The incentive argument for the current system we have is not only is inconsistent with the pyschological motivations behind working hard and satisfaction, but even if you accept it as truly being able to incentivise it fails miserably for all but an infintesimal ammount of people.
Havent watched the vid though, mostly the Zeitgeist link put me off, not because im for or against it, but the type of people that either blindly agree with it as some form of revolutionary prophetic gift that can't be argued with or falsified, or the type of people who blindly dismiss it out of hand, disparagingly judging any supporters with derision and scorn. Are kinda irritating
On May 29 2012 12:01 Zinnwaldite wrote: dammit,, thought this project would be full of naked women for some reason... >_>
If it were, I would be far less critical. Full of "hot" naked women at least...wanted to make that definition clear since in my experience most of the women willing to get naked in public are the ones you wished to god wouldn't.
Havent watched the vid though, mostly the Zeitgeist link put me off, not because im for or against it, but the type of people that either blindly agree with it as some form of revolutionary prophetic gift that can't be argued with or falsified, or the type of people who blindly dismiss it out of hand, disparagingly judging any supporters with derision and scorn. Are kinda irritating
Yes i can see how people blindly follow the most sane approach that exist to acquire facts, The scientific method. I mean here you are basing stuff of your opinion or maybe something "god" said. And on the other hand you have these "blind zealots" as you refer them to actually go into systems examine it using the scientific method to find out what works and what dont work.
And when they come back with the results you look at it for 1 second and say naah their crazy maybe just maybe they arent the ones that are crazy.
I wish he could live long enaugh, so when i earn my fortune he could design a city that i would pay for and invite there great people just like in Atlas Shrugged. Guess i'm gonna have to find a replacement.
Havent watched the vid though, mostly the Zeitgeist link put me off, not because im for or against it, but the type of people that either blindly agree with it as some form of revolutionary prophetic gift that can't be argued with or falsified, or the type of people who blindly dismiss it out of hand, disparagingly judging any supporters with derision and scorn. Are kinda irritating
Yes i can see how people blindly follow the most sane approach that exist to acquire facts, The scientific method. I mean here you are basing stuff of your opinion or maybe something "god" said. And on the other hand you have these "blind zealots" as you refer them to actually go into systems examine it using the scientific method to find out what works and what dont work.
And when they come back with the results you look at it for 1 second and say naah their crazy maybe just maybe they arent the ones that are crazy.
I'm pretty sure we have several legitimate scientific areas dealing with these issues. You know, political science, conflict studies, economics (macro, micro, various kinds), engineering (various kinds) and so on. The problem is that these invisible people who research for your movement don't seem to grasp almost any established concept within the accepted disciplines of science (I'm pretty sure they're all based on the scientific method by the way) and just whisk them away with idealism. It's not crazy, it's just stupid and shows a lack of understanding. Apply your arguments/ad hominems to yourself instead, thank you.
The incentive argument for the current system we have is not only is inconsistent with the pyschological motivations behind working hard and satisfaction, but even if you accept it as truly being able to incentivise it fails miserably for all but an infintesimal ammount of people.
Actually the current method of incentive fails miserably for an infinitesimal amount of people, the same amount of people you find supporting ideas like a "resource based economy." That's the biggest part of the reason for these ideas being very fringe and is why a big part of the arguments advocating for an RBE involve claiming that the vast majority of people are victims of a false consciousness.
I'm pretty sure we have several legitimate scientific areas dealing with these issues. You know, political science, conflict studies, economics (macro, micro, various kinds), engineering (various kinds) and so on. The problem is that these invisible people who research for your movement don't seem to grasp almost any established concept within the accepted disciplines of science
we could have half the people on Ted but dont get it messed up just because you support the movement that dont mean you dont have to operate in a monetary system. There is no alternative atm.
Another clueless scientist.
But dont get it messed up you guys are all winning the admins of TL 100% agree with you. That dont mean im wrong however.
That's the biggest part of the reason for these ideas being very fringe and is why a big part of the arguments advocating for an RBE involve claiming that the vast majority of people are victims of a false consciousness.
I would say that is pretty accurate. Try convincing someone that there is something wrong with the system which also deducts that there is something wrong with you. I have no problem accepting that there is something wrong with me but many people are rubbed the wrong way by this.
I would attempt to debate this individual, but his grammar and spelling are so abysmal as to be nearly unreadable.
However, I will make one point. I think that the reason for a lot of ideas and concepts like this, and their reasonably large following, is because people like to believe that they are part of something new and different - that they are the radicals of society, and not just 'blind sheep like everyone else'. Owing to this, they will literally latch onto anything which sounds remotely plausable (Such as an RBE), but is different enough from the common view/current paradigms. In desperately trying to achieve individuality, these people are just achieving stupidity.
I'm pretty sure we have several legitimate scientific areas dealing with these issues. You know, political science, conflict studies, economics (macro, micro, various kinds), engineering (various kinds) and so on. The problem is that these invisible people who research for your movement don't seem to grasp almost any established concept within the accepted disciplines of science
we could have half the people on Ted but dont get it messed up just because you support the movement that dont mean you dont have to operate in a monetary system. There is no alternative atm.
That's the biggest part of the reason for these ideas being very fringe and is why a big part of the arguments advocating for an RBE involve claiming that the vast majority of people are victims of a false consciousness.
I would say that is pretty accurate. Try convincing someone that there is something wrong with the system which also deducts that there is something wrong with you. I have no problem accepted that there is something wrong with me but many people are rubbed the wrong way by this.
I can counter with a video of equal plausibility:
Very similar ideas by the way. Sell a utopical idea which clearly defies logic, and everything that is right simply on the basis that it would be very nice if it was true.
Seen it twice oh man im already breathing alot better!
Very similar ideas by the way. Sell a utopical idea which clearly defies logic, and everything that is right simply on the basis that it would be very nice if it was true.
I can definitly see the relationship between a scientist keeping a lecture on Ted on his field of expertise and a ministrel shocking people to quit their nictonine addiction Kiarp there is no beating you is there.
I'm pretty sure we have several legitimate scientific areas dealing with these issues. You know, political science, conflict studies, economics (macro, micro, various kinds), engineering (various kinds) and so on. The problem is that these invisible people who research for your movement don't seem to grasp almost any established concept within the accepted disciplines of science
we could have half the people on Ted but dont get it messed up just because you support the movement that dont mean you dont have to operate in a monetary system. There is no alternative atm.
How does linking a video to a CEO explaining how he's solving critical world problems encourage us to forgo the money system and capitalism in order to start an unproven and untested economic system (RBE)?
I've been following the venus project since the release of zeitgeist addendum, i've always been very interested in it. Our society got some serious issues, I like the way Fresco goes to the root of the problem, our culture of ownership and property is really a poison to progress, I never believed that competition is the best way to progress, I see it in fact as the slowest way to make it, I mean comparing to what can give you cooperation, competition is a joke... Unless we don't declare Earth ressources common heritage, I'm afraid same things will constently happen. I don't believe at all it is our "natural" way to be as human. Everything can change, our problem is clearly not ressources or money management, it is what's up in our mind, coze this world is a reflection of our mind nothing else. Any type of monetary system will trigger corruption, violence and greed. Because profit for your own interest will always result in creating misery somewhere else. Some would say, this is the way it has always been, the strong the weak, we can never change it blablabla, there is nothing that you can't change. Our society clearly wants us to believe that if you're aren't well adjusted to the system, then you have a problem. Our world is sick, it is a consequence of our belief system, and anyone who goes along with it, certainly is sick as well. It's almost a hopeless debate, because ppl are afraid of change. Once this world is in ruin, then your mind is in ruin, then we can finally move on. This is the way I see it.
Very similar ideas by the way. Sell a utopical idea which clearly defies logic, and everything that is right simply on the basis that it would be very nice if it was true.
I can definitly see the relationship between a scientist keeping a lecture on Ted on his field of expertise and a ministrel shocking people to quit their nictonine addiction Kiarp there is no beating you is there.
ok ok.
Fine, I'll break it down for you since you don't understand. TED lectures are lectures about innovation which may come in the future, but it also may not. The first lecture about green energy, sure it's really cool, but if you ask anyone actually working on this stuff it's no where near being usable yet. I've worked with graphene, and quantum-dot based solar panels a bit, and it's nowhere near being reliable, sufficient, or cost-efficient enough for actual widespread use. TED lectures never contain any actual hard science, the guy presented no math, no efficiency, or output charts... it's not actual science, it's just an attempt to bring up layman interest in what scientists are doing. There's an enormous engineering gap that the speaker intentionally does not mention, not because he's trying to deceive you, but because there's nothing to really talk about, or any results that anyone would actually find exciting or promising yet, it's simply a concept as of now, and will be in the near future.
Now the second video isn't even a remotely scientific (just like one should expect from Peter Joseph,) and it doesn't propose any type of solutions. It's a standard preach for increased social responsibility, presented through the outlining of current and possible future world problems, however, the existence of these problems doesn't make his opinion anymore credible. It's a common example of missing context, because he doesn't show the entire trade-off that occurs which results in these problems, he has nothing to compare the current world to, because no plausible model exists, so he settles for tugging at the naive listeners' consciences which in reality boils down to "Oh, if we were less human and more hive-minded like ants, or bees, then maybe these problems wouldn't exist for us, and we could all strive for the greater good ." Which is silly, even a first grader will tell you that a human that pretends to be a different animal is still a human.
How does linking a video to a CEO explaining how he's solving critical world problems encourage us to forgo the money system and capitalism in order to start an unproven and untested economic system (RBE)?
Hes job is not to encourage people even tho he tries. There are alot of places where i have to hold my tongue to have a lecture relevant to the area im in. But like he says we can do better than this many of you havent seen the collapse worldwide its not as much a monetary collapse as it is in our enviroment being polluted and we have to realy on technologies to even survive in areas that were previously habitable.
Think Command and conquer Blue zones yellow zones and red zones. Hopefuly i get the thread so i can create a FAQ i wont get to much into sources in this thread.
Fine, I'll break it down for you since you don't understand. TED lectures are lectures about innovation which may come in the future, but it also may not. The first lecture about green energy, sure it's really cool, but if you ask anyone actually working on this stuff it's no where near being usable yet.
You dont think that excused is used by everyone with disbelief? You can do better.
Except for how I've tested a lot of the damn things, and actually read lab reports of others' experiments and these things are simply not usable right now, period.
Except for how I've tested a lot of the damn things, and actually read lab reports of others' experiments and these things are simply not usable right now, period.
edit: It's not disbelief, I don't at all think it's un-plausible to have our windows generate electricity, now I know for a FACT that it's unplausible to have the sky-scraper he showed in the picture to generate all the electricity needs to operate normally just from its windows, especially if it's an office building...
You seem to think that just because "Oh we can put solar cells on windows," and "Oh, windows are everywhere," all our energy problems are solved... That's an incredibly naive thought. We consume much more energy than can be generated by the surface area of our locales, even assuming perfect incidence angle (which is obviously impossible,) and after you start to factor things in like average sunlight, fragility (graphene is very fragile unless protected,) the amount of efficiency lost from said protection, etc. It's simply not worth it, eventually it will be though, both because the techonology will be better, and energy will be more expensive in general like your second video rightfully identifies, but just because we'll have power-generating windows, it doesn't mean that we will solve our energy scarcity problems... we won't.
Except for how I've tested a lot of the damn things, and actually read lab reports of others' experiments and these things are simply not usable right now, period.
I didn't test all of them, but I tested some quantum-dot DSSC's in particular, our labs may not have produced the best cells, but I read published reports of other labs, and although their results were often better it was still not in the range necessary to be viable for widespread use.
How does linking a video to a CEO explaining how he's solving critical world problems encourage us to forgo the money system and capitalism in order to start an unproven and untested economic system (RBE)?
Hes job is not to encourage people even tho he tries. There are alot of places where i have to hold my tongue to have a lecture relevant to the area im in. But like he says we can do better than this many of you havent seen the collapse worldwide its not as much a monetary collapse as it is in our enviroment being polluted and we have to realy on technologies to even survive in areas that were previously habitable.
Think Command and conquer Blue zones yellow zones and red zones. Hopefuly i get the thread so i can create a FAQ i wont get to much into sources in this thread.
You are missing my point though. The world is aware of its problems and is already working to resolve them. So why change to an unproven and untested RBE system? Seems like a wasteful distraction...
You are missing my point though. The world is aware of its problems and is already working to resolve them. So why change to an unproven and untested RBE system? Seems like a wasteful distraction..
Because most of the problems is due to the monetary system and the values they enforce. Many of these problems cannot be solved in a monetary system. RBE is the best alternative we have to a monetary system and is no doubt the next form of "governance" we will use. Because lets face it non of us are free we are only better of due to the technology we have today.
And if you dont belive that leave your wallet at home and try and be free see what standard of living you will have and how far you will get.
You are missing my point though. The world is aware of its problems and is already working to resolve them. So why change to an unproven and untested RBE system? Seems like a wasteful distraction..
Because most of the problems is due to the monetary system and the values they enforce. Many of these problems cannot be solved in a monetary system. RBE is the best alternative we have to a monetary system and is no doubt the next form of "governance" we will use. Because lets face it non of us are free we are only better of due to the technology we have today.
And if you dont belive that leave your wallet at home and try and be free see what standard of living you will have and how far you will get.
But that's a silly argument. You can't just say 'RBE is the best alternative' when no one has done any scientific analysis to show that it, in fact, is.
Just because the current system is imperfect you cannot assume that an alternative is better. That is speculation, not science.
You are missing my point though. The world is aware of its problems and is already working to resolve them. So why change to an unproven and untested RBE system? Seems like a wasteful distraction..
Because most of the problems is due to the monetary system and the values they enforce. Many of these problems cannot be solved in a monetary system. RBE is the best alternative we have to a monetary system and is no doubt the next form of "governance" we will use. Because lets face it non of us are free we are only better of due to the technology we have today.
And if you dont belive that leave your wallet at home and try and be free see what standard of living you will have and how far you will get.
Wrong. Monetary system is the result of our natural value systems, not the other way around.
And, if you think it is fair to say that monetary system is the source of the problems, then it is just as fair to say that monetary system is the source of all our technological solutions, because it is in fact technological solutions to already existing problems that created new problems.
But that's a silly argument. You can't just say 'RBE is the best alternative' when no one has done any scientific analysis to show that it, in fact, is.
What if it is all based on scientific facts/studies? And no speculation is allowed into the construction of the system. It is true that the multitudes of systems that would be used in a RBE have never tested toghether at once. But the independent parts of it has all been tested and is based on science not opinion or speculation.
The scary part for many is the behaviour science which many people consider taboo, What makes a human and what creates human behaviour? What is desirable in human behaviour for the future and what is not?
Just because the current system is imperfect you cannot assume that an alternative is better.
If you had the insight i have into what shapes human behaviour this would be commen sense to you. Most likely your understanding is being blocked by a multitude of factors one including. What about "Human nature" your refrence to what you see and what you think you understand immiedietly assumes that you know what human nature is.