Kevin discourages:: it has been thought of before and will not work....
People told Orville and Wilbur Wright that humans just couldn't fly, it isn't human nature, don't bother inventing the airplane, "it has been thought of before and will not work."
: you can not talk about a system that is that large and complex that will run itself on morality and fairness...
Yes, this is Jurgen Habermas's point, in THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE ACTION part 2. (If you're German, you probably see Habermas in your papers now and then in the editorial section... It'd be nice to have some Germans respond...) One wonders whether this matter would change if we broke "the system" up into smaller systems, less large, less complex, more amenable to "fairness"...
: these concepts differ in every part of the world, there is no consenses......
There certainly was no consensus 20 years ago behind the New World Order, now look at it... I'm not convinced it takes forever to overcome differences...
: your thoughts are nice to hear, and if we lived in a land where control and communication made it possible to amass support for such an ideal...
I'm not interested in control. I'm interested in dialogue. But let's skip to Kevin's next doubt.
: Mutual trust? How many of you would blindly accept this in any form?
I'm not interested in blindness, either. Trust only with eyes wide open. And finally,
: What is the benefit to innovate, if I am not pressured to do so?
Did Einstein get some high-pressure capitalist job so he could dream up the theory of relativity? Was it necessary for Feynman to be pressured a lot so he could help invent the Bomb, the theory of DNA, the theory of microminiaturization ad nauseam?
There is much more to innovation than that produced from research programs intended to increase the efficiency of capitalist-owned machines, and even these programs exist only because there also exist people out there who don't believe in commodifying everything in sight and who value knowledge for its use as a plaything, i.e. nerds, hackers, geeks. The capitalists cash in on the nerds, but aren't directly responsible for their existence.
On the other hand, different types of innovation might happen without certain capitalist pressures. Agroecology, for instance, has shown the benefits of polycropping and farm/wilderness ecologies to long-term preservation of soil fertility, esp. in its studies of precapitalist societies like the Tlascaltecans of Tlaxcala, Mexico (look up "Stephen Gliessman" in MELVYL for more), but agronomy, the science capitalism produced around farms, has been more concerned with helping the farmer play the short-term profit game, making a buck off of massive harvests of single crops in a capitalist era when the price of grain is too low and sinking lower, using pesticides and plows and patented seeds and making it harder to farm later for the sake of cornering the market now.
None.
