Nope.
In the 1700s and 1800s, people got around the USA by water and by stagecoach, horse, and wagon. Then as the steam era got going, trains unlocked new capabilities. Coal became an important source of energy. The steam engine unlocked access to a whole new regime of horsepower, basically. People suddenly had access to 10's or hundreds of horsepower via machines that could even move around. That was a huge change in life.
In the days of travel by horseback, people could only go around 10 miles in a day, maybe a little bit more when new teams of horses could be swapped in. Trains enabled people to travel hundreds of miles a day and enabled bulk transport of materials, too, obviously.
Compare that to the current "revolution". It's basically about supposed gains in "efficiency" via automation and computer controls, and that latter aspect of it is being taken to extremes. The people on the top of the pyramid want total control and monitoring of everything in the economy, all in the name of efficiency.
There are, apparently, no more gains to be had in energy availability and horsepower. That's bad. It's a little like trying to make a living by using discount coupons. You can save money with coupons, but can't buy much with them.
It's a very good question if the "cost" of the efficiency management system is even offset by the supposed "savings". I've wondered that for years in my corporate jobs--does all the managerial overhead offset its costs? I seriously doubt it. Every empire I can think of turns into a top-heavy bureaucracy as it implodes. It makes sense, it's really the same phenomenon. Initially income expands, i.e. "energy availability", then there's a point of diminishing returns, then hyper-management and corruption and collapse.
No comments:
Post a Comment