| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On April 21 2012 01:46 Tremendous wrote: Not just you bro... Everyone in advertizing, accouting, sales, banking etc. =) but just think about it.. if money didnt exsist, what you be doing ? I'd be bartering. Bartering for food because the government food rations are running 2 weeks late and aren't enough to survive on anyway. | ||
|
Zren89
United States131 Posts
On April 20 2012 23:09 Dr.Lettuce wrote: Horrendous analogy. Never mind. First off problems with the current system- corruption, abuse of power blah blah blah. There is absolutely no rhetoric control to stop the prevalent world problems occurring in this new system. Who is to stop the creators and more powerful individuals behind this project becoming corrupt assholes? Humans are self-interested. I would argue it's a human ingrained trait. TvP relies on the fact that people will not compete with each other. That makes no sense at all. Coupled with the fact there is no basic monetary system, self incentives are now non-existent. Why would you work hard? Why would you go the extra mile, why innovate? Why be different if it leads to nothing. So much research and progress will slow down, not to a halt but to seriously below modern age levels. Now you could argue that people will do things for the good of other people and developing society as a whole. Admirable? Very. Realistic? Not a chance. It's not Humanity in particular that is self-interested, its is life but otherwise I find no real issue with your rhetoric; we need to learn to crawl before we can walk, walk before we can run, etc. Fixing the current system to the point that it actually functions within the set perameters that we put it in and is minimally effected by greed and selfishness would be a great boon to humanity. Understanding that there is more than just one or two options on how to guide our society's (both economically and through societal moors) progression is just as important to the process and to the future of our development as honing our current model. It's all part of the "plan" these things we do and the new ideas we think about in order to problem solve and try to logically (or illogically) work throught the problem that we have been tasked with by our very natures; How do we survive and progress ourselves and/or our species and how and what do we do with that progression? The utopia of Idealism has its place just as does the cold hard facts of realism. Balance and moderation. We can afford to indulge the greed and selfishness that is within us all only to a certain extent, I believe that extent has been reached and we need to curtail the increasing avarice of so many powerful and influential individuals and corporations. They have alot of the cards and they are working with a loaded deck on top of that. These issues do need to be addressed and creativity is most likely going to be needed in order to get them sorted. All of us telling eachother how stupid our ideas are isn't going to get that done, it will foster increased division and misunderstandings, but helping it will NOT do. So all I have to say is this, I love you all as I love myself for I see us all as one, for that is what we are; the keepers of our own fates the designers of our own destinies, but we are still unaware that we can truly make a difference, but we don't have to be blind to our power, we don't have to shirk our responsibilities any more, there are people that think that enough is enough too, they want to help. find these people organize park clean-ups and free-hug days, make cookies and sandwhiches and give them away to the homeless or set-up an event that will benefit a local cause or charity, there is so much we can do to help one another NOW, we don't have to wait, we just have to believe. Sincerely, Zach | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
| ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
I don't see why anyone would object to creating a world free of useless labor, war, and poverty; freedom to pursue the life you wish without a financial barrier; and decisions made based on sound science and logic as opposed to a human's opinion whose influenced mainly by money. Today most people work in the service sector, almost all of which could be automated. Look around you, almost everything was created by machines. The ones working in the financial service sector don't contribute anything to the world, except for making money with money, hence their wealth. Comparing this system to a system in the past is absurd. Our technological knowledge wasn't up to the task, but now it is. We can create an abundance of food via hydroponics, aeroponics, and vertical farming. The energy infrastructure can already be changed to incorporate wind, wave, solar, and geothermal sources. What is the single factor that hinders us from adapting? The profit system. Do you not feel that something is wrong? Politicians promising things that never get fulfilled. People dying daily to diseases we can prevent and starving even though we have plenty to go around. People like the jersey shore making millions from market value by doing absolutely nothing, while a scientist researching a cure for cancer barely gets by. War on a global scale so someone can reap from defense contracts and stolen resources, sacrificing soldiers and natives in the process. The environment degregading from pollution and extraction all tied to making profit. Going to work to conduct a mundane job to get paid to pay bills for services of rich corporations even though we could be self sustainable. Having chemicals like aspartame, bht, food coloring, hfcs, etc. because they are cheaper. Freedom speakers like JFK, John Lennon, mlk, ghandi, etc. assassinated by the system. People working and commiting suicide in sweat shops for low ages to make iPads for the rich. Important space projects like Orion cancelled. I am simply saying there is a better way, I know a lot of us already benefit from the current system, but everyone can with a few adjustments, a logical step in our social evolution dictated by technology. EDIT: mistakes | ||
|
Amaterasu1234
United States317 Posts
It's a fundamental disagreement, that won't be settled by any amount of semantics, concerning human nature itself and whether it can be changed. I'm willing to bet those for TVP, including myself, believe human nature can be changed. And those against it, I see, cite that avarice is an integral part of human nature that drives the current world economy and that won't ever change...but there isn't any particular reason to believe this other than because that's the way it's been since time immemorial. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 21 2012 04:51 Amaterasu1234 wrote: It appears that the differences between those for TVP and against goes much, much deeper than accepting/rejecting idealism. It's a fundamental disagreement, that won't be settled by any amount of semantics, concerning human nature itself and whether it can be changed. I'm willing to bet those for TVP, including myself, believe human nature can be changed. And those against it, I see, cite that avarice is an integral part of human nature that drives the current world economy and that won't ever change...but there isn't any particular reason to believe this other than because that's the way it's been since time immemorial. Human nature (as the word itself suggests) is biological in origin. It cannot change in a short span of time without direct manipulation of our genetic code on a level we are nowhere near of achieving. And in a long-term human nature changes, but it would be up to you to show that it is in any way moving in the direction necessary for TVP. EDIT:typo | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 21 2012 04:23 xeo1 wrote: It occurs to me that the people disagreeing either don't understand "tvp" or are so ingrained into the current system that they can't see past it (as explained in the matrix in the woman in the red dress scene). I don't see why anyone would object to creating a world free of useless labor, war, and poverty; freedom to pursue the life you wish without a financial barrier; and decisions made based on sound science and logic as opposed to a human's opinion whose influenced mainly by money. Noone objects to the world with those properties, people object to the method being proposed. Specifically they are saying that the method won't work as intended. On April 21 2012 04:23 xeo1 wrote: Today most people work in the service sector, almost all of which could be automated. Look around you, almost everything was created by machines. The ones working in the financial service sector don't contribute anything to the world, except for making money with money, hence their wealth. Some of it could be automated, some of it could be automated with extreme investments and some things we are so far from automating that for the purpose of the discussion we can say it cannot be done in any reasonable timeframe. On April 21 2012 04:23 xeo1 wrote: Comparing this system to a system in the past is absurd. Our technological knowledge wasn't up to the task, but now it is. We can create an abundance of food via hydroponics, aeroponics, and vertical farming. The energy infrastructure can already changed to incorporate wind, wave, solar, and geothermal sources. What is the single factor that hinders us from adapting? The profit system. People's values are tied to living for money as it provides life's necessities and more. But once we realize there is a better way, where everyone can benefit, it will be a world like never before. EDIT: mistakes The burden of proof is on you to show that our current technology is up to the task. And doing so would require much more than just vague mentions of few technologies. | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
On April 21 2012 04:51 Amaterasu1234 wrote: It appears that the differences between those for TVP and against goes much, much deeper than accepting/rejecting idealism. It's a fundamental disagreement, that won't be settled by any amount of semantics, concerning human nature itself and whether it can be changed. I'm willing to bet those for TVP, including myself, believe human nature can be changed. And those against it, I see, cite that avarice is an integral part of human nature that drives the current world economy and that won't ever change...but there isn't any particular reason to believe this other than because that's the way it's been since time immemorial. That whole part of tvp is irrelevant. What meaning does it's idealistic state have if it isn't possible to remove scarcity? Take food as an example. People like food. Some more than others. It is coded into us on a genetic level. So make food abundant. But some people don't want to hurt the animals. Some people have genetic aversions to certain flavors and never-you-mind preference. So you also have to produce munificent food. And another idea with food is that sweet things are not innately sweet. they are sweet because our bodies developed to crave high calorie and easily digestible food in order to survive. People overeat sweet foods as a genetic condition. So even if you could suddenly come up with a system to produce abundant and munificent food, you still need to engineer a society around that food that will not abuse it. What answer does tvp provide to solve all that? | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:17 mewo wrote: That whole part of tvp is irrelevant. What meaning does it's idealistic state have if it isn't possible to remove scarcity? Take food as an example. People like food. Some more than others. It is coded into us on a genetic level. So make food abundant. But some people don't want to hurt the animals. Some people have genetic aversions to certain flavors and never-you-mind preference. So you also have to produce munificent food. And another idea with food is that sweet things are not innately sweet. they are sweet because our bodies developed to crave high calorie and easily digestible food in order to survive. People overeat sweet foods as a genetic condition. So even if you could suddenly come up with a system to produce abundant and munificent food, you still need to engineer a society around that food that will not abuse it. What answer does tvp provide to solve all that? Compared to other problems of TVP this is like the easiest thing ever, since we already have societies that satisfy your criteria. | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:29 mcc wrote: Compared to other problems of TVP this is like the easiest thing ever, since we already have societies that satisfy your criteria. Name one. Do you eat perfectly without want and always with complete satisfaction? | ||
|
MooseyFate
United States237 Posts
People take this idea too literally. Sure, sci-fi inspired city layouts with flying helicopter-type transports would be awesome, but I don't think that is the point. If people can take 5, 10, or 15% of what TVP is trying to describe and work within a more "realistic" frame, progress can be made. Everyone in today's society so so hyper-critical . We are trained to look for the faults of an idea, and not the merits. TVP might not be the answer to the problems of the world, but our current system is not the answer either. Money is a tool, not a goal. Everyone today seems to be taught the opposite. Why else would they list expected/average salaries of graduates of certain degrees if not to entice prospective students with "Get this degree so you can earn $___ a year!" A change is needed, but it won't happen overnight. It will take decades, not years. Part of me likes to think that we as a species can accomplish anything we set our minds to; but I'm also afraid we don't have the patience. Edit: I spell good. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:32 mewo wrote: Name one. Do you eat perfectly without want and always with complete satisfaction? Where did you get perfectly ? Noone eats perfectly, but the problem is not scarcity. I would have no problem to afford to eat as perfectly as possible and with complete satisfaction. I am just too lazy to do so. Nothing to do with scarcity. But my case is beside the point. Any first world country could easily afford that. | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
On April 21 2012 06:10 mcc wrote: Where did you get perfectly ? Noone eats perfectly, but the problem is not scarcity. I would have no problem to afford to eat as perfectly as possible and with complete satisfaction. I am just too lazy to do so. Nothing to do with scarcity. But my case is beside the point. Any first world country could easily afford that. Only way to eliminate scarcity is perfection. A quality no society or individual has. As long as scarcity remains tvp is impossible. What proof is there that any society has solved hunger; much less achieved such a state as to satisfy all want? | ||
|
jcroisdale
United States1543 Posts
| ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On April 21 2012 06:15 mewo wrote: Only way to eliminate scarcity is perfection. A quality no society or individual has. As long as scarcity remains tvp is impossible. What proof is there that any society has solved hunger; much less achieved such a state as to satisfy all want? Actually no, to eliminate scarcity (as you define it) you need to be able to satisfy all want. Perfection is not necessary for that in the slightest. As for proof, there are countries where people are hungry only voluntarily and other countries that could easily be so if the will was there. Also you were talking specifically about food and I objected about food. Extending it to "all want" is moving the goalposts. Anyway your arguments about scarcity make it quite clear that you are going to use semantics and nothing else, so it will probably go nowhere. | ||
|
rave[wcr]
United States1166 Posts
| ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
On April 21 2012 06:28 mcc wrote: Actually no, to eliminate scarcity (as you define it) you need to be able to satisfy all want. Perfection is not necessary for that in the slightest. As for proof, there are countries where people are hungry only voluntarily and other countries that could easily be so if the will was there. Also you were talking specifically about food and I objected about food. Extending it to "all want" is moving the goalposts. Anyway your arguments about scarcity make it quite clear that you are going to use semantics and nothing else, so it will probably go nowhere. Its just false that there are countries where people are only voluntarily hungry, and to be clear, tvp attempts to create a utopian society. u·to·pi·a (y-tp-) n. 1. a. often Utopia An ideally perfect place, especially in its social, political, and moral aspects. b. A work of fiction describing a utopia. 2. An impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform. My point was that tvp cannot do any of the things it claims. Food was just an example. From the tvp faq: "What do you consider a "high standard of living", which everyone in the world is entitled to? And who is the one to decide this? In a resource-based economy many of the shortages that we have today could easily be overcome by technological ingenuity and the reduction of waste. For example, we could use a form of evaporative condensation in all areas where there are water shortages. We could provide canals from the sea into the land and cover the canals for several miles with transparent enclosures. These would be used for evaporative desalinization. In the state of Florida alone, we have close to 50 watts per square yard, which is not harnessed at this time by solar heat concentrators. All highways, parking lots, and rooftops in the new cities would be used to heat water for all of the community needs without the burning of fossil fuels. By using geothermal energy alone (the natural heat of the earth), we could propel the world's society for the next thousand years but this is relatively untapped. There is also wave power, wind power, heat concentrators and many sources of untapped power. Science has never been given the assignment of the production of an abundance for the benefit of all of the earth's people. A high standard of living would mean that all members of society would have access to all of the necessities to sustain life - medical care, education, food, clothing, housing, entertainment, leisure time and more. Man-hours could be reduced considerably until completely eliminated. By eliminating planned obsolescence and the replication of the same products by many different manufactures and by surpassing the need for advertising, sales, lawyers, business personnel, bankers and all of the other non-productive profession we could easily provide many more goods and services to all people. Today's middle class lives better than all of the kings of the past. In a resource- based economy, when the main thrust and total aim of science and innovative technology are directed towards a higher standard of living for all, our life style could far surpass anything imagined today." A perfect system might allow incentive-less society. But it just isn't possible. Its what their whole spiel is. The elimination of scarcity towards the development of a perfect system where one wants for nothing. As far as how food fits in, they don't have much of an answer at all: "What about food? Would people eat meat? Food and nutrition would be based upon personal preference and if studies indicate that eating living animals are detrimental to health the information would be there for all people. Through time and education and the manufacturing of synthetic proteins we could do away with killing fish and animals. We can not outlaw what people eat but we can outgrow the need for eating animal protein. During the transition to a better diet for those who need it we could also develop foods that taste and feel just like the ones they like eating but are healthier for people. We are also against experimenting on animals or people." Once again, how? | ||
|
Tanukki
Finland579 Posts
All I'm gonna say here is that they were some of the most pleasant people I've met, all with a positive energy about them. Even if the project is doomed to fail, I'd trust the future to them rather than whatever douches are currently in power. | ||
|
insom89
Canada13 Posts
On April 21 2012 05:17 mewo wrote: That whole part of tvp is irrelevant. What meaning does it's idealistic state have if it isn't possible to remove scarcity? Take food as an example. People like food. Some more than others. It is coded into us on a genetic level. So make food abundant. But some people don't want to hurt the animals. Some people have genetic aversions to certain flavors and never-you-mind preference. So you also have to produce munificent food. And another idea with food is that sweet things are not innately sweet. they are sweet because our bodies developed to crave high calorie and easily digestible food in order to survive. People overeat sweet foods as a genetic condition. So even if you could suddenly come up with a system to produce abundant and munificent food, you still need to engineer a society around that food that will not abuse it. What answer does tvp provide to solve all that? I think producing abundant food is a trivial problem considering there are no monetary restrictions. Someone previously mentioned some of the technologies (hydroponics, etc.) that we can use. On your second point, I'm assuming you're talking about the whole overeating and junk food thing. Couple thousands of years ago, before the agricultural revolution there were no such "sweet" foods around, there was no obesity issue, people were actually healthier, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618206000334 . But over thousands of years, as we found out ways to alter food, specifically those harmful to our health (junk food), we started to incorporate them in our daily lives, to the point where some people seem dependent on them. Not because their genetically predisposed, but because society has become that way and harbours such mentality as being acceptable. The point that I'm making is not that we go back to the stone ages in terms of our diet or anything like that, but to point out that we can change. So in the same way we learned to accept these foods, we can learn to part with these foods and has nothing to do with engineering a new society. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Just because the current system we have is the only one we've experienced doesn't mean its the only one, there are better ways to distribute wealth then via money. With just a fraction of what the US alone spends on the military world hunger could be sated, the technology is there, the incentive isn't because, people mainly are afraid of change, and the big corporations even more so because they want to maintain the status qua. I wish people would keep more of an open mind to this, because, I don't see how our way of life, our exorbitant waste of resources, our awful distribution of wealth and power, and our ever growing "need" for energy can be sustained for much longer as the resources of the planet diminish and our numbers soar. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g8204 Grubby5547 ScreaM2527 Beastyqt1185 ceh91018 B2W.Neo552 syndereN446 FrodaN271 ArmadaUGS172 QueenE95 Trikslyr70 mouzStarbuck61 ToD8 |
|
Code For Giants Cup
SOOP
ShoWTimE vs Clem
Replay Cast
ReBellioN vs HonMonO
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[BSL 2025] Weekly
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
