Tim Middlehurst

Linköping, Sweden

Someone is shy

Tim hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
How will we deal with the dilemma of growth?
Reforestation as part of a greater ecological restoration programme is undoubtedly a necessity. but what makes deforestation a bigger problem than biodiversity loss, nitrogen loading in the environment, or melting tundras? and communications?
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
How will we deal with the dilemma of growth?
Of that list, I would have to rank renewable energy development as the most critical and unequivocable priority. Absolutely necessary in order to firstly survive the end of cheap oil, and then to support the continuation of our society. What do you see as the technology with the most potential for provision? Efficient transport and heating would seem to fit under the heading of energy use? which i would happily see sitting next on the list. i think it must be a very broad category however, embracing lifestyle and cultural issues. for what do we use energy for? for what will we pay to continue to be able to use? what will we stop using in order to allow energy efficient lifestyles? it seems impractically difficult to try and disentangle the essential services from the essential ones, in order to determine which should be removed and which should be renovated. Education is vitally important but also potentially dangerous, in almost the same way that economic growth is vital to poor countries, and a deadly addiction in developed. Lower levels of literacy, school and college attendance, tertiary quality and availability, must be continually developed. but at the same time we must learn to be more selective in that which we absorb, and that which we recirculate. i believe the structure of learning is changing, with the rapid dispersion of digital information, and we need institutions that collate this information with some structure. I would perhaps propose that our educational system catch up with the changing climate of student needs? it would be dishonest of me here to not comment on my perceived view of the difference between knowledge and understanding. we require far more institutions that foster understanding, rather that stuffing one full of knowledge.
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
This is a conversation i can explore! I also like being able to purchase things, beyond that which I require for basic survival. Right now I want a pair of headphones, so I can listen to podcasts when im out on the move. I would like to have the luxury of being able to buy those headphones, and in the future perhaps buy another pair when those wear out. but if we dont put a cap on the growth of production and consumption we are going to get to a point where we are concerned only with surviving. now- due to the ingenuity of science and technology, i believe we can reach a sustainable lifestyle for all, within the limitations of our environment, where we can have mandolins and headphones. however, not ALL of us can have mandolins AND headphones AND 20 pairs of shoes AND a sports car AND 6 tvs AND 14 suits. you see my point im sure.. We must restrict our consumption somewhere, so that we protect our ability to provide comfortable lives for ourselves in the future. I hope you can agree with me on that point?
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
Can I propose that we clarify the difference between 'money' and 'currency'. money is the system by which we trade for goods and services, and currency is the item we use to do so, would that be agreeable? currency changes from country to country, between races, but all have some kind of monetary system in place. I propose that I can forget about currency, but the system of monetary distribution that we have in place is very much the problem. I can agree that accumulation of currency is not the the ultimate goal for everyone in every society, but I feel very strongly that it is the goal of the reigning monetary system within which these societies operate. Therefore those people in those societies who are living within the framework of success by monetary advancement must play by those rules or risk domination. Could you provide me with an alternate goal of our monetary system? Harald! Fantastic that we have reached some common ground :) I agree with every part of the statement you made above this one. People should have the option! I just fear that they are not truly given the option now, when to choose to focus on other things than wealth in life in our economy will leave you so disadvantaged.
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
Harald! Who says that a CEO has done better than a sales rep? Maybe the sales rep is happier in their job, spends more time with their family, feels a greater connection to their community. I would suggest the ceo is in the position of ceo because they felt particularly driven to succeed in the business world, as they grew through their formative years. Living in a world where we have limited resources and therefore limited space to grow, we need to teach our children to seek something else than maximal wealth accumulation and consumption. Note that Im not saying we cant teach them to be ceo's. I accept and embrace the idea that there is a challenge and thrill in being a ceo that is entirely unrelated to money, and so I want people to be able to experience that. But no ceo is able to choose to work 3 hour days and remain a ceo, as long as the economy we live in is driven by production targets and profit maximisation
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
A fellow TIm must be a reasonable and thoughtful man, let me ask you this: Is production still good? Why? What do you mean by need? Do we need to keep growing production to provide the things people need? Wants will never run out, as we nowadays create them through complicated marketing psychology in order to justify evermore production, but my question is this- Can we afford to provide for all the wants that exist in the world? Do you believe that we are now creating wants in people? If so, and if you believe that we can provide for all the wants that currently exist, how long can we keep creating new wants before we run out of resources to satisfy them?
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
This is exactly what I was hoping for, analysis of a proposed alternative. Would it really reduce competitiveness you think? I was an undergrad major in entrepreneurship and small business, and I would put forward the idea that a large motivation for small business owners would be creating something, contributing to society, industry or a 'cause', stability for family, lifestyle factors. And keep in mind if there was to be a limit, it would still be high. We are talking hundreds of thousands of dollars, so there can definitely still be some economic drive. In terms of your example, lets look at the valuation of your company. That value is the ability of the company to earn future profit, through the consumption of some kind of resource. So that money is a promise that your company will consume 750million profit dollars of resources in the future. I suggest that we can no longer afford to be driven by creation of companies that consume 750million profit dollars. We need to find a lifestyle that is based on something other than growth, not because we want to, but because if we dont our world as we know it will fall to pieces.
Noface
Tim Middlehurst
Posted about 4 years ago
What would society be like if we implemented maximum income laws?
(FOLLOWING FROM THE POST BELOW) A debt is a gamble that I will be able to continually increase my income, throught the consumption of more resources, to the point that I will one day be able to pay off my debt. THAT!!!!! is the wheel on which the neo-liberalist economics spins, am i wrong? Because why create so much debt, if we dont think we can pay it off??? One day, either we have to catch up, or start writing off debts as useless pieces of paper. The problem is that we dont have the resources on, in, under or around the earth to increase our consumption at the rate we would need to in order to pay off all our debt. There is now more debt in England than there is wealth. The only plan is to increase production so much that prices come down and inflation goes up, and as pre-war liberalists postulated the only way to increase production is to capitalise on a helpless and readily available pool of cheap labour. If I had to encapsulate this, I would say that the wealthy are the holders of these debt slips, and are working frantically to leverage them to produce real production based profit at the cost of billions of others, before the oil party runs out and the wheels fall off the wagon. We are talking macro economics here. Step outside the current system, and tell me first if youre happy with it. Im not providing an alternative to the system, but rather raising the concern that an alternative may be needed!