailored to my learning wants, time budget, and abilities, costs a fraction of the equivalent in credit hours. So what if I don't get "a degree"? I already know more about what I want to know than most BAs, and I work with my teacher to be certain we're rounding out the overall curriculum so I'm not too deep and narrow. 6 years, estimate about 45 half hour lessons/year, $25/lesson, I'm at about $6750 in lesson fees. That would have been spent in two or three semesters.
That's not the correct use of the word "coercion", and it's a misuse that indicates a bias regarding economic policy. Coercion indicates the use of force or threat of force by one against another. A person in the wilderness must work or die, and no other person is there to coerce him to work.
You do realize that the entire point of civilization is to make things different from being alone in the wilderness, right? So if they aren't, then the civilization has failed miserably. Also, the conditions in wilderness are not under anyone's control, while the conditions in civilization are.
And I absolutely have a "bias" regarding economic policty: I believe economy exists to serve human needs and as such must address not just efficiency, but also fairness and security. Our current economy fails with all three.
That's fine, and you're entitled to your opinion. I'm calling out the redefinition of words a la Hegelian Dialectic or some other nonsense to suit an appeal to emotion.
In fact, the socialist avenue is the one that uses coercion, and thus is the violence-espousing approach, as opposed to voluntarism or similar libertarian or free-market approaches.
I don't follow why you even think I'm arguing that mechanization could or would directly solve this problem?
Because as I see it, we're already capable of meeting much of the subsistence material needs, and the more important needs are the needs for fixing social problems (and I'm not necessarily advocating more social workers, just saying there are problems that mechanization can't fix).
Mechanization may alleviate some of the economic factors, but I don't expect it is a solution by itself.
Fair enough - I was reading something into what you were saying which wasn't there, apparently. But some don't make a sufficient distinction between post-labor scarcity and human misery.
Current economy is ultimately based on coercion: work or die, or at least be extremely miserable
That's not the correct use of the word "coercion", and it's a misuse that indicates a bias regarding economic policy. Coercion indicates the use of force or threat of force by one against another. A person in the wilderness must work or die, and no other person is there to coerce him to work. The fundamental law of economic scarcity is here proven, and the fact that a person has neighbors, yet still must work to satisfy the need to deal with economic scarcity, does not mean coercion has entered the scenario.
If you consider engineering a process rather than results, it's only a joke to call it engineering in 80% of companies. I do engineering every day when I use an existing proven process to get a result, or use known solutions for security features, etc.
It's the people who ignore the known body of work who cause much of the trouble. And they seem to be in the majority. But it doesn't mean there is no software engineering being done.
"With records dating back to 1880, the combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces reached a record high for May, at 0.74C (1.33F) higher than the 20th century average. This surpassed the previous record high anomaly of 0.72C (1.30F) set in 2010."
You would expect records to be broken by small margins from time to time. I wonder if there was a record cold month in the past 15 or 20 years?