Hello, I made a quick search about TVP and didn't find anything. Anyways, i hope it'll be useful for some people. There's a lot to discuss about it, so what i'll do is give links that i found interesting. I just want to share those ideas with people, and see what you guys think about it. Please try to understand what TVP really is about, and don't say "lol it's a buncha bull shit they just want to make money" or "OMG we will be controlled by machines omg matrix". First of all their website : http://www.thevenusproject.com/
A little bit about Jacque Fresco (taken from Wikipedia) : Jacque Fresco (born March 13, 1916), is a self-educated structural designer, architectural designer, philosopher of science, concept artist, educator, and futurist. His interests span a wide range of disciplines including several in philosophy, science, Architecture and engineering.[4] Fresco writes and lectures extensively on his view of subjects ranging from the holistic design of sustainable cities, energy efficiency, natural resource management, cybernated technology, advanced automation, and the role of science in society, focusing on the benefits he thinks they may bring. With his colleague, Roxanne Meadows, he is the founder and director of an organization known as The Venus Project, located in Venus, Florida.[5] He currently promotes a fundamental change in anthropic organization through the global implementation of a novel socio-economic system predicated on social cooperation and scientific methodology, called a Resource-based Economy.
The video that I found very interesting (Future by design):
Jacque Fresco talking about words, thinking, creativity :
This is more about what made him think that way, and his life :
I'm pretty bad at presenting things, and for TVP there's a lot to talk about, that's why i prefer link you to videos and sites that made me think. I tried to criticize TVP but I never find something incorrect in his talks and in his system. If I did something wrong, would it be advertising or just like presenting wrong or I don't know what, please tell me. With kind regards
EDIT : I watched and re-watched all the Zeitgeist, and I'm just gonna give you the links in case you wanna check it out. http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Im surprised there is no thread about this already. Anyways, TVP is a moneyless socialistic technocracy (correct me if im wrong) and thats all I need to know to dismiss it right away. These ideas are so old. Its all that damn zeitgeist movies fault for reincarnating that nut Fresco and his total disdain for basic economics.
Your engaging in the most ambitious social project one could ever imagine. You would think a basic knowledge of the science of the allocation of earths resources (economics) would be prerequisite, but no. Its like someone who knows first aid attempting brain surgery. You might have good intentions but damn if it isnt gunna be messy.
Read a bit about the price mechanism and how it allocates resources, and tell me how a computer that doesnt even exist yet is going to solve that problem.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Hey Lettuce, are you just going to ask the question "Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?" and make fun of the guy for drawing a blank, while not answering the question yourself?
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
I love how people who dont go for every new conspiracy thing that comes out are blind puppet sheeple listenin to the mans propaganda. Zeitgeisters dont even know who 'the man' is.
On April 20 2012 22:23 Zorkmid wrote: Hey Lettuce, are you just going to ask the question "Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?" and make fun of the guy for drawing a blank, while not answering the question yourself?
You're doing the same thing you just mocked.
Actually I have a few my self. I have had endless facebook debates with my friends over this shit. I just really don't want to go in to detail, and be belittled by semantics. If you really want I'll pm you everything I've said.
However the big difference being, I'm not a supporter of the system. Which entirely changes my rational. People that believe in this system back it and never give any time for the criticisms. It's different for me as I don't believe in this system so I attack it.
I gather from the way you wrote that, that you are supporter of this system. Please tell me what you find wrong with it?
Extreme idealism doesn't work in the real world. /thread
Put into terms that people should be able to understand. You absolutely cannot abolish greed and laziness. These two unquestionable facts eliminate any possibility of something like this being possible. Nothing more needs to be said.
On April 20 2012 22:23 Zorkmid wrote: Hey Lettuce, are you just going to ask the question "Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?" and make fun of the guy for drawing a blank, while not answering the question yourself?
You're doing the same thing you just mocked.
Actually I have a few my self. I have had endless facebook debates with my friends over this shit. I just really don't want to go in to detail, and be belittled by semantics. If you really want I'll pm you everything I've said.
However the big difference being, I'm not a supporter of the system. Which entirely changes my rational. People that believe in this system back it and never give any time for the criticisms. It's different for me as I don't believe in this system so I attack it.
I gather from the way you wrote that, that you are supporter of this system. Please tell me what you find wrong with it?
I'm not a supporter of the system, nor do I have any arguments or opinions one way or the other on the subject. I just hate reading posts that say: "THIS IS STOOPID !!1ONE!!" and have basically nothing else to say.
It's great that you've had facebook arguments with your buds, but why post in this thread to say nothing about the subject except that it is stupid because of ___________.
Lettuce, I don't get how you chose your criteria for dismissing people. You ask them what's wrong with the system, and if they don't answer, you label them as dumb or w/e?
Why don't you pull out the aces out of the sleeve, and ask "how are you going to solve this this and this?"
It's like I say to you, I have a car that's better than yours in areas A, B and C. And then you come in "Tell me one thing that's wrong with it?". I stay silent, and you happily conclude that your car is better ? Seems logical...
On April 20 2012 22:53 niteReloaded wrote: Lettuce, I don't get how you chose your criteria for dismissing people. You ask them what's wrong with the system, and if they don't answer, you label them as dumb or w/e?
Why don't you pull out the aces out of the sleeve, and ask "how are you going to solve this this and this?"
It's like I say to you, I have a car that's better than yours in areas A, B and C. And then you come in "Tell me one thing that's wrong with it?". I stay silent, and you happily conclude that your car is better ? Seems logical...
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.
These are the basis of the main problems with this system. I could go on and on and on, literally.
-Open to corruption. Does not fix upon old model. Still controlled by much more powerful individuals.
- No replacement incentive to the current monetary system.
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?
I think the idea is that there's less need to become corrupt, because everyone should have access to everything.
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.
I'd imagine this is the main counter-argument to the resource-based economy. There are tons and tons of people that work hard JUST to make money and gain power. There are still scientists out there today that do what they do for the thrill of exploration and gaining knowledge. I don't think you'd see a giant slow down in R&D progression.
There are people today that aren't "in the race" and don't want to be. There will always be people like this to be sure, but I don't think that it's the majority of us.
It would be quite nice to have this kind of life on our planet... Maybe in a thousand years... If we get really lucky and evolve our society, economy and infrastructure in a timely manner
@ KvltMan thanks, i'll go and check it out. @ Dekoth you didn't listen to Jacque at all. What can prove you that laziness and greed cannot be abolished ? How can you affirm that ? @Dr.Lettuce you have to understand that if the environment changes, the people's mind changes too. That means that it is hard to predict "we will be like this or like that" "people won't do anything". You can't say that because we never explored that environment. What says Zorkmid is true : there are still scientists out there today that do what they do for the thrill of exploration and gaining knowledge.
Seriously, check out those videos because they're very interesting and I think that they answer to a lot of questions. And Jacque doesn't take about an utopia or whatever "ideology". He just says that it is a much better system that what we're currently living in. Period.
not to derail by any measure, as i know barely anything on this project, but i just found it funny that he has a resume on the homepage, and it is -huge-
On April 20 2012 22:40 Dekoth wrote: Extreme idealism doesn't work in the real world. /thread
Put into terms that people should be able to understand. You absolutely cannot abolish greed and laziness. These two unquestionable facts eliminate any possibility of something like this being possible. Nothing more needs to be said.
On April 20 2012 23:47 AcirA wrote: @ KvltMan thanks, i'll go and check it out. @ Dekoth you didn't listen to Jacque at all. What can prove you that laziness and greed cannot be abolished ? How can you affirm that ? @Dr.Lettuce you have to understand that if the environment changes, the people's mind changes too. That means that it is hard to predict "we will be like this or like that" "people won't do anything". You can't say that because we never explored that environment. What says Zorkmid is true : there are still scientists out there today that do what they do for the thrill of exploration and gaining knowledge.
Seriously, check out those videos because they're very interesting and I think that they answer to a lot of questions. And Jacque doesn't take about an utopia or whatever "ideology". He just says that it is a much better system that what we're currently living in. Period.
I listened. Thousands of years of human civilization have proven it beyond question. People have dreamed of utopian societies since society began. Every single attempt ever made has failed miserably to greed, corruption, and laziness. Again, it sounds wonderful on paper but society has proven time and time again that utopian societies (and that is precisely what it is) do not work.
There has never been a society (that i heard of at least) as advanced (technologically) as we are. I'm pretty sure that almost every society you are talking of are society where there is no abundance. So, just by that, TVP presents a new "society". And saying "no i won't work" to something that has never been tested is irrelevant. People didn't believe that man could someday fly.
Remove the monetary element from society and suddenly a lot of the roadblocks to techological advancement disappear. Money has a way of hindering progress rather than promoting it. It also sounds nice that we just get robots to do all the boring jobs so we can all dance around and be hippies. It's not a bad idea really. Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers. I aslo dont think that it would be terrible to free people for job slavery. I guess i just have enough faith in humanity to think that if people dont nessesarily have to be chained to a desk then they would realisticly consider careers in science or engineering instead.
In the end though its just an interresting idea... Nothing more...
I like his ideas. After watching the brilliant Zeitgeist movies I went visiting the TVP web site. It says in the future we're all going to have an open mind, be comfortable in our sexuality and running around naked. That's such a beautiful idea. I still think people above a certain age should be required to wear some clothes though.
On April 21 2012 01:22 Tremendous wrote: Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers.
I agree, I clearly will become this new society's laughing stock for having studied economics.
On April 20 2012 23:47 AcirA wrote: @ KvltMan thanks, i'll go and check it out. @ Dekoth you didn't listen to Jacque at all. What can prove you that laziness and greed cannot be abolished ? How can you affirm that ? @Dr.Lettuce you have to understand that if the environment changes, the people's mind changes too. That means that it is hard to predict "we will be like this or like that" "people won't do anything". You can't say that because we never explored that environment. What says Zorkmid is true : there are still scientists out there today that do what they do for the thrill of exploration and gaining knowledge.
Seriously, check out those videos because they're very interesting and I think that they answer to a lot of questions. And Jacque doesn't take about an utopia or whatever "ideology". He just says that it is a much better system that what we're currently living in. Period.
I listened. Thousands of years of human civilization have proven it beyond question. People have dreamed of utopian societies since society began. Every single attempt ever made has failed miserably to greed, corruption, and laziness. Again, it sounds wonderful on paper but society has proven time and time again that utopian societies (and that is precisely what it is) do not work.
It isn't even worth discussing beyond that.
Humans are evolving, especially our brains are. We begin to see things clearly day in and day out. Once upon a time people have thought the only system is kingdoms because people will always fight over ultimate power. But things had to change, people still fight over power but in kinder ways.
The thing is, it may change again, you may call me dumb but i can see this happening even if i won't be seeing it in my lifetime.
On April 21 2012 01:22 Tremendous wrote: Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers.
I agree, I clearly will become this new society's laughing stock for having studied economics.
Not just you bro... Everyone in advertizing, accouting, sales, banking etc. =)
but just think about it.. if money didnt exsist, what you be doing ?
On April 21 2012 01:22 Tremendous wrote: Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers.
I agree, I clearly will become this new society's laughing stock for having studied economics.
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 would do art instead of web designing. I would still design thought but just spend more time on music,acting and writing. Even the image of being able to find time for all these things without the worry of money feels great.
You don't know 'cuz money exists. If money didn't exist everything'd be different, so saying "what would i be doin' ?" is kinda irrelevant imo :p There's always something you like to do : would it be reading, writing, teaching, learning, discvoering, moving, playing, talking, thinking, searching etc...
On April 21 2012 01:22 Tremendous wrote: Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers.
I agree, I clearly will become this new society's laughing stock for having studied economics.
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 feel like people are too attached to money, and if money didn't exist, they would feel like they were working for nothing (which is not actually the case).
On April 21 2012 00:51 AcirA wrote: There has never been a society (that i heard of at least) as advanced (technologically) as we are. I'm pretty sure that almost every society you are talking of are society where there is no abundance. So, just by that, TVP presents a new "society". And saying "no i won't work" to something that has never been tested is irrelevant. People didn't believe that man could someday fly.
The point you are just missing and or outright ignoring is human motivation. We have thousands of years of proof that the things I mentioned would stand in the way of something like this ever working. Technology is an irrelevant argument.
1) Some people are just pathetically lazy and will do as little as possible. If you provide free food and shelter for the they will never lift a finger. We already have overwhelming proof of that in our welfare system.
2) Some people are greedy and power hungry, elimination of money doesn't stop this.
3) The last point I didn't mention and thought was implied is that some people are just sheep. They will follow those greedy/power hungry people no matter what.
Once again, technology is a completely pointless argument. The human factor is what kills any chance of idealism like this succeeding and we have thousands of years of empiric data on human behavior. It hasn't changed and it is not going to change. Until something like this can provide a demonstrable use case that human behavior can be modified on a large scale, then it is a useless idealistic project that makes a small handful of people feel like they are doing something meaningful with their lives (they aren't).
On April 20 2012 22:53 niteReloaded wrote: Lettuce, I don't get how you chose your criteria for dismissing people. You ask them what's wrong with the system, and if they don't answer, you label them as dumb or w/e?
Why don't you pull out the aces out of the sleeve, and ask "how are you going to solve this this and this?"
It's like I say to you, I have a car that's better than yours in areas A, B and C. And then you come in "Tell me one thing that's wrong with it?". I stay silent, and you happily conclude that your car is better ? Seems logical...
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.
These are the basis of the main problems with this system. I could go on and on and on, literally.
-Open to corruption. Does not fix upon old model. Still controlled by much more powerful individuals.
- No replacement incentive to the current monetary system.
2 underlying huge problems.
There are incentives beyond monetary ones and even beyond material ones. The material incentive is just one of many. Its strength relative to the other ones is as far as I know poorly studied subject and thus saying strong statements about incentives in whichever system seems unsupported.
As for OP, the system seems to be rather naive, lacking in-depth enough explanations of how are they going to solve myriad of problems arising in their propositions. There are so many problems apparent that presenting general critique is nearly impossible as to nearly every statement , you can ask : "And what about that ?", "How exactly?", "How is this assumption supported ?".
On April 20 2012 23:47 AcirA wrote: @ KvltMan thanks, i'll go and check it out. @ Dekoth you didn't listen to Jacque at all. What can prove you that laziness and greed cannot be abolished ? How can you affirm that ? @Dr.Lettuce you have to understand that if the environment changes, the people's mind changes too. That means that it is hard to predict "we will be like this or like that" "people won't do anything". You can't say that because we never explored that environment. What says Zorkmid is true : there are still scientists out there today that do what they do for the thrill of exploration and gaining knowledge.
Seriously, check out those videos because they're very interesting and I think that they answer to a lot of questions. And Jacque doesn't take about an utopia or whatever "ideology". He just says that it is a much better system that what we're currently living in. Period.
I listened. Thousands of years of human civilization have proven it beyond question. People have dreamed of utopian societies since society began. Every single attempt ever made has failed miserably to greed, corruption, and laziness. Again, it sounds wonderful on paper but society has proven time and time again that utopian societies (and that is precisely what it is) do not work.
It isn't even worth discussing beyond that.
You first need to show that it is in fact utopian. You stated that without anything supporting the statement. And even though I agree with you, neither of us showed that it is in fact utopian proposition.
On April 21 2012 00:51 AcirA wrote: There has never been a society (that i heard of at least) as advanced (technologically) as we are. I'm pretty sure that almost every society you are talking of are society where there is no abundance. So, just by that, TVP presents a new "society". And saying "no i won't work" to something that has never been tested is irrelevant. People didn't believe that man could someday fly.
The point you are just missing and or outright ignoring is human motivation. We have thousands of years of proof that the things I mentioned would stand in the way of something like this ever working. Technology is an irrelevant argument.
1) Some people are just pathetically lazy and will do as little as possible. If you provide free food and shelter for the they will never lift a finger. We already have overwhelming proof of that in our welfare system.
2) Some people are greedy and power hungry, elimination of money doesn't stop this.
3) The last point I didn't mention and thought was implied is that some people are just sheep. They will follow those greedy/power hungry people no matter what.
Once again, technology is a completely pointless argument. The human factor is what kills any chance of idealism like this succeeding and we have thousands of years of empiric data on human behavior. It hasn't changed and it is not going to change. Until something like this can provide a demonstrable use case that human behavior can be modified on a large scale, then it is a useless idealistic project that makes a small handful of people feel like they are doing something meaningful with their lives (they aren't).
Well it can work, if noone has to work for society to function. Basically in some post-scarcity society where human work is no longer needed to provide all people with big enough amount of goods similar system can work. But we are rather far from achieving that, so in near future that system seems naive and unworkable.
I have had the pleasure to meet Jacque a few years ago. I usually end up discussing his ideas in these types of settings until someone tires out and drops out of the conversation :D
What it boils down to is environment. He explains that he has encountered some native tribes that do not even comprehend the concept of stealing just because of the ubundance of resources, while others have never experienced forms of physical abuse of women because these tribes didnt make such a big deal out of sex. He also saw that some societies created beautiful art just to give it to strangers. It just goes to show that the way we are is not inherent in humans, it would be a big mistake to say TvP can never happen, it's just a change which will most likely not happen very soon.
On April 21 2012 01:22 Tremendous wrote: Again if you remove money as the chief motivating factor for working, by providing free food, shelter and power then i think a lot of people would have chosen very different careers.
I agree, I clearly will become this new society's laughing stock for having studied economics.
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.
On April 20 2012 22:53 niteReloaded wrote: Lettuce, I don't get how you chose your criteria for dismissing people. You ask them what's wrong with the system, and if they don't answer, you label them as dumb or w/e?
Why don't you pull out the aces out of the sleeve, and ask "how are you going to solve this this and this?"
It's like I say to you, I have a car that's better than yours in areas A, B and C. And then you come in "Tell me one thing that's wrong with it?". I stay silent, and you happily conclude that your car is better ? Seems logical...
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.
This is some intensely stupid stuff. Instead of trying to sift through all the shit. I'm willing to explain to anyone why any part of what that website says is either inadequate or ill founded.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Compared to other problems of TVP this is like the easiest thing ever, since we already have societies that satisfy your criteria.
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?
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?
I think the ideas behind TVP are great. Who wouldn't want a society where you have your basic needs provided so you can spend your time and energy working towards goals that give you fulfillment on every level?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
Its so far off like decades upon decades, before we see anything even related to TVP in our neighborhoods. This is definitely the first step to a true planet. We need things like this to gives us time to focus on science and not war.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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."
While I'm personally a little too cynical to believe in the future painted by TVP, I've studied the ideas quite a bit, and spoken to plenty of its supporters and the members of the Zeitgeist movement (similar, equally hopeless romantics :p ) both personally IRL and online.
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.
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.
I think the idea of what they want to accomplish with the Venus project is great and it is the way forward. The architecture of today's economy and everything that it touches is doomed to failure, because the system is flawed. Money is the goal when it should be the tool, and it leads to extremes of abuse of resources and power on a massive scale.
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.
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.
First I can't read anything other than the abstract of that paper so I have no way of knowing much at all about it or its conclusions. If you pm me your science direct login I'd be happy to read it though so I can speak intelligently.
As far as sweet foods. Honey, sugarcane, apples, watermelons, berries, are all very sweet foods. Sweet food will be in higher demand. Unequal demand of food source creates scarcity. Tvp cannot exist in the presence of scarcity. That would be contrary to its primary ideal with seems to be the elimination of scarcity.
One thing I can say about that article is that over those thousands of years that we have gotten non specifically unhealthier the average age has doubled.
On April 21 2012 07:14 Destructicon wrote: I think the idea of what they want to accomplish with the Venus project is great and it is the way forward. The architecture of today's economy and everything that it touches is doomed to failure, because the system is flawed. Money is the goal when it should be the tool, and it leads to extremes of abuse of resources and power on a massive scale.
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.
Heh sorry for the link thing, i don't have access to the full thing either, but that's kinda besides the point.
As far as sweet foods. Honey, sugarcane, apples, watermelons, berries, are all very sweet foods. Sweet food will be in higher demand. Unequal demand of food source creates scarcity. Tvp cannot exist in the presence of scarcity. That would be contrary to its primary ideal with seems to be the elimination of scarcity.
I'm not sure if I fully get what you mean by scarcity, but why would unequal demand lead to it (in the sense that's there's not enough to go around)? If there's a high demand for something, we would have the means to produce how ever much we need without having to worry about other things such as whether people can afford it or any other economical reasons. I mean even if you look around today, there are certain foods that have much higher demand than others such as staples (rice, bread, milk, etc.) but for the most part there aren't any shortages. Where there are shortages, gov'ts can't cope because of other factors, such as poverty, corruption, or w/e other political/economical situation that might arise. For example in Pakistan, the cost of wheat and wheat related products, which are used on a daily basis, has gone up 500-600% in the past few years and most people can't afford it (its actually a pretty huge crisis over there). Now the companies can't just drop prices either because they wouldn't be making any money either. But in TVP there are no companies, and there is no money to be made.
It's actually surprising how many things would change and how even the most simple ideas such as supply and demand wouldn't exist if there is no monetary system. In general, a lot of economic/political/social reasons you might feel TVP doesn't hold or have any value in pursuing, don't apply, for the most part. I feel you probably haven't watched the documentaries, but try to watch Zeitgeist: Addendum or Moving Forward. I think a lot interesting ideas are brought up which can be hard to find on their website, or simply aren't on there.
It's funny watching the Zeitgeist folks actually believe what they believe in is something new and has never been tried. It's actually an old tired out idea -- Communism. Let's take a look at the great successes -- Khmer Rouge. Wonderful. USSR, wonderful. Maoist China -- wonderful. Early America -- wonderful. Notice a trend yet? Death, starvation, conflict, genocide via dictator.
You can't simply wish away economics, scarcity, and every other factor we have to live with daily as part of the natural world. Yes, you are correct there would be no need for economics if there was no scarcity, but we don't live in the Garden of Eden, do we? I'd like to have a refrigator full of kobe beef stocked 24/7 for eternity, and have cabernet wine every night...you going to supply that for me, forever? I can't believe people fall for such blatant falsities.
A good hour long lecture everyone should really listen to:
Yea this guy has a lot of stuff that makes you wonder why people dont use this stuff already. If you like this check out "Transcendent Man" with Ray Kurzweil
On April 22 2012 16:03 Wegandi wrote: It's funny watching the Zeitgeist folks actually believe what they believe in is something new and has never been tried. It's actually an old tired out idea -- Communism. Let's take a look at the great successes -- Khmer Rouge. Wonderful. USSR, wonderful. Maoist China -- wonderful. Early America -- wonderful. Notice a trend yet? Death, starvation, conflict, genocide via dictator.
You can't simply wish away economics, scarcity, and every other factor we have to live with daily as part of the natural world. Yes, you are correct there would be no need for economics if there was no scarcity, but we don't live in the Garden of Eden, do we? I'd like to have a refrigator full of kobe beef stocked 24/7 for eternity, and have cabernet wine every night...you going to supply that for me, forever? I can't believe people fall for such blatant falsities.
A good hour long lecture everyone should really listen to:
If you think communism and a resource base economy are the same, then you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Please go and actually read something.
As for your fridge full of kobe beef issue, I have two main points that I can think of right now. One, people simply wouldn't live like that, there's no reason to. I get what you're saying, this system pretty much says you can have as much of whatever you like, which does sound pretty stupid. But what you're overlooking is that there will be a shift in mentality of the masses. Think of current times, why do these multi-billionaires buy all of this excessive stuff, do they really need it? No, they only buy it because of how our society works right now, to show that they are of the upper class and all that bullshit which I'm sure you've heard of before. After given enough time living in a resource based economy, the mentality of people will be different. Similar to how certain tribes who have lived in isolation from the most of the world have completely different mentality on how to behave. This is an interesting subject and i think their website has more info on it
Second point, If they somehow manage to run out of this rare kind of meat which is only produced in Japan, it's not like its going collapse the economy or anything near the that. And I don't just mean kobe beef, I mean any type of commodity that can't be created by man (like a tv, can't really run out of those). There are always alternatives. If suppose in an attempt to regulate the population of the fish we start to restrict fishing (this is just my guess, who knows what other people have thought up of), which is in practice even today, there are other alternatives to what fish provide in nutrition. This also doesn't mean that we're going to be rationing food, and only live off of bare minimums just enough to stay healthy, part of a resource based economy's main goal is to practice and find methods that will allow you live comfortably without having to worry about whether this method is profitable or not. So yes, it's possible you might not have a fridge stocked 24/7 with you're favourite delicacy, but that doesn't mean the system can't work because of it.
I would like to weigh in on the topic of the Venus Project and the resource based economic model of collectivism espoused by Jacques Fresco and Peter Jospeh of Zeitgeist. I used to be someone convinced of the logic of this thinking until I discovered the LaRouche movement some years later and the insights into economics that they can offer. I have since become convinced of the utter foolishness and ignorance of this model, and I would like to offer an example that I hope will go far towards illustrating my point that the current system we have now is much better for resource management than the Venus Project model. It is the case of Aluminum.
Do you know that it is Aluminum which caps the Washington Monument, erected to glorify the patriot George Washington? Why did the designers not choose gold or platinum instead of aluminum to cap off the memorial to their great forefather? It was because at the time Aluminum was the most expensive metal there was. Aluminum requires an enormous amount of energy to extract one gram of metal compared to iron, copper or other base metals. Furthermore, Aluminum is light, strong and corrosion resistant.
A few years after the Washington Monument was put up, a new innovation in Aluminum smelting resulted in a drastic drop in the price of aluminum, using another new technology to generate the heat, electricity. With further advancements in electricity generation Aluminum has become what it is now, so cheap we wrap our leftovers in it.
This is the essence of a key insight that the LaRouche movement was able to open my eyes to. The unique ability of humans to use their creativity for scientific discovery and technological development, to transcend resource limitations and to create a new normal which previously did not exist. What would the technocrats of the Venus Project have valued Aluminum at in the 1860s? How can a centralized technocracy make resource predictions for the future given this unique ability of man to completely change the dynamic?
I realize this is but one small example but there are many similar economic historical events. Take for example the transition from wood burning to coal to oil to nuclear fission. Each time the same amount of work (or heat) could be generated using far less material. This increases the general productivity of the entire society each time these breakthroughs occur. Looking forward in the 1890s the technocratic resource planners would have said by 2000 we will be out of coal so we better start rationing it. What is the actual result? We have coal still for hundreds of years. Why? Because we moved on to oil and nuclear instead, which is much more energy dense, so the same amount of heat can be generated more economically.
This is why LaRouche always hammers on the need to develop a commercial nuclear fusion process, why we need a crash program worldwide to achieve it for humanity's sake. WIth nuclear fusion any ore could be mined economically from any rock on earth. Think about that. You could mine a ton of rock on your property, or anywhere, and if there was iron, or copper, or potassium, or whatever, you could mine it economically. What would that mean for the centralized resource planners if suddenly every resource was abundant. What if we used nuclear fusion powered rockets to colonize the Moon and Mars and mine there, expanding humanity's resource base even more? This is the essence of true human economy, to transcend resource limitations through scientific discovery, defying the predictions of the Malthusian doomsayers.
Mankind is the only animal we know of not limited to one planet. We should start living up to that potential.
On April 22 2012 16:03 Wegandi wrote: It's funny watching the Zeitgeist folks actually believe what they believe in is something new and has never been tried. It's actually an old tired out idea -- Communism. Let's take a look at the great successes -- Khmer Rouge. Wonderful. USSR, wonderful. Maoist China -- wonderful. Early America -- wonderful. Notice a trend yet? Death, starvation, conflict, genocide via dictator.
You can't simply wish away economics, scarcity, and every other factor we have to live with daily as part of the natural world. Yes, you are correct there would be no need for economics if there was no scarcity, but we don't live in the Garden of Eden, do we? I'd like to have a refrigator full of kobe beef stocked 24/7 for eternity, and have cabernet wine every night...you going to supply that for me, forever? I can't believe people fall for such blatant falsities.
A good hour long lecture everyone should really listen to:
(The following statements are not my words, but they are true nonetheless)
The USSR was state-capitalist. Their economy was state-run and involved money. There's no modern example of a true communist economy.
The economies of those authoritarian regimes used money and were run by the state. It's called state capitalism. True communism would involve neither a state (let alone a political party) nor money. Its economy would be run by each voluntary member of the community with no authoritarian coercion from a minority. The early 20th century wasn't ready for a real communist enterprise, especially technology-wise. Hence the failure. The situation is quite different today.
Many things that were unavailable at the time of Lenin are today available. We have advanced computers, the internet, satellites, 3D printers, etc. The likes of Creative Commons are the mark of people's awareness of common ownership. We now have far better bases for collective decisions, scientific resource management, etc.
In an environment of finite resources such as this planet, capitalism with its consumerist culture is unsustainable. It doesn't ensure the continuation of production and people's welfare of being. A shift is inevitable. The real question is not whether common ownership is possible but how to bring about the change peacefully.
I'm wondering. What is their plan to overcome peoples mentalities? The theorizing is nice etc. but in the end fruitless if the first premise just doesn't fit. The nature of people is very ambivalent, and you indeed need "good" people for this to work.
If we start from point zero for example and assume we can hit "start" and the project runs I would predict the establishment of a shadow market/economy with currency etc. to come into being within days...
Otherwise nice, I like thinking up stuff :D (even better when its np if its impossible..)
OP, could you summarize what the venus project is about? There's hardly any info about this in your post, aside from a copy-pasted wikipedia article on the founder and 4 hours of video footage. I'm not too lazy to google it, but I'd like some concise and unbiased information about it. Since you referenced the Zeitgeist movie which I've watched (and which is controversial to say the least), I'm not sure the articles and videos you linked will tell me both sides of the story.
I've checked this website out before. Actually what these guys advocate is nothing more than plain old vanilla socialism (with the venus project technocrats in charge, of course). I don't know why people want to get rid of money, it is actually the greatest invention mankind has ever thought up.
On April 28 2012 00:17 Szordrin wrote: I'm wondering. What is their plan to overcome peoples mentalities? The theorizing is nice etc. but in the end fruitless if the first premise just doesn't fit. The nature of people is very ambivalent, and you indeed need "good" people for this to work.
If we start from point zero for example and assume we can hit "start" and the project runs I would predict the establishment of a shadow market/economy with currency etc. to come into being within days...
Otherwise nice, I like thinking up stuff :D (even better when its np if its impossible..)
First, they want to make a movie (not Paradise or Oblivion) wich will be watch by millions people and help them to understand the problems of our world. Next they want to build a first city created by Jacque Fresco where scientists, technicians etc. will live to see what is wrong with the first city and make another good town. With the first city, they hope people all around the world will come to see it and realize that an other life is possible and want a city like that too.
It will be difficult but if everybody TRY actually to understand that its possible so it can be real.
A suggestion to the OP: have (The Venus Project) right after your first TVP. I swear to god, I spent 5 minutes reading this wondering what this had to do with Terran V protoss, and why was this in general.
i consider this thread a spam thread from a 7 posts op who tries to fish some dumb and naive souls for his sect. cmon guys... i knew that the internet is full of people who are totally romantic, idealistic and escapist, but this is laughable. you cant just take a new form of economy and put it over a society. this works in small steps only. even with economic systems that actually are proven to work. not with such brainfarts. get real, and dont embarrass yourself further. this is like in the zombie-thread where people "think that it is perhaps not a zombie" who eat the face of the othe rhomeless guy. well, NO, its not a zombie, i assure you, and NO, this shit here doesnt work in reality, it works only in their setting, not because they changed the economy system, but because they changed the people in the system. with people willingful sharing everything, being motivated to work without payloan even this system we live in would be _paradise_. but people are not like that.
just take a long look in the mirror and tell me that you are the kind of person you try to personate here in this thread. you are not.
On May 29 2012 03:25 Toasterbaked wrote: The supporters of the Venus project (and the whole RBE project in general) are more about what it can do rather than how it would work.
Plausibility is much more important than what it can do.
The Venus project assumes superabundance- then the system makes sense.
...except that assuming superabundance is ridiculous from the beginning.
you should write the admin the open the thread and merge the others ones into it i think we could all have alot of fun with that.
These thread are nice or whatever but the creator of the threads is rarely active dont have the time or energy to structure it, I mss my trolls get the admins to open it up so we have somewhere to hang toasted .
Need you guys to keep me honest make me harder find inconsistences attack everything i say from every angle you can find this is good. Because at the end of the day im trying to convince people like you guys.
On May 29 2012 03:25 Toasterbaked wrote: The supporters of the Venus project (and the whole RBE project in general) are more about what it can do rather than how it would work.
Plausibility is much more important than what it can do.
The Venus project assumes superabundance- then the system makes sense.
...except that assuming superabundance is ridiculous from the beginning.
This. ^^
In addition, I'd like to add that at, in my opinion, at some point it will come about that some person(/s) will have more resources, or a more important or sought after resource than other people. When this point comes about (it will happen very fast, and this is assuming that: the change to this new technocracy could actually be manageable as an instant transition), human nature, which noone yet has found a way to change on a mass individual level will lead to problems. These problems could include; greed leading to stockpiling; greed leading to the demand for an unfair trade (in terms of true value in the technocracy) for the good that they have an overabundance of... etc.
As an adjunct to the above, i'd like to state that I think it's more important for idealist futurists such as Jacques to present how they are going to achieve their aims more prominently than what their aims actually are. If they just spout what people want to hear about a better society 'because it could happen, and we don't know without trying it' (as some people have said in this thread) then I do not trust them. Luckily, I'm open minded and waiting for the day when they will actually provide some tangible evidence for their ideas coming to fruition out of the current society - the out of part being crucial (NOT over).
you should write the admin the open the thread and merge the others ones into it i think we could all have alot of fun with that.
These thread are nice or whatever but the creator of the threads is rarely active dont have the time or energy to structure it, I mss my trolls get the admins to open it up so we have somewhere to hang toasted .
Need you guys to keep me honest make me harder find inconsistences attack everything i say from every angle you can find this is good. Because at the end of the day im trying to convince people like you guys.
On a less serious note, the part made bold above worries me slightly...
In addition, I'd like to add that at, in my opinion, at some point it will come about that some person(/s) will have more resources, or a more important or sought after resource than other people. When this point comes about (it will happen very fast, and this is assuming that: the change to this new technocracy could actually be manageable as an instant transition), human nature, which noone yet has found a way to change on a mass individual level will lead to problems. These problems could include; greed leading to stockpiling; greed leading to the demand for an unfair trade (in terms of true value in the technocracy) for the good that they have an overabundance of... etc.
As an adjunct to the above, i'd like to state that I think it's more important for idealist futurists such as Jacques to present how they are going to achieve their aims more prominently than what their aims actually are. If they just spout what people want to hear about a better society 'because it could happen, and we don't know without trying it' (as some people have said in this thread) then I do not trust them. Luckily, I'm open minded and waiting for the day when they will actually provide some tangible evidence for their ideas coming to fruition out of the current society - the out of part being crucial (NOT over).
On a less serious note, the part made bold above worries me slightly...
Its about solving problems isent it? and if people conceive something as a problem with this direction it matters little if they are right or not. Because it is a problem if they conceive something as wrong that is not.
And if they are right in what they say that is useful information that needs to acknowledge for maximun efficiency.
Either way please open my thread i want my peeps back.
Go to the search function and write in Resource based economy and see how many threads that pop up. The admins rather have several seperate threads talking about a RBE through diffrent organizations who are all working towards a RBE.
Isent it just better to put up a Resource based economy thread up that can have all the diffrent organizations represented? and if not i dont see why closing the Resource based economy thread that is actually the most accurate and important one gets shut down.
From what i can tell the admin/s got emotional and made an error based on the fact that there were alot of people "hmpfing" to get it closed when i was just trying to structure represent and conserve space in the threads.
How is it more efficient for me to make a long as comment like that and include all sources and information about it in every single resource based economy thread out there? And having to repeat or link people to it constantly oh you dont know what i mean ? want sources ? go back to page hmm let me look 56 check out collum 3 from top to down.
And what is peoples natural reaction "stop plugging that shit all the time" Well what choice do i have a new person is wondering where to look what to see and i dont own the original comment to begin with.
This all started when i tried to make such a post in Freeworldcharter and i saw people spaming comments till we were almost at the next page took me an hour to build and add sources and one second later it would all be forgotten.
are the admins censoring me on purpose? Maybe not but the results is still the same. And even tho we have threads that touch on the subject they dont go as deep as i wanted to go where i bring enginers in the answer your questions.
If you can read a touch of frustration im sorry i just liked the way my thread started to look
On May 29 2012 03:25 Toasterbaked wrote: The supporters of the Venus project (and the whole RBE project in general) are more about what it can do rather than how it would work.
Plausibility is much more important than what it can do.
The Venus project assumes superabundance- then the system makes sense.
...except that assuming superabundance is ridiculous from the beginning.
Don't sugar coat it..the supporters are morons with no grounding in reality.
On May 29 2012 04:32 DeliCiousVP wrote:
you should write the admin the open the thread and merge the others ones into it i think we could all have alot of fun with that.
These thread are nice or whatever but the creator of the threads is rarely active dont have the time or energy to structure it, I mss my trolls get the admins to open it up so we have somewhere to hang toasted .
Need you guys to keep me honest make me harder find inconsistences attack everything i say from every angle you can find this is good. Because at the end of the day im trying to convince people like you guys.
Most of us aren't trolling you, we are just laughing at you. There is a huge difference. The reason hardly anyone is bothering to have an intelligent debate with you is because there is nothing intelligent to debate. The entire concept is infantile and naive and anyone who believes it has either deluded themselves to the point of tinfoil hat crazy and or are con artists trying to rope in other dopes who aren't bright enough to see this for what it is.
Come up with an intelligent debate that has grounding in real world application and accounts for the "human" factor and I will gladly debate. Continue posting pure hypothetical nonsense that has zero chance of ever happening outside a small compound filled with cult members and I will just continue to mock you. Currently the only person trolling is yourself, sorry if the truth hurts.
Most of us aren't trolling you, we are just laughing at you. There is a huge difference. The reason hardly anyone is bothering to have an intelligent debate with you is because there is nothing intelligent to debate. The entire concept is infantile and naive and anyone who believes it has either deluded themselves to the point of tinfoil hat crazy and or are con artists trying to rope in other dopes who aren't bright enough to see this for what it is.
Come up with an intelligent debate that has grounding in real world application and accounts for the "human" factor and I will gladly debate. Continue posting pure hypothetical nonsense that has zero chance of ever happening outside a small compound filled with cult members and I will just continue to mock you. Currently the only person trolling is yourself, sorry if the truth hurts.
I had a guy who multiaccounted and went into the thread only to make sure the admins banned me. His first post ever was trying to get me banned. Obviously the admins caughtt him eventualy but not before i managed to get two warnings.
And i dont mind people "trolling" or not "trolling".
Its just i never made a comment or statement urging anyone to get silenced by some authority figure no matter what they say, Irrelevant personal attacks? i eat it i eat it all.
And it made sense to me as the conversation moved away from The freeworldcharter into a more of a RBE discussion to move the conversation to that appropiate thread which is something we might have should have done 60 pages earlier.
where people could get active sources and i could start piling the data people are asking for i can go into my other forums and drag stuff from there and insert it answering every question more efficiently.
You know what happends is that you provide sources and information to one person then 2 pages later another one comes up and say well you still havent showed us how you would solve this and the circle repeats every 2-5 pages. You go to find it and you cant because you cant remember if it were 5 pages or 10 or 17 ago.
Most of us aren't trolling you, we are just laughing at you. There is a huge difference. The reason hardly anyone is bothering to have an intelligent debate with you is because there is nothing intelligent to debate. The entire concept is infantile and naive and anyone who believes it has either deluded themselves to the point of tinfoil hat crazy and or are con artists trying to rope in other dopes who aren't bright enough to see this for what it is.
Come up with an intelligent debate that has grounding in real world application and accounts for the "human" factor and I will gladly debate. Continue posting pure hypothetical nonsense that has zero chance of ever happening outside a small compound filled with cult members and I will just continue to mock you. Currently the only person trolling is yourself, sorry if the truth hurts.
I had a guy who multiaccounted and went into the thread only to make sure the admins banned me. His first post ever was trying to get me banned. Obviously the admins caughtt him eventualy but not before i managed to get two warnings.
And i dont mind people "trolling" or not "trolling".
Its just i never made a comment or statement urging anyone to get silenced by some authority figure no matter what they say, Irrelevant personal attacks? i eat it i eat it all.
And it made sense to me as the conversation moved away from The freeworldcharter into a more of a RBE discussion to move the conversation to that appropiate thread which is something we might have should have done 60 pages earlier.
where people could get active sources and i could start piling the data people are asking for i can go into my other forums and drag stuff from there and insert it answering every question more efficiently.
Don't worry, I have no need to multiaccount nor sugarcoat my opinions. While I think this entire thing is laughable, I don't see any reason you should be banned. I would like to state that I wanted the other thread locked for consolidation purposes.
On May 29 2012 08:23 DeliCiousVP wrote: You know what happends is that you provide sources and information to one person then 2 pages later another one comes up and say well you still havent showed us how you would solve this and the circle repeats every 2-5 pages. You go to find it and you cant because you cant remember if it were 5 pages or 10 or 17 ago.
First of all you never had any sources and you still don't. This has been explained to you (by others, not by me).
Secondly, concidering how much "debating" you're doing wouldn't it be prudent to keep all your "sources" on hand in a document or your favourites in your browser for easy access whenever someone asks for something? That's what I would do, if I was selling readymade propaganda packages like you are.
Lastly, your new thread didn't add anything new, nor did it consolidate anything. It didn't rehash any arguments, it didn't even explain what RBE entails. Seems like a real shitty OP for a thread on RBE then, doesn't it? But no matter, we have two other threads on the subject to keep me and everyone else entertained.
Skimmed OP, saw Zeitgeist references and immediately started to move on to next thread.
Pretty much this.
Unfortunately, the ideas presented in OP are still presented on a very immature and impractical level that they undermine the ideas they are built upon, rather than reinforcing them.
Skimmed OP, saw Zeitgeist references and immediately started to move on to next thread.
Pretty much this.
Unfortunately, the ideas presented in OP are still presented on a very immature and impractical level that they undermine the ideas they are built upon, rather than reinforcing them.
Here is the source guide for the 1st/2nd movie. I answer and provide proof for almost all questions. But what happeneds is they either get ignored because Yuck it has a Z in it so they wont gonna watch that. so they dont and ask the same question again and once that happends it dont matter what i show anything that dont agree with what they belive will be rejected.
TL mods never get emotional. They are gods.
Yeah you dont say TL is renowned for their harsh moderaters. as god is not very forgiving hehe .
On May 29 2012 08:00 DeliCiousVP wrote: Go to the search function and write in Resource based economy and see how many threads that pop up. The admins rather have several seperate threads talking about a RBE through diffrent organizations who are all working towards a RBE.
Isent it just better to put up a Resource based economy thread up that can have all the diffrent organizations represented? and if not i dont see why closing the Resource based economy thread that is actually the most accurate and important one gets shut down.
From what i can tell the admin/s got emotional and made an error based on the fact that there were alot of people "hmpfing" to get it closed when i was just trying to structure represent and conserve space in the threads.
How is it more efficient for me to make a long as comment like that and include all sources and information about it in every single resource based economy thread out there? And having to repeat or link people to it constantly oh you dont know what i mean ? want sources ? go back to page hmm let me look 56 check out collum 3 from top to down.
And what is peoples natural reaction "stop plugging that shit all the time" Well what choice do i have a new person is wondering where to look what to see and i dont own the original comment to begin with.
This all started when i tried to make such a post in Freeworldcharter and i saw people spaming comments till we were almost at the next page took me an hour to build and add sources and one second later it would all be forgotten.
are the admins censoring me on purpose? Maybe not but the results is still the same. And even tho we have threads that touch on the subject they dont go as deep as i wanted to go where i bring enginers in the answer your questions.
If you can read a touch of frustration im sorry i just liked the way my thread started to look
Here is the source guide for the 1st/2nd movie. I answer and provide proof for almost all questions. But what happeneds is they either get ignored because Yuck it has a Z in it so they wont gonna watch that. so they dont and ask the same question again and once that happends it dont matter what i show anything that dont agree with what they belive will be rejected.
While I'm at it, I find taking quotes from various sources (and often using them wholly out of context) to add an aura of legitimacy to your claims to be a ridicolous practice to say the least.
In any case these are sources to idiotic movies and not sources to back up your arguments. (Edit: If you want to use them as such you need to learn to be specific. Pick one area of sources, post those and make sure they say what you want them to say. You can't just link to whole movies and go "Well look, the answer's in there!". Not only has it not been in the movies you've linked it's also not a proper way to argue and it just shows that you lack understanding of whatever issue it is that you're trying to debate)
Naturally you can conviniently ignore all the criticism because you "have sources", right?
While I'm at it, I find taking quotes from various sources (and often using them wholly out of context) to add an aura of legitimacy to your claims to be a ridicolous practice to say the least.
First of you need to look at the sources and discriminate them before you can go on a tangeem about how everything is wrong and every source ever provided to you must be lies.
And when you come to the philisophical argument what is knowledge? then you have reached the last defence put up by your static identity you are one step away from it. Just stop shaking your head from left to right and try to see it from my perspective no matter how insane it seems to you.
Naturally you can conviniently ignore all the criticism because you "have sources", right?
While I'm at it, I find taking quotes from various sources (and often using them wholly out of context) to add an aura of legitimacy to your claims to be a ridicolous practice to say the least.
First of you need to look at the sources and discriminate them before you can go on a tangeem about how everything is wrong and every source ever provided to you must be lies.
And when you come to the philisophical argument what is knowledge? then you have reached the last defence put up by your static identity you are one step away from it. Just stop shaking your head from left to right and try to see it from my perspective no matter how insane it seems to you.
Your perspective is detached from reality.
And no, all your sources aren't lies. Some of them are spot on, some are misquoted or misinterpreted, and some are flat out wrong. Might want to read the link I gave you. I would never blindly dismiss something out of hand. Fortunately RBE is based on the assumption that resources are abundant, which they are not, which essentially stops RBE in its tracks (as has been explained to you by others, repeatedly, in a variety of ways). As the guide shows when it comes to Zeitgeist, there are a lot of misunderstandings about the economic system and a lot of erronous calculations, often based on these misunderstandings.
The really interesting thing is that you will do the very thing you just accused me of. You will out of hand dismiss the criticism and call it untrue because you already know you have the real truth (in fact you already have).
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
I watched the videos a bit (they are quite lengthy) and read up some on this topic and I have to say, it comes off a bit silly. Basically, from what I have seen it takes a principle of idealism, which is incredibly hard to realize in the world, and tries to apply it to all things.
I do no feel, like some, that we should accept and Ayn Rand-esque system modeled entirely after our baser instincts. It is, under very special circumstances, an important function of society to forsake individual interests in favor of a stronger collective well being. But this is far too extreme.
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
On May 29 2012 11:58 DeliCiousVP wrote: First of you need to look at the sources and discriminate them before you can go on a tangeem about how everything is wrong and every source ever provided to you must be lies.
And when you come to the philisophical argument what is knowledge? then you have reached the last defence put up by your static identity you are one step away from it. Just stop shaking your head from left to right and try to see it from my perspective no matter how insane it seems to you.
Maybe you should actually check out this guys sources before you "discriminate" them. He has over 100, some of them from reputable journals.
On May 29 2012 12:01 Zinnwaldite wrote: dammit,, thought this project would be full of naked women for some reason... >_>
First thing that popped into my mind when I saw the thread name
Guys, listen. Guys, I have the greatest ideea ever. Guys stop arguing. Guys, Guys, Guys I am a self educated banker, give me your money and ill make you millions.
self-educated structural designer, architectural designer, philosopher of science, concept artist, educator, and futurist.
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.
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.
Could you describe what you call a "natural value systems" ? Because I don't see what you are referring to. I also don't think that the monetary system is the source of "the problems" but it has its consequences (corruption, greed, profit, individualism etc...). I think that's what he meant.
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?
If it was based on scientific facts and studies then it would be worth a shot. Unfortunately that is not the case. The independent parts that form the core of what the RBE is have not been tested. If you look at the source material to either the Zeitgeist films or the Venus Project there are no studies that show how core concepts such as 'everything is free' and 'no money' will work.
For example:
1) Economic studies and empirical evidence show that as price is lowered people will demand more of a given product or service. If everything is free people will want to consume more than can be produced and shortages will occur. What scientifically proven system will prevent this from occurring?
2) In order for economies to function they must be able to perform 'economic calculations' which involve valuing one thing against another. This is an absolute necessity in any economy including a RBE. What scientifically proven methodology for valuing resources and products exists outside the market price system?
Note: these are questions you have been asked before and have not sufficiently answered. Zeitgeist videos, source material, articles written by Jacque Fresco, YouTube videos of Jacque Fresco and the entire Venus Project website do not answer these questions either. I've looked all of them over many times. If it's in there, if I've missed it somehow, then show exactly where it is.
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.
Could you describe what you call a "natural value systems" ? Because I don't see what you are referring to. I also don't think that the monetary system is the source of "the problems" but it has its consequences (corruption, greed, profit, individualism etc...). I think that's what he meant.
We derive large portions of our value system from our genetic make-up. Values provide motivation for our action, human natural values are those that were more or less the most effective ones for the survival of our species back when evolution guided our development (pre-historic times obviously,) since then we have created civilization in which we no longer genetically adapt to our changing environment as we are able to control it to a large extent.
The typical hyper-liberal or utopian viewpoint is that, humans can be molded into anything, and it's our institutions that are at fault for making us who we are, and if that the institutions were right, then there'd be nothing that would give us any problems. It ignores the fact that our deepest motivations such as individualism, competitiveness, our disproportionate love and compassion towards our relatives as opposed to towards strangers are hard-coded, what makes us human in the first place and is very possible what allowed us to even get to this point as a species today. One can argue that the world we now live in grotesquely distorts these instincts into terrible human traits, however the truth is that it's these instincts that allowed us to build the world that we live in today, you can't have your cake and eat it too, there's a reason why we're not a hive-minded species working for the "greater good."
All utopian style philosophies want to somehow convert people to this way of thinking, not realizing that this conversion isn't actually possible. We're not ants, or bees, we don't live in hives with a single purpose in mind, everyone being absolutely content to do their job of serving the queen so that she could reproduce, it's not how humanity works.
1) Economic studies and empirical evidence show that as price is lowered people will demand more of a given product or service.
"empirical evidence show" There is no such "evidence" but just for the sake of argument we will assume this is the case.
You are again talking about what you belive to be "human nature" But behaviour and values are changed and to understand and live in this system you need a diffrent set of values and a deeper understanding.
As peronal concern becomes social concern and the understanding of the symbiotic nature of all "life" we wont go out and demand something just because it is for free, People will demand access yes sometimes even ownership but the system will be more then capable of substaining that.
We can make due with less resources than we are using today, But just to be sure we will have a production that can easily satisfy the current monetary demands by many times over.
When one examines the technology and the human behaviour studies it becomes obvious what we are capable of today and it far exceds what the majority perceive as possible.
I find it very ironic that you think i overrate what is possible today if you only knew what some of these enginners and scientist thougth we could do today if we were in a resource based economy.
This resource based econmy is basically, a "if we can build a computer powerful enough to calculate the most useful way to allocate all our resources and labor we would have more stuff than we do now."
well duh, but first of all this "benefit of society," is a very subjective topic, Hitler though that he was benefitting the society, and even though that's a very extreme example it shows that there's no such thing as one "greater good of the society."
And once again, the problem of perfect or even anything that approaches perfect resource allocation is of impossible complexity to solve, you have been dodging this fact forever, but it completely debunks any notion that a command-style economy could be very productive, and resource-efficient... it can't, because it's not a humanly solvable problem, because all humans are individualists by nature, and not members of a hive-mind.
This resource based econmy is basically, a "if we can build a computer powerful enough to calculate the most useful way to allocate all our resources and labor we would have more stuff than we do now.
You dont think we have been "able" to do this for a centuary?It is just becoming more obvious,easier and more needed per year, You guys sit in your safe enivorments clueless about what kind of destruction is realy going on how much fresh water we are polluting how disgusting and bad it really is.
Technology has reached the point where the monetary system is a massive burdon on it, The money going towards a war could feed the entire world. And presidential candiates are talking about gay marriage. Do you truly belive this farce is the best we can do?
There is an abundance of stuff like this happening and i mean thousand maybe even millions of smaller larger situations like these happening all over the world, You think its a strucual annomoly ? That these things are just the work of a few greedy men this is our system this is your GDP.
Must make profit regardless of human and enviromental costs, The system is supposed to serve us we are not supposed to serve the system. How can we benefit from something that systematicly destroy out planet? We are cancer to this world.
This resource based econmy is basically, a "if we can build a computer powerful enough to calculate the most useful way to allocate all our resources and labor we would have more stuff than we do now.
You dont think we have been "able" to do this for a centuary?It is just becoming more obvious,easier and more needed per year, You guys sit in your safe enivorments clueless about what kind of destruction is realy going on how much fresh water we are polluting how disgusting and bad it really is.
First of all it's not possible now, and it more than likely won't ever be possible. If you think it is, why don't you link to an example of this amazing algorithm which will distribute stuff... you can't it doens't exist, the computational complexity is too high.
Technology has reached the point where the monetary system is a massive burdon on it, The money going towards a war could feed the entire world. And presidential candiates are talking about gay marriage. Do you truly belive this farce is the best we can do?
Technology has not reached any point on it's own. It's this "monetary system," that got technology where it is today, so don't get it twisted. Free market is the direct result of individuals striving for their own individual (and as it has already been established, our motivations are relatively individualistic on the scale of person-family-friends, it's what makes us human) material goals in this world. Money is a way for us to exchange goods conveniently in pursuit of our goals. Technology is simply the result of people trying to achieve their goals in a better new way, and it is more often than not the free market economy which allows for technology to develop.
1) Economic studies and empirical evidence show that as price is lowered people will demand more of a given product or service.
"empirical evidence show" There is no such "evidence" but just for the sake of argument we will assume this is the case.
You are again talking about what you belive to be "human nature" But behaviour and values are changed and to understand and live in this system you need a diffrent set of values and a deeper understanding.
As peronal concern becomes social concern and the understanding of the symbiotic nature of all "life" we wont go out and demand something just because it is for free, People will demand access yes sometimes even ownership but the system will be more then capable of substaining that.
I am NOT making an argument about human nature. This is about scientific and empirical evidence.
When a retailer puts a product on sale (lowers price) more of that product is purchased. This has been observed by economists and creates the basis of the demand curve (the demand part of supply and demand) which has been tested and validated by PhD level research for centuries.
If you disagree with that notion, you are going to need A LOT of scientific evidence to disprove it.
So far you have shown none.
Edit: It is dishonest to claim to want us to follow the 'scientific method' while basing all your arguments on emotion and philosophical speculation.
First of all it's not possible now, and it more than likely won't ever be possible. If you think it is, why don't you link to an example of this amazing algorithm which will distribute stuff... you can't it doens't exist, the computational complexity is too high.
You want me to link you to excell ? you think its hard meassuing supply and demand? Our system is broken to the core with technologies taken ages before realized because of the massive inefficiences of the infrastructure and all the obstacles it face.
Maybe we can paint you brown and put you in a refuge camp in sudan and you can lecture people about freedom and how the system works just fine.
It either works for all of us or its unsubstainable.
First of all it's not possible now, and it more than likely won't ever be possible. If you think it is, why don't you link to an example of this amazing algorithm which will distribute stuff... you can't it doens't exist, the computational complexity is too high.
You want me to link you to excell ? you think its hard meassuing supply and demand? Our system is broken to the core with technologies taken ages before realized because of the massive inefficiences of the infrastructure and all the obstacles it face.
Maybe we can paint you brown and put you in a refuge camp in sudan and you can lecture people about freedom and how the system works just fine.
It either works for all of us or its unsubstainable.
If you have an excel spreadsheet that shows economic calculation in a RBE why have you and Zeitgeist and the Venus Project been holding out on us? Please link me to it ASAP!
First of all it's not possible now, and it more than likely won't ever be possible. If you think it is, why don't you link to an example of this amazing algorithm which will distribute stuff... you can't it doens't exist, the computational complexity is too high.
You want me to link you to excell ? you think its hard meassuing supply and demand? Our system is broken to the core with technologies taken ages before realized because of the massive inefficiences of the infrastructure and all the obstacles it face.
Maybe we can paint you brown and put you in a refuge camp in sudan and you can lecture people about freedom and how the system works just fine.
It either works for all of us or its unsubstainable.
It is impossible to measure demand because it requires knowledge of individual preferences that even individuals themselves cannot know and formulate entirely, and can shift on a day to day basis. The system you describe is epistemically impossible, next to all the gazillion practical problems.
Unless your version of excel has mindreading capabilities obviously.
I do not believe a project like this is sustainable, but he is a fascinating person. Listening to him talk was very educational, and he certainly has a lot of good ideas. I would recommend watching the videos, at least.
If you have an excel spreadsheet that shows economic calculation in a RBE why have you and Zeitgeist and the Venus Project been holding out on us?
Nobody is holding out on you its just such a dumb question, Because its obvious you see what products people want as they access it and meassures are taken. This is not rocket science you just overcomplicate it.
It is impossible to measure demand because it requires knowledge of individual preferences that even individuals themselves cannot know and formulate entirely, and can shift on a day to day basis. The system you describe is epistemically impossible,
You think this is hard seriously? go to a website request an item and offer a product review or communicate with the person who designed it and help improve it. The data will be added to whatever program we have that meassures this sort of things. and infrastructue will be adapted accordingly.
If let say certainly demand for a product start skyrocketing this will be investigated quickly to determine the cause and nesscecity aswell as adapt manufacturing to appease.
This question has been adequately answered several times. If i got my thread i could hit up an enginner to give some advanced data.
So are you actually going to produce any fact based evidence? Or am I completely wasting my time continuing to read this drivel? I swear, the fact that this "concept" can't even hold up under the scrutiny of a gaming forum on the internet much less a real academic panel should be ones first clue.
Back it up with real facts and not tinfoil hat shit or accept the fact that you are wrong.
Go to a website and request an item? Alright, how do you prevent someone from bruteforcing the website or service to make hundreds of malicious demands? You don't have any money from the individual side switching hands, so the producer has to abide to every request without the attacker having any damage ( monetary ) dealt to him. This would obviously create a whole range of problems because resources will be distributed inefficiently by making products that nobody actually needs.
If you are letting technology rule the distribution of food and other products, then that system itself will at one point go under attack. No computer system in the entire world has ever been completely safe from these exploits, and a system that has millions of users to abide to WILL crash at one point or another. What happens in the case of an electricity failure? Does nothing get distributed anymore because the system is offline? That's okay, the elderly can wait for their medicine for a long time.
If you plan on redistributing the resources based on face to face input, does every human just fill in a form every day to let some other poor dude read over it? How will you make the input easy for the people, yet safe and easy to process? This task is MONSTEROUS because the wants of man changes almost as much as the weather, and you need to keep the wants up to date if you want to make the distribution more efficient than our current money system, that doesn't rely on a central system knowing everything, and instead relies on the individual going to a store to buy something.
And why do you need your own thread to get an 'engineer' to give us advanced data? Are you really that pride dependant that that happens in your own thread? Ask him to come over in THIS thread and prove us all wrong, please. I would love to hear his or her arguments for the RBE.
If you have an excel spreadsheet that shows economic calculation in a RBE why have you and Zeitgeist and the Venus Project been holding out on us?
Nobody is holding out on you its just such a dumb question, Because its obvious you see what products people want as they access it and meassures are taken. This is not rocket science you just overcomplicate it.
It is impossible to measure demand because it requires knowledge of individual preferences that even individuals themselves cannot know and formulate entirely, and can shift on a day to day basis. The system you describe is epistemically impossible,
You think this is hard seriously? go to a website request an item and offer a product review or communicate with the person who designed it and help improve it. The data will be added to whatever program we have that meassures this sort of things. and infrastructue will be adapted accordingly.
If let say certainly demand for a product start skyrocketing this will be investigated quickly to determine the cause and nesscecity aswell as adapt manufacturing to appease.
This question has been adequately answered several times. If i got my thread i could hit up an enginner to give some advanced data.
It's obvious? Yes, because it went so well in the USSR and continues to do so in North Korea and Cuba. Command economies do not work. They have been shown time and again to not react to shifts in people's tastes and preferences and cannot due so specifically because a price system does not exist.
What happens under command economies? There are shortages for the things that are artifically underpriced (or free) and stockpiles of things that people don't want. A black market breaks out for trade in the things people are unable to get due to lack of production and yet again the free market reigns.
Until you can make it that all menial labor is automated and there are unlimited resources (thus making the whole study of economics moot) an installation of an economy without money will be much more inefficent than what we have today. Every single "source" that you link in multiple places does nothing but offer "wouldn't it be great if?" statements and not actual study into how to make those things happen. A big, bold goal is great but someone has to do the work to get to that goal. "We'll figure it out" is not an answer.
You have shown no evidence that either of these things are currently possible nor will be in the immediate future.
If you have an excel spreadsheet that shows economic calculation in a RBE why have you and Zeitgeist and the Venus Project been holding out on us?
Nobody is holding out on you its just such a dumb question, Because its obvious you see what products people want as they access it and meassures are taken. This is not rocket science you just overcomplicate it.
I understand that part. As people eat bananas more are produced and delivered to the store where they were picked up.
That's not the question being asked. We've been over this countless times. An economic calculation problem is not a consumption problem it is a production problem.
The problem is that it requires scarce resources to produce products. This does not just include natural resources but man-made resources as well along with human labor. These resources are not infinite, they are scarce. Because of their scarcity you need a way to value a finished product relative to the value of its inputs. This is both true in a monetary system as well as a RBE. People cannot have everything, there must be a limiting factor.
What is that limiting factor? As best I can tell you are going to give producers quotas (meet demand!) without a way to measure cost (meet demand at any price!). How then will you prioritize what demand gets fulfilled first? How do you communicate this knowledge throughout the supply chain in terms of priority?
Again, and again and again - this is not about consumption or distribution. This is about production. You cannot produce by just setting quotas to meet demand. Without a way to measure economic inputs and economic outputs, eventually the system will implode upon itself.
Edit: For more information please see "The Economic Calculation Problem in the Socialist Republic" http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf
Note: The impossibility of economic calculation without a market economy was debated throughout the 20th century. Many brilliant minds in communist countries tried to solve it, but never could. It is not a 'dumb question'!!
People seriously need to stop posting hours of videos and saying; watch it, it's free. Guess what, time isn't free. Neither is attention. You're asking people to spend hours of their time but you can't be bothered to distill the main points to a post that can be read in 10-15 minutes?
Go to a website and request an item? Alright, how do you prevent someone from bruteforcing the website or service to make hundreds of malicious demands?
Transparcny, the system is reactive, Value shifts, Lack of incentive to perform such an act. And after all that i still belive this could happen either by accident or a prank who knows not hard to prepare it for that kind of scenario.
So are you actually going to produce any fact based evidence?
I have done this several times, in other forums. I even created a thread myself but the admins closed my thread where i started to upload alot of materials. This is what i was able to upload in the 2 hours before it got closed..
You should not contact or bother any admin directly but if you want more answers im sure you could strength my reasoning for having it reopened in the website feedback thread. You dont have to agree with me to do that.
Go to a website and request an item? Alright, how do you prevent someone from bruteforcing the website or service to make hundreds of malicious demands?
Transparcny, the system is reactive, Value shifts, Lack of incentive to perform such an act. And after all that i still belive this could happen either by accident or a prank who knows not hard to prepare it for that kind of scenario.
That first sentence confused me, what exactly do you mean by transparency, reactive system ( obviously, I'd hate to have an unreactive system that's in charge of keeping me fed ) value shifts and lack of incentive to perform such an act.
If it isn't hard to prepare for such an attack, how would you though? Do you have a back up system that deals with the distribution? I am honestly interested in your answer, because after all, it is lifes of people we would be talking about.
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.
Could you describe what you call a "natural value systems" ? Because I don't see what you are referring to. I also don't think that the monetary system is the source of "the problems" but it has its consequences (corruption, greed, profit, individualism etc...). I think that's what he meant.
We derive large portions of our value system from our genetic make-up. Values provide motivation for our action, human natural values are those that were more or less the most effective ones for the survival of our species back when evolution guided our development (pre-historic times obviously,) since then we have created civilization in which we no longer genetically adapt to our changing environment as we are able to control it to a large extent.
The typical hyper-liberal or utopian viewpoint is that, humans can be molded into anything, and it's our institutions that are at fault for making us who we are, and if that the institutions were right, then there'd be nothing that would give us any problems. It ignores the fact that our deepest motivations such as individualism, competitiveness, our disproportionate love and compassion towards our relatives as opposed to towards strangers are hard-coded, what makes us human in the first place and is very possible what allowed us to even get to this point as a species today. One can argue that the world we now live in grotesquely distorts these instincts into terrible human traits, however the truth is that it's these instincts that allowed us to build the world that we live in today, you can't have your cake and eat it too, there's a reason why we're not a hive-minded species working for the "greater good."
All utopian style philosophies want to somehow convert people to this way of thinking, not realizing that this conversion isn't actually possible. We're not ants, or bees, we don't live in hives with a single purpose in mind, everyone being absolutely content to do their job of serving the queen so that she could reproduce, it's not how humanity works.
Our values are learnt, they aren't given by our genetic make-up, where did you get that? "Deepest motivations, individualism, competitiveness?" Where did you get that as well? They aren't my deepest motivations or root motivations for sure. I am not gonna talk for others, but i can show you tons of ppl that aren't driven by those things. It seems that you don't believe in the fact that ppl could just all live with a common goal, and unless you do, I understand your statement. But having a common goal doesn't mean it is the only goal ppl can have, and doesn't mean we have to live like bees. On top of that we aren't anymore in that state of survival where we have to hunt to gather food. To me this society is reaching a critical point where we cannot maintain our old value system with the technological understanding we have of the world. We are obviously in a transition period and sooner or later, individualism, competitiveness and all those outdated values will be history. And if not, human race will die off because of its inability to adapt. One thing is sure for me, we cannot sustain living this way, and it will take more than a solar panel, laws, monetary reform, to make it, we have to change the way we think. It's called, the transformation of the mind. It is possible. I truly believe in it and I don't think I am being an utopist for I am not expecting anything of this world and therefore can't predict the outcome. But as a human being, I know that you can change the way we think to that level.
I liked the video a lot, not for the solutions offered, but for the state of mind. I can relate a lot with this man. Growing up I questioned everything, and caught a lot of crap for it. Having this tendency to question everything led me to a similar conclusion. Most people live there lives completely blind to truth, and are full of shit but don't realize it. They believe the lies they are fed, they also believe their own lies and justifications. These are some of the most obvious ways I've learned to know when people are full of shit.
1. They don't argue the merit or the points made, they instead attack the person making the arguments and points. (politicians do this almost every time they speak!) 2. When talking about complex systems, technology or functionality they brush over the most important parts. The most technical aspect of how something functions is almost ignored. They don't answer the how, only the what and the why. 3. They make justifications. For something that is plainly wrong they will backtrack and attempt to give you the setting, that is, the environment of the situation. Instead of just acknowledging the wrong or the mistake and the incompetence or ignorance that led to it. 4. They scapegoat. 9 out of 10 times (number is totally made up) when a person is pointing the finger, they are guilty too. 5. Their emotional reaction > their logic. Children are ruled by emotions, but mature and sane adults should be ruled by their logic. 6. The story changes over time when it's re-told. Cops use this when interrogating suspects,to weed out lies. That's why they make you repeat the story over and over in a long interrogation. It's also why many criminals (who wear suits) will lawyer up immediately, because they know they will slip up somewhere if they keep repeating the details.
Most of these you probably know already, but you may not have put them into clearly defined terms. You just listen to people talk and instinctively know they are full of shit, at least that's usually how it is for me. The next time you listen to a speech by any so called "leader" in society, whether it's a ceo of a company, a politician, or some activist. They will often cover most of these "tells". Essentially telling you "they are full of shit"
Go to a website and request an item? Alright, how do you prevent someone from bruteforcing the website or service to make hundreds of malicious demands?
Transparcny, the system is reactive, Value shifts, Lack of incentive to perform such an act. And after all that i still belive this could happen either by accident or a prank who knows not hard to prepare it for that kind of scenario.
So are you actually going to produce any fact based evidence?
I have done this several times, in other forums. I even created a thread myself but the admins closed my thread where i started to upload alot of materials. This is what i was able to upload in the 2 hours before it got closed..
You should not contact or bother any admin directly but if you want more answers im sure you could strength my reasoning for having it reopened in the website feedback thread. You dont have to agree with me to do that.
Facts that can be proven using unbiased sources. All you have done thus far is post propaganda videos. This is like me getting into an argument with a religious person and asking them to produce factual evidence and all they can do is say "Well my holy book says it, so it must be true". Sorry I don't consider unbiased parties with a vested interest and no proven concepts as "evidence".
On April 20 2012 22:19 Dr.Lettuce wrote: I see this posted on my facebook quite a bit.
Jeesus christ, I truly hope people don't believe in this venus project.
This is the most unsustainable unrealistic economy I've ever seen. Look at the models they've created, how on earth is that a feasible way to live? It's incredibly inefficient. It absolutely cripples any sense of incentive to work above average or for personal reasons. I admire the idea of parts of a collectivized state, but this really isn't feasible.
Additionally, whilst the current system is under justified scrutiny, I find it laughable that anyone who believes in this system stumbles at this question. 'Can you tell me any problems under the venus project resource based economy that will occur?' Always draws a blank- because people that believe in this system do not understand economics. Period. I'm sorry to be that arrogant, but stuff like this pisses me off.
We should be spending more time/effort in to re-vamping the current system. Massive changes are needed, and focus and effort should be put there. Not theorycrafting pointless impossible economic models to follow.
Zeitgeist is just as stupid.
Come on people, tell me I'm a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda. Yawn.
Your a corporate blind puppet that listens to the mans propaganda.
At least spell you're properly
Do you know what these are?
................................................
Little ants?
No.
You can use them to finish sentences! WOOOOOW. HOW?!
YOUR gonna have to figure that out all by yourself!
One benefit the RBE claims to have is greater efficiency than a capitalistic money based system. But what do we mean by 'efficiency'?
Let's take the example of a car. To be efficient the car needs to get good gas mileage. We can increase its efficiency by raising its gas mileage in a number of ways. But this may not make the car more economically efficient.
What's the difference? Let’s say we want to increase fuel efficiency without making the car worse in the eyes of the consumer. An easy way to do this is to reduce weight. We can change steel parts to aluminum or carbon fiber and greatly reduce weight without making the car worse in any notable way. So, an engineer in this example could rightly say that he has increased the car's efficiency by switching to lighter parts.
But is it economic? To answer that we would need some way to measure what is more important - the resources saved in the future through reduced gas consumption vs the change in resources used in the car's construction. It is well-known in a market economy how this is determined. An automaker makes the change, notes added costs and passes those costs onto the consumer who then determines if the added cost of the car is worth the cost savings in gas.
But how is that determined in a RBE? How does a RBE compare the cost of changing from using steel to aluminum and retooling equipment to the benefits of greater gas mileage? What math will the RBE do to rationally make a decision? It is absolutely important to be able to make that calculation. Otherwise decisions will be made through complete speculation (no rational ex-ante judgment) with no ex-post opportunity to see if the decision was good or bad.
If it isn't hard to prepare for such an attack, how would you though? Do you have a back up system that deals with the distribution? I am honestly interested in your answer, because after all, it is lifes of people we would be talking about.
I dont know my speciality isent in the area nor do i have the courage to speculate what a backup system for a process like that is. But i dont think that will be a hard problem to solve for the collective mind of 7-10 billion people.
The question what is a backup to that system? is a go around question that can go what is the backup to the backup? and continue on its a negative because the question isent proven to exist yet.
I can tell you this tho the society is built to withstand catastrophes escpially natural ones, So dont go around with the notion that you would starve to death. Food is grown localy.
One benefit the RBE claims to have is greater efficiency than a capitalistic money based system. But what do we mean by 'efficiency'?
Let's take the example of a car. To be efficient the car needs to get good gas mileage. We can increase its efficiency by raising its gas mileage in a number of ways. But this may not make the car more economically efficient.
Produce more using automation, Conserve more by creating products that have their potential maximized to fit use they were intended for. Have a few things built in. Recyclable to the max, Interchangable parts easily to update.
Once the product becomes obsolete to you if you desire to own it,You can just recycle the material used to make it and go get a new updated one thus conserving resources.
Today we crank out products that are inferior,designed to break down in time and unrecyclable in general. New iphone every year. New computer every second or third you think it all gets recycled? Because we need to make more and more profits every year like you guiys pointed out over and over again we need to consume MORE need to waste MORE need to pollute MORE need to exploit MORE GDP rises while we destroy out planet.
Time to wake up guys because truth is.. Non of you guys really know how our monetary system works. At least you have freedom tho who are you voting for? papper plastic?
Extra hilariousness in people thinking that distribution or food/water would suddenly fail without what we have in place right now. The cars and trucks are still here aren't they? What you think people who are facing STARVATION and DEHYDRATION on a massive scale wouldn't figure out a way to use all resources to get those things back into their lives?
What we're on is a large-scale corporate-dominant fake capitalistic type of economy. You're free do start your own companies but the larger ones can at any point decide to completely strip you of your market and your sources for land, distribution, raw materials. This sort of economy is not free at all. This is especially apparent in Wall Street where stock prices largely depend on if you have investors holding the stock up and vouching for its price. Currency being used in its current form does not work and we're seeing its effects globally.
Some might try to say that such a stance makes me "ignorant" or that I'm ignoring such prosperous countries in this day and age. I would argue that countries are all part of the world and the world as a whole is falling into poverty and despair. Greece is just the first of many that will fall in Europe. This will create a massive depression for a short time. All orchestrated by the money changers. The fall of the Euro will usher in a new era for the other currencies to gain short prosperity until the World Currency takes over.
I like what TVP has to offer but I think its got a long ways to go before people are able to buy into the new doctrine of freedom. They are used to slavery and bowing down to their corporate and administrative masters and sadly, a lot of them actually LIKE it because they have been taught that this is freedom and the world exists in equality. These sorts of people will not be swayed until a large-scale colony or nation is founded that is independent of the money changers' influence (damn near impossible) and sustains itself for a long time (i.e without letting the m-c's corrupt or trod on it).
What we're on is a large-scale corporate-dominant fake capitalistic type of economy. You're free do start your own companies but the larger ones can at any point decide to completely strip you of your market and your sources for land, distribution, raw materials.
This sort of economy is not free at all. This is especially apparent in Wall Street where stock prices largely depend on if you have investors holding the stock up and vouching for its price. Currency being used in its current form does not work and we're seeing its effects globally.
That is a person who have an basic insight in how our world operates if you belive the opposite of this you are truly naive. Because lets face it you were the CEO how far would you go?
One benefit the RBE claims to have is greater efficiency than a capitalistic money based system. But what do we mean by 'efficiency'?
Let's take the example of a car. To be efficient the car needs to get good gas mileage. We can increase its efficiency by raising its gas mileage in a number of ways. But this may not make the car more economically efficient.
Produce more using automation, Conserve more by creating products that have their potential maximized to fit use they were intended for. Have a few things built in. Recyclable to the max, Interchangable parts easily to update.
Once the product becomes obsolete to you if you desire to own it,You can just recycle the material used to make it and go get a new updated one thus conserving resources.
Today we crank out products that are inferior,designed to break down in time and unrecyclable in general. New iphone every year. New computer every second or third you think it all gets recycled? Because we need to make more and more profits every year like you guiys pointed out over and over again we need to consume MORE need to waste MORE need to pollute MORE need to exploit MORE GDP rises while we destroy out planet.
Time to wake up guys because truth is.. Non of you guys really know how our monetary system works. At least you have freedom tho who are you voting for? papper plastic?
Thank you for proving my point. You intend to just 'guess' that the changes you make will be more efficient.
So no thanks, the RBE is not for me. I choose to continue to live in a rational world where facts rule rather than a world governed by guesswork and emotional hysteria. Feel free to continue to support The Venus Project - what you do with your money is not my concern. If they ever manage to build their test city and theme park (after they've made their movies) feel free to move and live there too. As always, the world outside will continue to exist and when your dreams of communism fail (as they always do) we'll be here, ready to send food aid as we always have before. All I ask is that you do not repeat the mistakes of your predecessors and allow for the aid to be sent to you - no matter how much it may hurt your pride.
I think they'd rather have food, shelter and be safe from tyrants.
None of which they will receive by simply employing the magic silver bullet of 'make everything free.'
Your ignorance kills, How many more people will have to die before you recognize that all people need the nessceties of life without a pricetag.
What purchasing power do you think a swollen baby orphan have? Clueless,fanatic,naive with a gift for rhetorical specch the absolute worst combination shared by many through the ages.
I think they'd rather have food, shelter and be safe from tyrants.
I think they'd rather have food, shelter and be safe from tyrants.
None of which they will receive by simply employing the magic silver bullet of 'make everything free.'
Your ignorance kills, How many more people will have to die before you recognize that all people need the nessceties of life without a pricetag.
What purchasing power do you think a swollen baby orphan have? Clueless,fanatic,naive with a gift for rhetorical specch the absolute worst combination shared by many through the ages.
I think they'd rather have food, shelter and be safe from tyrants. Indeed
btw. people actually understand the monetary system (its not that complex). Just because you and your friends don't it doesn't apply to the world (and you clearly do not understand it, based on how you argue).
Regarding poverty. It's largely allocation failures combined with well tough luck regarding history, current institution, partly environment etc. It's far from perfect, but it's not an inherent capitalist failure. Capitalism can easily work without anyone living in poverty (funny enough it gets easier with advanced technologies, but we don't need RBE for it...)
GIVE GIVE AS IN FREE? as in provide? as in offer without demands?as in provide access to the resources? Maybe your not hopeless just not there yet.
What's easier?
1) RBE, everything is free, global economic system is completely changed. Risk: Global economic collapse, mass starvation (as has happened before in history)
2) Food aid is increased and changed from food to money. Risk: Some developed world farms will go bankrupt (small % of economy, easy to manage).
If you really want to help people you help them instead of wasting time pushing your political agenda (anarchist communism).
2) Food aid is increased and changed from food to money. Risk: Some developed world farms will go bankrupt (small % of economy, easy to manage).
WHERE IS MY PROFIT? What do i gain! Feed 1 billion Let see what my investors say. Exploit starving people? PROFIT!
Pay out insurance for cancer? HIRE DOCTOR TO DENIE PEOPLE Their insurance= PROFIT!
GDP Rise! Look dont you see it? do you see it yet? do you see the connecition? WEALTH GENERATED OH YEAH!
1) RBE, everything is free, global economic system is completely changed. Risk: Global economic collapse, mass starvation (as has happened before in history)
I thought this never been tested before i guess we had mass desalitationplants hydronponics and machines 3D printing technologies social concern over personal concern, in the past. weird what reality are you from?
Risk: Global economic collapse? = Rephrasing Global monetary anti-economy collapse? You betcha. Mass starvation ?How you have seen the plans/math and technoligies used, get real.
You are getting annoying, seriously. You can't debate and you repeat yourself, again and again and again. Can't someone ask a mod to close this? It's as useless of a discussion as the Free World Charter thing.
Never been tested doesn't mean lets try it, it will work out! Mao did this once, great results!... -.-
Honestly I can't stand reading your bullshit anymore. It's like talking to a stupid person (or a robot...). Do you ever had yourself tested intelligence wise? You don't seem very bright (didn't want to say that at first, but after a time... well...).
On May 30 2012 08:47 DeliCiousVP wrote: 2) Food aid is increased and changed from food to money. Risk: Some developed world farms will go bankrupt (small % of economy, easy to manage).
WHERE IS MY PROFIT? What do i gain! Feed 1 billion Let see what my investors say. Exploit starving people? PROFIT!
So, um, you could sell a product where one of your selling arguments is that a part of the price goes directly to starving children of whatever country. Boom, profit. Are you really this unimaginative?
As for the rest of your post; There's problems with capitalism, whoodidoo. Do you really think people like this, people who exploit others for money and power, will magically go away? Fucking face reality, this is exhausting.
On May 30 2012 08:47 DeliCiousVP wrote: 2) Food aid is increased and changed from food to money. Risk: Some developed world farms will go bankrupt (small % of economy, easy to manage).
WHERE IS MY PROFIT? What do i gain! Feed 1 billion Let see what my investors say. Exploit starving people? PROFIT!
Pay out insurance for cancer? HIRE DOCTOR TO DENIE PEOPLE Their insurance= PROFIT! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKVLV9bR1bo GDP Rise! Look dont you see it? do you see it yet? do you see the connecition? explain how is this good?
1) RBE, everything is free, global economic system is completely changed. Risk: Global economic collapse, mass starvation (as has happened before in history)
I thought this never been tested before i guess we had mass desalitationplants hydronponics and machines 3D printing technologies social concern over personal concern, in the past. weird what reality are you from?
Risk: Global economic collapse? = Rephrasing Global monetary anti-economy collapse? You betcha. Mass starvation ?How you have seen the plans/math and technoligies used, get real.
K lets say we change everything, what delivers the food water etc to me, and how do i hold them responsible are they elected? What stops people from taking more than they need? What about all the incentive issues if scientists make a lot of money it makes people want to be scientists plus the truely dedicated if you remove the money makes you just have less scientists which isn't good for humanity, I cant think of anyway in this system to add more scientists. What if someone takes resources by force, i dont have any money so i cant buy them from another country or person so i just lose those resources. I could go on and on with flaws it just seems like Communism 2.0 with 2x the problems.
On May 30 2012 08:47 DeliCiousVP wrote: 2) Food aid is increased and changed from food to money. Risk: Some developed world farms will go bankrupt (small % of economy, easy to manage).
WHERE IS MY PROFIT? What do i gain! Feed 1 billion Let see what my investors say. Exploit starving people? PROFIT!
Pay out insurance for cancer? HIRE DOCTOR TO DENIE PEOPLE Their insurance= PROFIT!
GDP Rise! Look dont you see it? do you see it yet? do you see the connecition? WEALTH GENERATED OH YEAH!
1) RBE, everything is free, global economic system is completely changed. Risk: Global economic collapse, mass starvation (as has happened before in history)
I thought this never been tested before i guess we had mass desalitationplants hydronponics and machines 3D printing technologies social concern over personal concern, in the past. weird what reality are you from?
Risk: Global economic collapse? = Rephrasing Global monetary anti-economy collapse? You betcha. Mass starvation ?How you have seen the plans/math and technoligies used, get real.
Nice ramble. I'm not sure how to respond to something so incoherent. If you want to continue the discussion please post something I can read and respond to. Until then I maintain that solution no. 2 would be far more easy to implement and far more effective then a bizarre RBE system.
Edit: you do realize this forum has spell check, right?
I really like the principles in TvP, however I consider the theories within to be too idealistic.
The problem with all "utopian" theories is that it takes just one f*cked up psychopathic idiot to f*ck everything up.
It's a very nice theory though. Will never work. Humans are over evolved, over complicated, TERRIBLE TERRIBLE beings.
EDIT: What I mean to say is that our sentience adds a level of irrationality about our behaviour, because we overcomplicate situations and over-think things. Our brain is too powerful and these powers sometimes distort our perception and reality leading to (perceived) irrational and destructive behaviour.
Do you ever had yourself tested intelligence wise? You don't seem very bright
I bet you are considered a prodigy, now take a great leap away.
As for the rest of your post; There's problems with capitalism, whoodidoo. Do you really think people like this, people who exploit others for money and power,
I wonder if some intellectuals ever figured out what causes this behaviour, Wait they did damn if they only had solution based on technology and science wait they do. Why are you opposed again?
K lets say we change everything, what delivers the food water etc to me, and how do i hold them responsible are they elected? What stops people from taking more than they need?
No more elections no more farces no presidents no slow political system. The political system goes out the window with the monetary system.
When you give access to people they behave very diffrently ownership is a burdon. I might wanna own a home with family because of sentimental reasons and thats fine but mostly i wanna travel the world live everywhere no worry about food or water its available everywhere. What incentive will exist to taking more then they need no doubt someone will try and be laughed at just like a person randomly declaring himself king in the street its a joke nobody have that power.
What about all the incentive issues if scientists make a lot of money it makes people want to be scientists plus the truely dedicated if you remove the money makes you just have less scientists which isn't good for humanity,
You are joking right? you dont actually belive people generaly pursue science for lucrative reasons do you? In the future everyone will be a scientist and enginners there are no other. You are a scientist,researcher,enginner and free to do what you want.
Nice ramble. I'm not sure how to respond to something so incoherent. If you want to continue the discussion please post something I can read and respond to. Until then I maintain that solution no. 2 would be far more easy to implement and far more effective then a bizarre RBE system.
Where is my profit tho i dont see how i can get rich on feeding swollen baby kids? Sure it will buy me some image but damn thats a high price to pay cant i just donate a million each year to unicef or something brag about it and go back to exploting them for 1 billion. Oh snap that happends psych!
I'm beginning to think delicious is an elaborate troll.
Naa just that i can be rhetorical too no point in having a scientific discusion untill i have a thread to upload in. It would always fall pages behind so i figured ill drop to the level you guys are using to see if i can get some sense into you.
What about all the incentive issues if scientists make a lot of money it makes people want to be scientists plus the truely dedicated if you remove the money makes you just have less scientists which isn't good for humanity,
You are joking right? you dont actually belive people generaly pursue science for lucrative reasons do you? In the future everyone will be a scientist and enginners there are no other. You are a scientist,researcher,enginner and free to do what you want.
I'm not 100% sure if there are scientists that do it for the money but some areas that people work they do work for money and science may be one of them in certain areas like geology. My point is that people that work in certain areas for money wont work in those areas anymore and may even do nothing because they don't have to. Also am i free to split atoms however i like and test nuclear bombs? With no government can i go round raping people and killing people who is there to stop me?
Also am i free to split atoms however i like and test nuclear bombs? With no government can i go round raping people and killing people who is there to stop me?
Everyone and with full transparancy, i cant promise we wont have no scientific accidents as we continue to evolve but hey everything is better than what we have now.
Sex is also considered a Human need, I dont know how we planned to solve that one but that will be intressting. Also one of the reasons we need to surrender parts of our descion making to machines are our emotions.
Also am i free to split atoms however i like and test nuclear bombs? With no government can i go round raping people and killing people who is there to stop me?
Everyone and with full transparancy, i cant promise we wont have no scientific accidents as we continue to evolve but hey everything is better than what we have now.
Sex is also considered a Human need, I dont know how we planned to solve that one but that will be intressting. Also one of the reasons we need to surrender parts of our descion making to machines are our emotions.
No thx i want to do what i want to not what a machine tells me which btw has to be programmed by someone at somepoint. I dont think everything is better than what we have now, this is completely the wrong direction.
No thx i want to do what i want to not what a machine tells me
Dont bring a calculator to your math test Dont use google to find out where to go. Dont use a ATM to get your money Dont watch a clock use the sun. Dont use the antivirus go and manualy scan every folder with your eyes.
Haha Priceless be real man you have already surrender alot. We dont need no crazy peope holding the worlds resources we will use computers and programs. Not keep 5 year old papper reports. We are intergrated with machines now they are becoming more and more part of us embrace it.
Nice ramble. I'm not sure how to respond to something so incoherent. If you want to continue the discussion please post something I can read and respond to. Until then I maintain that solution no. 2 would be far more easy to implement and far more effective then a bizarre RBE system.
Where is my profit tho i dont see how i can get rich on feeding swollen baby kids? Sure it will buy me some image but damn thats a high price to pay cant i just donate a million each year to unicef or something brag about it and go back to exploting them for 1 billion. Oh snap that happends psych!
Maybe if I use small words you will follow along...
If you wan to feed people in Africa and you think the only reason they are hungry is that they do not have money, the easy solution is to simply give them money.
Then they will have money!
They can then spend that money at stores to buy food. When people buy food businesses make money.
I know what I just wrote is very complicated (not really), so please read it a few times and I'm sure you will understand. If not, then walk upstairs to mom and I'm sure she can explain it.
No thx i want to do what i want to not what a machine tells me
Dont bring a calculator to your math test Dont use google to find out where to go. Dont use a ATM to get your money Dont watch a clock use the sun. Dont use the antivirus go and manualy scan every folder with your eyes.
Haha Priceless be real man you have already surrender alot. We dont need no crazy peope holding the worlds resources we will use computers and programs. Not keep 5 year old papper reports. We are intergrated with machines now they are becoming more and more part of us embrace it.
No thx i want to do what i want to not what a machine tells me
Dont bring a calculator to your math test Dont use google to find out where to go. Dont use a ATM to get your money Dont watch a clock use the sun. Dont use the antivirus go and manualy scan every folder with your eyes.
Haha Priceless be real man you have already surrender alot. We dont need no crazy peope holding the worlds resources we will use computers and programs. Not keep 5 year old papper reports. We are intergrated with machines now they are becoming more and more part of us embrace it.
Using a machine as a personal tool is different to being told to surrender my emotions to a machine, ambition and greed drive the human race eliminating them would be a huge mistake.
If you wan to feed people in Africa and you think the only reason they are hungry is that they do not have money, the easy solution is to simply give them money.
Then they will have money!
They can then spend that money at stores to buy food. When people buy food businesses make money.
Thats great man awesome but wait isent money repressenting resources we cant just make some more money and give it to them that would be like creating fictional resources! Wait do you suggest we take it from the richest who earn their money through being more successful and contributory to society? That is communism. Jonny let me tell you a story about a fellow named mao and a great leap.
Using a machine as a personal tool is different to being told to surrender my emotions to a machine, ambition and greed drive the human race eliminating them would be a huge mistake.
Wowow wait just a second who told you to surrender your emotions? Can we do such a thing to begin with just said we need to surrender more descion making to the machines guidance, You think you are capable of reasoning rational, a human cant be objective not yet.
Ambition and greed! what is this phenomon is another one of those "human nature" is it genetic programing? Is it inborne? or is it enviromentaly determined crack that nut cool cat.
If you wan to feed people in Africa and you think the only reason they are hungry is that they do not have money, the easy solution is to simply give them money.
Then they will have money!
They can then spend that money at stores to buy food. When people buy food businesses make money.
Thats great man awesome but wait isent money repressenting resources we cant just make some more money and give it to them that would be like creating fictional resources! Wait do you suggest we take it from the richest who earn their money through being more successful and contributory to society? That is communism. Jonny let me tell you a story about a fellow named mao and a great leap.
On May 30 2012 08:47 DeliCiousVP wrote: WHERE IS MY PROFIT? What do i gain! Feed 1 billion Let see what my investors say. Exploit starving people? PROFIT!
Let's see, if I ran a corporation that manufactured things I'd look for ways to cut costs to make more profit. A country where the government isn't going to sieze control of my plants and offers cheap labor allows those starving people to go to work and feed themselves and what do I get out of the deal, more profit and eventually more consumers for my products which is more profit!
Oh wait, I forgot profit is evil.
The problem is people like you come out and argue how we're "exploiting" these people because they aren't getting paid like an auto worker in Detroit. Of course those claims will come without looking at how much lower the cost of living is in a developing country and how as those jobs become more technical they'll need more education and will eventually make higher wages. This is happening all over the world now in the emerging economies.
As many, many other people have pointed out to you the problem in the areas of the world where a large amount of people are starving is not capitalism or the "big evil" corporations. It's the oppressive dictatorial regimes that run those places.
If you wan to feed people in Africa and you think the only reason they are hungry is that they do not have money, the easy solution is to simply give them money.
Then they will have money!
They can then spend that money at stores to buy food. When people buy food businesses make money.
Thats great man awesome but wait isent money repressenting resources we cant just make some more money and give it to them that would be like creating fictional resources! Wait do you suggest we take it from the richest who earn their money through being more successful and contributory to society? That is communism. Jonny let me tell you a story about a fellow named mao and a great leap.
As you have said, we already produce more food than we need. Furthermore, we already give lots of food aid to poor countries. By increasing food aid a bit, and changing it to money the poor people can...
1) Buy the food they need (it already exists) 2) In an efficient way (they will buy at market prices) 3) Create a profit incentive for local farmers to grow local food (local will be cheaper) 4) Use profits from local farms to grow the economy (same as EU / USA historically)
It's not communism. Communism is communal ownership. This would simply be a very, very small tax and one that is already being levied.
Edit: I'm not claiming this to be the best solution every devised, just WAY more logical than throwing out an entire economic system.
Let's see, if I ran a corporation that manufactured things I'd look for ways to cut costs to make more profit. A country where the government isn't going to sieze control of my plants and offers cheap labor allows those starving people to go to work and feed themselves and what do I get out of the deal, more profit and eventually more consumers for my products which is more profit!
Hmm intressting ill raise you. i would recognize a country that has a desert but not only a desert but a dictator that is generaly disliked. I will start a fear mongering campaign and start lobbying for us to go to war with that country i will make sure i cut my buddies in oil and construction and obviously weapons manufacture.
Time to go to war ill be rich on providing air conditioning and only 2 million brown people dead, Now where do i go next...
1) Buy the food they need (it already exists) 2) In an efficient way (they will buy at market prices) 3) Create a profit incentive for local farmers to grow local food (local will be cheaper) 4) Use profits from local farms to grow the economy (same as EU / USA historically)
1) For what money? 2) Why? They dont have no political power their just a burdon turn a blind eye sch its not real dont look its their fault their lazy. 3)There is an incentive allright TO BURN FOOD TO MAINTAIN MARKET VALUE CALLED ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. Because dont you know the poor people cant pay half as much for the food as we whites can. 4) Profits? what profits assuming everything you said so far was true they still dont have any profit everyone can grow food and they have no infrastructure. Did you miss the part where they pay 50% of their GDP to the IMF as debt because some dictator wanted an airport?
Let's see, if I ran a corporation that manufactured things I'd look for ways to cut costs to make more profit. A country where the government isn't going to sieze control of my plants and offers cheap labor allows those starving people to go to work and feed themselves and what do I get out of the deal, more profit and eventually more consumers for my products which is more profit!
Hmm intressting ill raise you. i would recognize a country that has a desert but not only a desert but a dictator that is generaly disliked. I will start a fear mongering campaign and start lobbying for us to go to war with that country i will make sure i cut my buddies in oil and construction and obviously weapons manufacture.
Time to go to war ill be rich on providing air conditioning and only 2 million dead people, Now where do i go next...
This Jacque Fresco guy is a bigger plague to logic than Kent Hovind. This thread is a mirror image of the free world charter thread. There is no point in using facts to argue with these people. They dont care about facts. They dont care about our inability to build robots to do everything, they dont care about the fact that not everything is able to be done by machines, they dont care there arent enough resources for everyone on earth to live excessively like the west does, they dont care about human nature, they dont care about past similar experiments, they dont care about the fact that 99.99% of people wont work if they dont have to, they dont care that the very premise of their argument is flawed, as money is nothing more than a tool for easier trade.
These people live in a fantasy, and cant be shown how flawed their reasoning is. They are brainwashed into calling us brainwashed. The fact of the matter is, the best course of action is to just ignore their insanity, and continue living a productive life, and allow them to preach to walls and other inanimate objects, so we dont have to waste our precious time trying to help them.
Let's see, if I ran a corporation that manufactured things I'd look for ways to cut costs to make more profit. A country where the government isn't going to sieze control of my plants and offers cheap labor allows those starving people to go to work and feed themselves and what do I get out of the deal, more profit and eventually more consumers for my products which is more profit!
Hmm intressting ill raise you. i would recognize a country that has a desert but not only a desert but a dictator that is generaly disliked. I will start a fear mongering campaign and start lobbying for us to go to war with that country i will make sure i cut my buddies in oil and construction and obviously weapons manufacture.
Time to go to war ill be rich on providing air conditioning and only 2 million brown people dead, Now where do i go next...
And by eliminating money people will not desire oil, right? There will just be no reason to fight over it! You've solved every conflict ever, congratulations. This is the highest level of toolboxing I've ever seen.
Let's see, if I ran a corporation that manufactured things I'd look for ways to cut costs to make more profit. A country where the government isn't going to sieze control of my plants and offers cheap labor allows those starving people to go to work and feed themselves and what do I get out of the deal, more profit and eventually more consumers for my products which is more profit!
Hmm intressting ill raise you. i would recognize a country that has a desert but not only a desert but a dictator that is generaly disliked. I will start a fear mongering campaign and start lobbying for us to go to war with that country i will make sure i cut my buddies in oil and construction and obviously weapons manufacture.
Time to go to war ill be rich on providing air conditioning and only 2 million dead people, Now where do i go next...
Right, because that's what we did in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, China, India, Malaysia, Phillipines, Thailand, and Turkey. Except, oh wait it's not.
They dont care about facts. They dont care about our inability to build robots to do everything, they dont care about the fact that not everything is able to be done by machines, they dont care there arent enough resources for everyone on earth to live
Aye dont care about your opinion thats backed by nothing. Head on the nail buddy.
And by eliminating money people will not desire oil, right? There will just be no reason to fight over it!
The resources are commen heritage to everyone on the planet nobody can own all the oil. And second of why use oil as soon as we dont have profit margins to fill we start switching to substainable clean energy which we have an abundance for.
And according to a clever professor we have alot higher oil reserves that the oil companies are leading us to belive that all depends tho on how fast people will get it. Do your best to be the last one.
Right, because that's what we did in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, China, India, Malaysia, Phillipines, Thailand, and Turkey. Except, oh wait it's not.
Dont be such a conspiracy theorist, take a tin foil hat i have plenty apperantly.
1) Buy the food they need (it already exists) 2) In an efficient way (they will buy at market prices) 3) Create a profit incentive for local farmers to grow local food (local will be cheaper) 4) Use profits from local farms to grow the economy (same as EU / USA historically)
1) For what money? 2) Why? They dont have no political power their just a burdon turn a blind eye sch its not real dont look its their fault their lazy. 3)There is an incentive allright TO BURN FOOD TO MAINTAIN MARKET VALUE CALLED ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. Because dont you know the poor people cant pay half as much for the food as we whites can. 4) Profits? what profits assuming everything you said so far was true they still dont have any profit everyone can grow food and they have no infrastructure. Did you miss the part where they pay 50% of their GDP to the IMF as debt because some dictator wanted an airport?
You are becoming noble yes noble but still naive.
1) Can you not read? I said instead of giving food as charity we give money as charity. THAT money. 2) You don't need political power to buy food. Christ, WTF are you rambling about here? 3) This makes no sense. You can't make more money growing food and burning it than growing food and selling it. It is a mathematical impossibility. If you want me to explain to you the how and why of various government subsidies (including crop destruction) I will gladly explain that to you as well as how it is a non-issue as far as hungry Africans go. 4) Who is this *they* you are talking about? Are you claiming that the entire continent of Africa has zero infrastructure, is ruled by dictators (non-issue as RBE cannot remove them) and is drowning in debt?
Edit: to be clear, most rich world government subsidies drive down the cost of food. They do not increase the price of food through 'artificial scarcity', as DevliCiousVP is suggesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
On May 30 2012 10:10 DeliCiousVP wrote: The resources are commen heritage to everyone on the planet nobody can own all the oil. And second of why use oil as soon as we dont have profit margins to fill we start switching to substainable clean energy which we have an abundance for.
And according to a clever professor we have alot higher oil reserves that the oil companies are leading us to belive that all depends tho on how fast people will get it. Do your best to be the last one.
This thread entertains me. So far I have only read reasons why a RBE wouldn't work and none why it should. Just like all the other discussions about it on the interwebs. The world is a horrible place but here is the magical system that will solve it all. Its got wonderfull technology, pretty brochurepictures made by a sagelike man. And somehow by a way I can't explain resources and products are distrubuted and produced by science in a honest and optmal way. By science and ways that I cant explain. But this old man knows how because he is a FUTURIST but he wont divulge how we are supposed to do this because the world is not ready yet for his wisdom. blah blah blah.
Only complaining about the world and the solution is an endless string of buzzwords.
3) This makes no sense. You can't make more money growing food and burning it than growing food and selling it. It is a mathematical impossibility.
What if you have a good harvest and your neighbours do aswel? that will cause prices to dramaticly inflate as all the peasants try to sell their crops before each other in order to get the best prices. That causes the fat guy in the auction hall to lower prices. way down because remember they have twice as much and fat guy is not capable of moving that amount.
2) No?Who stops people from demanding unreasonable prices? The vultures would be all over their poor aid money.
4) Who is this *they* you are talking about? Are you claiming that the entire continent of Africa has zero infrastructure, is ruled by dictators (non-issue as RBE cannot remove them) and is drowning in debt?
Parts of africa and central/south america.
You think Canada sells oil at the same price as new guine ?
What do oil reserves have to do with anything?
The fighting for oil did we ever enter a resource based economy.
They dont care about facts. They dont care about our inability to build robots to do everything, they dont care about the fact that not everything is able to be done by machines, they dont care there arent enough resources for everyone on earth to live
Aye dont care about your opinion thats backed by nothing. Head on the nail buddy.
And by eliminating money people will not desire oil, right? There will just be no reason to fight over it!
The resources are commen heritage to everyone on the planet nobody can own all the oil. And second of why use oil as soon as we dont have profit margins to fill we start switching to substainable clean energy which we have an abundance for.
And according to a clever professor we have alot higher oil reserves that the oil companies are leading us to belive that all depends tho on how fast people will get it. Do your best to be the last one.
Right, because that's what we did in Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, China, India, Malaysia, Phillipines, Thailand, and Turkey. Except, oh wait it's not.
Dont be such a conspiracy theorist, take a tin foil hat i have plenty apperantly.
What the hell are you talking about? You accused us of going to war because of some corporate conspiricy to find cheap labor (or oil I suppose) and I just gave you nine countries in which that wasn't the case. In fact, I gave you nine countries in that capitalism is working and working well to bring the people in those countries out of back breaking poverty.
On May 30 2012 10:10 DeliCiousVP wrote: The resources are commen heritage to everyone on the planet nobody can own all the oil. And second of why use oil as soon as we dont have profit margins to fill we start switching to substainable clean energy which we have an abundance for.
And according to a clever professor we have alot higher oil reserves that the oil companies are leading us to belive that all depends tho on how fast people will get it. Do your best to be the last one.
What do oil reserves have to do with anything?
just one thing in this thread that makes me go wtf was that comment lol. Reserves are good shit.
What the hell are you talking about? You accused us of going to war because of some corporate conspiricy to find cheap labor (or oil I suppose) and I just gave you nine countries in which that wasn't the case. In fact, I gave you nine countries in that capitalism is working and working well to bring the people in those countries out of back breaking poverty.
3) This makes no sense. You can't make more money growing food and burning it than growing food and selling it. It is a mathematical impossibility.
What if you have a good harvest and your neighbours do aswel? that will cause prices to dramaticly inflate as all the peasants try to sell their crops before each other in order to get the best prices. That causes the fat guy in the auction hall to lower prices. way down because remember they have twice as much and fat guy is not capable of moving that amount.
You just said the opposite things... "prices will dramatically inflate" and "to lower prices." So are you complaining that prices will rise or that they will fall? I'm not sure what you are saying so it is hard to respond.
2) No?Who stops people from demanding unreasonable prices? The vultures would be all over their poor aid money.
If one person is charging too much than another will have a profit incentive to undercut him. It's called competition. As you just said, the 'fat guy' in the auction house will drive down prices as more food becomes available. If the government is too corrupt for that to happen then there is nothing any of us can do about it. A RBE won't help either since the corrupt government won't play along. You can either do the best you can or invade with your military.
4) Who is this *they* you are talking about? Are you claiming that the entire continent of Africa has zero infrastructure, is ruled by dictators (non-issue as RBE cannot remove them) and is drowning in debt?
Parts of africa and central/south america.
You think Canada sells oil at the same price as new guine ?
If you are talking about specific dictatorships I don't see what a RBE can do to resolve that issue. You can't just ask a crazy country like North Korea to play along and adopt your RBE if they don't want to.
If New Guinea exports oil to the world markets, then they will receive the world market price.
What the hell are you talking about? You accused us of going to war because of some corporate conspiricy to find cheap labor (or oil I suppose) and I just gave you nine countries in which that wasn't the case. In fact, I gave you nine countries in that capitalism is working and working well to bring the people in those countries out of back breaking poverty.
Oh by that logic 9 cleared 186 to go.
The only possible countries you can argue about oil are iraq and possibly libya so 2 possible wars over oil in recent history it isn't strong evidence for your claim that you can lobby for war.
What the hell are you talking about? You accused us of going to war because of some corporate conspiricy to find cheap labor (or oil I suppose) and I just gave you nine countries in which that wasn't the case. In fact, I gave you nine countries in that capitalism is working and working well to bring the people in those countries out of back breaking poverty.
Oh by that logic 9 cleared 186 to go.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
If thegovernment is too corrupt for that to happen then there is nothing any of us can do about it. A RBE won't help either since the corrupt government won't play along. You can either do the best you can or invade with your military.
The westen world is shifting first we have the highest access to informaton the most opportunity as people become more general versed in subjects more educated they start clamouring. This is already happenening world wide in the western world we dont accept going backwards like we used to we dont accept depressions anymore.
There will be opposition from the ruling class yes and as minority slowly starts turning into a majority things can go bad depending on what the opposition is. If they killed a few protesters in OWS the whole nation would flare up like kindling. The only way to stop our switch from a monetary system to a RBE is to disable the free forms of communication such as the internet.
Heavy legislature or temporary shuting down the internet nationwide for "security" reasons is the most efficient way to do things. If i was a oligarch-banker i would be doing everything in my power to get censor up on the internet ASAP.
If you are talking about specific dictatorships I don't see what a RBE can do to resolve that issue. You can't just ask a crazy country like North Korea to play along and adopt your RBE if they don't want to.
If New Guinea exports oil to the world markets, then they will receive the world market price.
You speak to the people directly ignoring the goverments and you met force with force without public support they are useless.
Depends on the conditionality they received on the loan to develop their infrastructure, Hey you got oil but you cant mine it without these and dont even try without this loan. Loan is to big cant repay refinance demand lower oil prices as a condionality that is one of the reason US got among the cheapest oil.
Can someone translate this into English?
Go back and see what i qouted and why or ignore.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
It is already known that it dont work it was recently proven by the lack of legislature that led to the collapse and that the American people had to buy for wall streets fun time. To big to fail ? my ass!
Thats awesome! I like how all the exploited countries were on one side. Monetary system is a monetary system. and in a monetary system we have winners and loses obesity and starvation. GDP rise while americs health goes down. tells you all you need to know of "wealth"
What the hell are you talking about? You accused us of going to war because of some corporate conspiricy to find cheap labor (or oil I suppose) and I just gave you nine countries in which that wasn't the case. In fact, I gave you nine countries in that capitalism is working and working well to bring the people in those countries out of back breaking poverty.
Oh by that logic 9 cleared 186 to go.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
I don't disagree with your argument, but that video made me puke a little. It's not as simple as +Free Economy = +Standard of Living. Very sensational.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
It is already known that it dont work it was recently proven by the lack of legislature that led to the collapse and that the American people had to buy for wall streets fun time. To big to fail ? my ass!
Thats awesome! I like how all the exploited countries were on one side. Monetary system is a monetary system. and in a monetary system we have winners and loses obesity and starvation. GDP rise while americs health goes down. tells you all you need to know of "wealth"
One that doesnt prove anything, two even if it did it would prove debt funded capitalism doesn't work. On your freedom thing the whole point about the exploited countries is they are not free market capitalist countries and therefore poorer. But in general i just think you are insane.
Thats it for today folks hopefuly i get my thread tomorow! so i can defend a little tomorow.
One that doesnt prove anything, two even if it did it would prove debt funded capitalism doesn't work. On your freedom thing the whole point about the exploited countries is they are not free market capitalist countries and therefore poorer. But in general i just think you are insane.
So were gallelio for saying the world was round, The wright brothers for saying they could fly. The british academy laughed out almost all of their revoultionary thinkers. Ignaz Semmelweis got placed in a mental hospital because he made the connection between handling dead bodies and deliving children causing infant moratlity rates.
When you discover im genius remember these arent things i came up with im just repeating what brighter scientist and enginners have discovered.
If thegovernment is too corrupt for that to happen then there is nothing any of us can do about it. A RBE won't help either since the corrupt government won't play along. You can either do the best you can or invade with your military.
The westen world is shifting first we have the highest access to informaton the most opportunity as people become more general versed in subjects more educated they start clamouring. This is already happenening world wide in the western world we dont accept going backwards like we used to we dont accept depressions anymore.
There will be opposition from the ruling class yes and as minority slowly starts turning into a majority things can go bad depending on what the opposition is. If they killed a few protesters in OWS the whole nation would flare up like kindling. The only way to stop our switch from a monetary system to a RBE is to disable the free forms of communication such as the internet.
Heavy legislature or temporary shuting down the internet nationwide for "security" reasons is the most efficient way to do things. If i was a oligarch-banker i would be doing everything in my power to get censor up on the internet ASAP.
If you are talking about specific dictatorships I don't see what a RBE can do to resolve that issue. You can't just ask a crazy country like North Korea to play along and adopt your RBE if they don't want to.
If New Guinea exports oil to the world markets, then they will receive the world market price.
You speak to the people directly ignoring the goverments and you met force with force without public support they are useless.
Depends on the conditionality they received on the loan to develop their infrastructure, Hey you got oil but you cant mine it without these and dont even try without this loan. Loan is to big cant repay refinance demand lower oil prices as a condionality that is one of the reason US got among the cheapest oil.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
It is already known that it dont work it was recently proven by the lack of legislature that led to the collapse and that the American people had to buy for wall streets fun time. To big to fail ? my ass!
Thats awesome! I like how all the exploited countries were on one side. Monetary system is a monetary system. and in a monetary system we have winners and loses obesity and starvation. GDP rise while americs health goes down. tells you all you need to know of "wealth"
So now everyone wants to switch to RBE?
And you base this on the fact that people are not willing to give up their current way of life? Guess what the RBE requires?
Logic just flies over your head, doesn't it? I can't for the life of me understand how you can claim that this system is perfect, and based on the scientific method, while showing such a complete lack of logical thinking. In case you don't see the problem; The scientific method requiers you to use logic.
In any case, please understand that noone's saying capitalism is perfect. They're saying it's proven to work, has worked, and is still working. The problems you've identified, such as depressions, have been big issues since before world war one and there is yet to be a conclusive answer on how best to tackle them. That doesn't mean that there isn't an acceptable way, or that it is not the most optimal system available. Again, logic, not your strong suit, I know. The burden of proof is still on you to prove that your alternative system actually could work. You've addressed none of the flaws pointed out to you, nor provided any scientificly valid model for how it should operate (kind of important if you want to claim to be operating under the scientific method ). The reality is that what we have now, although not perfect, is better than anything we've had before. Not only that, but what you're advocating is a form of communism, which we've also seen historically takes a very different form when implemented in reality.
At this point the complete lack of understanding of how the world economy actually works is frightening. This has become nothing more than an argument with a zealot. I use that specific term because a debate would imply a level of intelligence, facts and understanding on both parties. In this case the side arguing for RBE has complete lack of facts and a marked lack of understanding of a large number of critical factors. This really has become tantamount to arguing if god exists by pitting blind faith against scientific fact. It literally is not worth wasting anymore time breaking down each and every point as rebuttals will merely be met with more blind denial and regurgitation of the minimal source material.
Please note I am not particularly informed about this specific project.
Certainly not something we could put into practice tomorrow, or even something we should strive to move towards (yet), but maybe once we have an abundance of resources (which I do believe will happen, unless something goes seriously awry before then). With no shortage, people's mentalities might well shift, which is really the most important pre-requisite for utopian projects like this.
It's a good thing, I think, to remember that while it is hard to see beyond the system we live in today, technological advancements might well help bring about a situation with entirely different possibilities (directly through greater abundance, indirectly through how the advancements change people's mentalities). Speculation about the future, as fun as it is, tends to look stupid in hindsight.
I don't think saying "we've never had abundance, therefore we'll never have it" or "people have always been driven by greed, therefore they always will be" makes much sense. Each day we achieve things we barely dared dream of a century ago.
While it is important to remember that there are good reasons we use the systems we do, I believe it is also important not to see them as set in stone, but as something we must use for now, the situation being what it is. It seems reasonable that there is no one system which is the optimal one regardless of the state of the world.
I do apologise for my vagueness -- as I said, I'm not familiar with the details of this project, nor am I knowledgeable when it comes to economic theory.
Anyone joining this thread, I would simply advise you not to bother arguing with DeliCiousVP, he seems to think random assertions and just throwing in as many 'cool' sounding phrases as possible is how to debate. Plus he is near-unintelligable. Peace out
If thegovernment is too corrupt for that to happen then there is nothing any of us can do about it. A RBE won't help either since the corrupt government won't play along. You can either do the best you can or invade with your military.
The westen world is shifting first we have the highest access to informaton the most opportunity as people become more general versed in subjects more educated they start clamouring. This is already happenening world wide in the western world we dont accept going backwards like we used to we dont accept depressions anymore.
There will be opposition from the ruling class yes and as minority slowly starts turning into a majority things can go bad depending on what the opposition is. If they killed a few protesters in OWS the whole nation would flare up like kindling. The only way to stop our switch from a monetary system to a RBE is to disable the free forms of communication such as the internet.
Heavy legislature or temporary shuting down the internet nationwide for "security" reasons is the most efficient way to do things. If i was a oligarch-banker i would be doing everything in my power to get censor up on the internet ASAP.
If you are talking about specific dictatorships I don't see what a RBE can do to resolve that issue. You can't just ask a crazy country like North Korea to play along and adopt your RBE if they don't want to.
If New Guinea exports oil to the world markets, then they will receive the world market price.
You speak to the people directly ignoring the goverments and you met force with force without public support they are useless.
Depends on the conditionality they received on the loan to develop their infrastructure, Hey you got oil but you cant mine it without these and dont even try without this loan. Loan is to big cant repay refinance demand lower oil prices as a condionality that is one of the reason US got among the cheapest oil.
Are you suggesting that every country has fully embraced free market capitalism and by that logic the simple fact that some are poor proves that free market capitalism doesn't work?
It is already known that it dont work it was recently proven by the lack of legislature that led to the collapse and that the American people had to buy for wall streets fun time. To big to fail ? my ass!
Thats awesome! I like how all the exploited countries were on one side. Monetary system is a monetary system. and in a monetary system we have winners and loses obesity and starvation. GDP rise while americs health goes down. tells you all you need to know of "wealth"
Okay. So you think everyone who lives in the same crap as everyone will be happy? I won't be. You can't really work directly for your own stuff, so you're stuck with whatever value of something everyone else has I'd hate to be in that situation...
Seems awfully oppressive to me too... Say you want to trade a few of your speakers and furniture with your neighbor's car. Oh wait! Let's make that more convenient and use a paper contract to keep tabs on which side has what value of which! *Gets sent to jail/mental institution, never returned again*
EDIT:
If they killed a few protesters in OWS the whole nation would flare up like kindling. The only way to stop our switch from a monetary system to a RBE is to disable the free forms of communication such as the internet.
The only way to stop the spread of RBE is to make sure that everyone alive has a logical mind.
Anyone joining this thread, I would simply advise you not to bother arguing with DeliCiousVP, he seems to think random assertions and just throwing in as many 'cool' sounding phrases as possible is how to debate. Plus he is near-unintelligable. Peace out
Second time you jump in just to attack me please grow some stones.Dont be afraid to get in on the "discussion"
Okay. So you think everyone who lives in the same crap as everyone will be happy? I won't be. You can't really work directly for your own stuff, so you're stuck with whatever value of something everyone else has I'd hate to be in that situation...
You wont be happy when you have true freedom and access to everything you desire and need? The best healthcare in the world the possibility to live forever? Fine you have the freedom to step outside of the system like that if you wanna start your own monetary commune pack a bag and go it would be like a cival war reinactment good fun ill come with.
Seems awfully oppressive to me too... Say you want to trade a few of your speakers and furniture with your neighbor's car.
Trade whats that? Everything he have you can get for free? whats the dealio here?
Oh wait! Let's make that more convenient and use a paper contract to keep tabs on which side has what value of which! *Gets sent to jail/mental institution, never returned again*
Jails ? you think there will be jails? 90% of all crime is monetary related. Granted there will be mental insitutions but psychology and enviromental studies should almost eliminate their use.
First off, I havent read the haters because some seem to think that a conversion to a RBE would be a nation-wide change forced upon the human race, but I do not think it is. I have read jacques book "What Money Cant Buy" and had debates with different people how this would go about to happen and I think it goes something like this..
The economy is on the brink of failure, as it has been in the past, it is now. People are out of work, food, shelter and jobs are scarce. People cry to the government for options. The government does not care, the government is there to keep things the way they are and to maintain their supporters loyalty. A dictatorship needs a small amount of their supporters for reelection; maybe 1% but a fully working democracy needs more; (up to 51% I would say) between these two numbers that I pulled out of my ass is how a governemnt continues to function. A governemnt functions as long as they pay their military and put some wealth (food, shelter) in their supporters pockets.
These needs must be met every month and every year for a working political party to rule. A democracy elects somewhat better leaders than dictatorships do, but by a small margin.
Lets take a corporate structure and break it down; At the top of the corporate foodchain is the head chief, under him are his board members, his board members function as his political party. In a corporate culture there is only one ruling political party and its the board members. Go down the next level and you have paid staffers doing office jobs, another level down you have employees doing manual labor. Some do not have this level. The level of employed staff doing manual labor is being changed out by automation. By automation I mean applied technology doing labor for you! (Robots)
Different levels of paid work in a corporation vary, some have a lot of staff, some very little but most people employed in the corporation get their orders or duties above them. People above them get their work schedules from a chain over themselves again, this cycle of where you get your orders from rises to the top all the way to the board members of the corporation and then to the chief of said corporation.
A corporation is a dictatorship. When I go to work doing manual labor I ask my nearest in command, whats do you need? He answers and I do what he tells me. I dont like it but it pays just enough to have me return on the next day. My job is repetative but I can continue since the environment (collegues) is good, we share a laugh, talk shit and excersise breaks together or alone.
Where was i? The economy is on the brink of destruction and my corporation faces laying off people to survive or automate jobs. Laying off people is the surest way to survive short term. But automation is the best way to survive long term. Automation is not within reach in my line of work yet, so they will be laying off people. Do I care that my corporation will lay off people? Yeah I kinda do, people have loans and insurances that must be paid to support the economy. But does it really matter? No. Long term my corporation or dictatorship-style ruled company will be bankrupt and another will take its place. Maybe one with more automation and less manual labor taskforce.
Ask yourself this, does a corporation mind firing people? False. A corporation will do anything to survive and will fire both you and me if it has to. There is no need to talk about your feelings when dealing with a company OR a government. Both of them do not care about you or your feelings, a government does not care about your needs.
I think people care about people. If a time should come when the economy is brinked to destruction, a new paper money value system will take its place. I think corporations eat other corporations, like currency systems eat other currency systems. One will take the place of another. It will fail in time for another to take its place. This cycle will continue until enough people refuse to participate.
Thinking small scale about my own needs. When I think about my own needs my first thought comes to energy. I want to be free of the monatery system but I must relinquish my chains by producing my own energy, or making my shelter energy efficient. I dont know if I am phrasing this in the right way but I want my home and my way of producing energy wedlocked, If I put my personal time and energy into building a houseboat, or a house on a boat, I would continue investing my time into harvesting wave energy to power my floating shelter and fishing for producing food. If I build my shelter in the highland woods I would invest my time into researching wind or solar energy to power my shelter, and hunt or lay seeds to harvest food.
I think about what I would do If i didnt support the current economic power structure all the time and when debating wether or not a Resource Based Economy would or would not work is besides the point. It will take an apocalypse before we ever built one
This turned into somewhat of a rant and my thoughts on the current system, if you read it all, good for you.
I'm in favor of the theory of a RBE but unfortunately I believe it would never work on earth. There are too many differences between how each person was raised, their language, culture and religion which will always lead to conflict or non acceptance.
People are ignorant and self centered, they don't realize that their environment shaped them while growing up and they think whatever they believe is correct or the truth.
What we would need to do is colonize another planet with open minded supporters of an RBE. I would suggest creating a large spaceship; loading it with open minded supporters (who will try their hardest not to pass on earths bad habits to their children), enough materials to build a city or two upon arrival, a self sufficient ecosystem to provide during the journey, and an ark of earths species (most likely in embryo form or cryo-frozen adults). Then setting off in the direction of the nearest planet we can inhabit. Now the journey would span generations as even the nearest hospitable planet is far as hell and the journey itself would serve as practice running an RBE/ teaching our youth not to be douche bags.
I believe my way is more plausible than everyone on earth accepting an RBE or governments declaring resources as common heritage because with enough funding and 20 or 50 years of automated labor the ship could be built (probably in orbit?).
oh and once the planet is well established with multiple functioning cities we blow up earth with our superior science to make sure those douches never decide to stop on by and taint out sh*t. XD
edit: there's also the possibility of mining resources off asteroids and/or uninhabitable planets along the way with the use of automated mining tools like planetary resources plans to do.
I'm in favor of the theory of a RBE but unfortunately I believe it would never work on earth. There are too many differences between how each person was raised, their language, culture and religion which will always lead to conflict or non acceptance.
People are ignorant and self centered, they don't realize that their environment shaped them while growing up and they think whatever they believe is correct or the truth.
Don't you worry we wont need another planet, It is already common knowledge that politicians and the political process is corrupt and a joke it wont take long for the "majority" to put two and two together. And understand that the monetary system is the inherit cause of so many of our problems.
OWS is a start the Canadians are a little further along in Montreal, But most people don't know how frail our monetary system is right now all it takes is a mouse fart to bring it down.
Not trolling Alpha Centauri by Sid Meier follows such a sceneario. DeliCiousVP: I really wish RBE could work or communism could have worked but it didn't. It has unrepaireble flaws grounded in human nature. I wish I could believe it. But I think it is a pipedream. It could work in a computersimulation maybe. I guess even that is a stretch. The only thing we can work on is advancing our culture. A technological overlord system is a nightmare.
But the RBE has no sytem no substance and no strucure. There is no coordinating proces. There is no science of Social engeneering TVP is talking about. It was a concept explored by economist and sociologist in the 80-ties and 90-ties and burried as a scientific and political dead end. Global outlines aren't enough for implementing anything. There is nothing to study. Marx and Engels had a vision of the future. It did not transpire as they thought it would. Their ideas seeped into societies in a different way then they imagined. Most countries did not become communistic. Communism got hijacked by politicians riding the system. I do not think of TVP as revolutionairies or even visionairies. It is a hodgepodge of ideas pulled together that already existed before. Im afraid TVP has potential to get hijacked by Stalinism. But in the end I believe there will be no transition into such a system.
edit I had not read the post above me. I was reacting to the post by Anon06 obviously
DeliCiousVP: I really wish RBE could work or communism could have worked but it didn't.
Communism is a monetary idealoigy not a technology based resource based economy. I personally think communism-totalitarian is a horrible government module in a monetary system.
What seems to work the best is a Social democracy, basically the Nordic model that have pretty free markets but social values that encourages creativity and a sense of social responsibility, Like Canada Sweden and some even think that Japan falls under a similar system.
Under regulated markets however collapse constantly without intervention this has been proven time and time again, Forcing the government to act as a social security for the rich because they are "to big to fail"
But even these countries pollute and exploit the world so their not sustainable for the future anyway.
Marx and Engels had a vision of the future
Aren't you quite the scholar, To start a sentence off like this.
Edit:
edit I had not read the post above me. I was reacting to the post by Anon06 obviously
A post that wasent aimed at me? I dont know if i should be offended or well not offended still my point stand.
DeliCiousVP: I really wish RBE could work or communism could have worked but it didn't.
Communism is a monetary idealoigy not a technology based resource based economy. I personally think communism-totalitarian is a horrible government module in a monetary system.
What seems to work the best is a Social democracy, basically the Nordic model that have pretty free markets but social values that encourages creativity and a sense of social responsibility, Like Canada Sweden and some even think that Japan falls under a similar system.
Under regulated markets however collapse constantly without intervention this has been proven time and time again, Forcing the government to act as a social security for the rich because they are "to big to fail"
But even these countries pollute and exploit the world so their not sustainable for the future anyway.
Seriously, communism is a monetary ideology?
" Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. "
That's the VERY first sentence in the wikipedia article, you really didn't have to search far to get to that definition. And communism never existed because NO country has fully adapted it. It was just a mix of socialism and dictatorships. Communism could work but nobody could transition to it. That's why we question if the RBE would ever get conceived because it shares so many similarities to communism ( resources distributed by government, no money ).
I find the last comment about pollution and exploitation to be a silly one to make. Unless you live in complete harmony with the enviroment or create a bubble that seperates the world from the human society you will exploit the world for resources like oil, silicon, and what have you. And frankly, that comment is best left for another thread about energy efficiency ( I would love to write about all my thoughts about nuclear, wind and solar energies, but I'd hate to stink up this thread about it ).
I find the last comment about pollution and exploitation to be a silly one to make. Unless you live in complete harmony with the enviroment or create a bubble that seperates the world from the human society you will exploit the world for resources like oil, silicon, and what have you. And frankly, that comment is best left for another thread about energy efficiency ( I would love to write about all my thoughts about nuclear, wind and solar energies, but I'd hate to stink up this thread about it ).
We can make due without polluting our environment to the extent we are today we can use clean and efficient energy sources to replace our fossil fuel dependency, It might take 5-10 years to get there tho depending on what system we are using.
The most efficient sources we would have to utilize would be Solar,Tide,Geothermal because they have some of the highest value per square meter. Hydro-power and wind would be used in areas where it is offering a higher output obviously this goes for solar to some extent as well.
Obviously nuclear is very efficient as well having a value of 1000/WATS per square meter compared to tide that have 6.5-8 or solar that rocks 20-25 in deserts. But i do not consider nuclear clean or safe today.
Seriously, communism is a monetary ideology?
" Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order. "
How Karl Marx envisioned it and what actually happened is two different things, Communism is still considered a monetary ideology and it is one of the -ism. There is no room for "ideologies" in the future we need to test/try and use the scientific method to find out what works.
Anyone joining this thread, I would simply advise you not to bother arguing with DeliCiousVP, he seems to think random assertions and just throwing in as many 'cool' sounding phrases as possible is how to debate. Plus he is near-unintelligable. Peace out
Second time you jump in just to attack me please grow some stones.Dont be afraid to get in on the "discussion"
Okay. So you think everyone who lives in the same crap as everyone will be happy? I won't be. You can't really work directly for your own stuff, so you're stuck with whatever value of something everyone else has I'd hate to be in that situation...
You wont be happy when you have true freedom and access to everything you desire and need? The best healthcare in the world the possibility to live forever? Fine you have the freedom to step outside of the system like that if you wanna start your own monetary commune pack a bag and go it would be like a cival war reinactment good fun ill come with.
Oh wait! Let's make that more convenient and use a paper contract to keep tabs on which side has what value of which! *Gets sent to jail/mental institution, never returned again*
Jails ? you think there will be jails? 90% of all crime is monetary related. Granted there will be mental insitutions but psychology and enviromental studies should almost eliminate their use.
Sure, most of the crimes committed will be made by people who want to get a little more money for themselves, many of which I can recognize as a desperate move.
Don't pull statistics out of your thin air- if you got it from somewhere, site a source for it.
Oh, you can have everything for free? No limits at all? I'll go ahead and own the world. And then proceed to abolish the RBE and rule as the supreme ruler of humanity. Perhaps not as extreme as that, but you're going to hit limits. People always want more, because we get accustomed to what we already have. Don't tell me you're going to share everything- there is a reason people have their private properties. I'd much rather have a car for myself rather than share it with 3 people, even if I have a car available at all times- I'd prefer to do whatever to the car that I want to rather than having to consent with 3 different people.
Oh, you can have everything for free? No limits at all? I'll go ahead and own the world. And then proceed to abolish the RBE and rule the supreme ruler of humanity.
What is the incentive for it?
People always want more, because we get accustomed to what we already have.
Is there something wrong with that?
Don't tell me you're going to share everything- there is a reason people have their private properties.
There is a lot of stuff i will own like my tooth brush and my computer and the pillow of my deceased child, Its called sympathetic value.
I'd much rather have a car for myself rather than share it with 3 people, even if I have a car available at all times- I'd prefer to do whatever to the car that I want to rather than having to consent with 3 different people.
Obviously if you wanna share a car with 3 people thats your decision. Or if you wanna keep it in your "Driveway" and own it you can take that burden on you.
You might not be able to remove the vobblar and some other security measures on the car that helps prevent human error in traffic, But except from that enjoy.
On May 31 2012 06:48 1Eris1 wrote: I thought the whole point of this society was to remove private property?
Really that was the whole point? Not starvation,Pollution,wars better health, and offer a infrastructure that can shorten substantially the time it takes from design to invention to manufacture.
No you are allowed to own things it just wont be desirable to "own" a car when you have full access anyway.
If you keep feeding fish abundantly eventually they stop eating it each other up, and this is fish....
Migraine today wont be on goodnight guys. And please admin stop hating on me. And pretty please open my thread we need a real home.
On May 31 2012 06:48 1Eris1 wrote: I thought the whole point of this society was to remove private property?
Really that was the whole point? Not starvation,Pollution,wars better health, and offer a infrastructure that can shorten substantially the time it takes from design to invention to manufacture.
No you are allowed to own things it just wont be desirable to "own" a car when you have full access anyway.
If you keep feeding fish abundantly eventually they stop eating it each other up, and this is fish....
Yeah man, let's design our society based upon how fish behave. Or any other animal. Let's design it for everything but humans. Then put humans in it! Fucking great designwork there.
I'll tell you personally though, I like owning things. If someone said I could have a free car, I'd take it. In fact, if given the chance in a society like this (and I would be) I would dominate others. Why? Because people are stupid, and I can (Edit: Look at it as my hobby. I must do something, right?). And what happens when I do this? Shit stops working.
Furthermore, when people don't share your vision it isn't a utopia for them, now is it?
l tell you personally though, I like owning things. If someone said I could have a free car, I'd take it. In fact, if given the chance in a society like this (and I would be) I would dominate others. Why? Because people are stupid,
Don't worry man we will fix you right back up, You will have the best psychologies to help you with your value disorder
And if not you can always pack a bag go into the wild and establish your own little monetary society. I mean kids play kings and swordsmen all the time don't they so who are we to deny you, your little game, just make sure nobody gets hurt.
Furthermore, when people don't share your vision it isn't a utopia for them, now is it?
There is a lot of people that didn't share the idea that "negros" should be free back in the day, Or that lions shouldn't eat Christians in the Colosseum. Values shift.
And nothing is a utopia only whats technologically possible there will always be problems just a lot less and much better ones It is just a matter of time until people make the connection. It is everywhere you gotta be blind to not see or simply in the belief that it is irrelevant.
Textured vegetable protein is pretty good. Rehydrate it and mix it in with ground beef or other meat.
Anyway the "resource based economy" is out of touch with real human behavior. It is a mildly entertaining academic exploration, but is forever relegated to fiction.
Anyway the "resource based economy" is out of touch with real human behavior. It is a mildly entertaining academic exploration, but is forever relegated to fiction.
Now that is a fictional statement. We place people in a harsh environment and expect them to behave and when they don't we lock them up beat them down harden them further.
People come out worse than when they came in, In a RBE we call this structural violence and it comes in the form of prejudice,bigotry and racism and swift collective punishment for acts of survival. People who suffered through this process could rip your head off serie rape your whole family and don't feel a itch of remorse the system made them this way. And you are talking about how a Resource based economy is out touch with human behavior? And this is in the US lets not speak of the poorer parts of the world.
Anyway the "resource based economy" is out of touch with real human behavior. It is a mildly entertaining academic exploration, but is forever relegated to fiction.
Now that is a fictional statement. We place people in a harsh environment and expect them to behave and when they don't we lock them up beat them down harden them further.
People come out worse than when they came in, In a RBE we call this structural violence and it comes in the form of prejudice,bigotry and racism and swift collective punishment for acts of survival. People who suffered through this process could rip your head off serie rape your whole family and don't feel a itch of remorse the system made them this way. And you are talking about how a Resource based economy is out touch with human behavior? And this is in the US lets not speak of the poorer parts of the world.
Clueless!
Dude what? Did you just claim that the RBE solves racism? And what does "... and swift collective punishment for acts of survival" mean? Can't actually make out that sentence so please rephrase it.
Structural violence isn't an RBE term, by the way.
l tell you personally though, I like owning things. If someone said I could have a free car, I'd take it. In fact, if given the chance in a society like this (and I would be) I would dominate others. Why? Because people are stupid,
Don't worry man we will fix you right back up, You will have the best psychologies to help you with your value disorder
And if not you can always pack a bag go into the wild and establish your own little monetary society. I mean kids play kings and swordsmen all the time don't they so who are we to deny you, your little game, just make sure nobody gets hurt.
Furthermore, when people don't share your vision it isn't a utopia for them, now is it?
There is a lot of people that didn't share the idea that "negros" should be free back in the day, Or that lions shouldn't eat Christians in the Colosseum. Values shift.
1. What is a value disorder? Is this a commonly accepted diagnosis? What is its characteristics? Who are these "best psychologists"? Is it a machine? If it's not a machine, you must realize that very, very few people will actively practice psychology (way under what would be required) if their only motivation was to make themselves feel useful or to benefit society. If it is a machine, then how the fuck do you construct such a machine? And again, how would it diagnose this disorder?
To me, this shit reads like "You don't agree with me, so I'll send you to a special camp until you do", because that is in essense what you are saying. Indeed, this system is nothing short of a total dictatorship. It doesn't matter if you claim that it (the system) composes "optimal" values, they need to be my values (or there needs to be room for my values) or I will not be satisfied and happy as you claim I will be.
Regarding your second paragraph you hit your nail on the head on what you loony RBE people should do. You're free to do it, which is one of the wonders of capitalism. So why don't you go ahead and prove us all wrong and we'll eventually be won over?
Anyway the "resource based economy" is out of touch with real human behavior. It is a mildly entertaining academic exploration, but is forever relegated to fiction.
Now that is a fictional statement. We place people in a harsh environment and expect them to behave and when they don't we lock them up beat them down harden them further.
People come out worse than when they came in, In a RBE we call this structural violence and it comes in the form of prejudice,bigotry and racism and swift collective punishment for acts of survival. People who suffered through this process could rip your head off serie rape your whole family and don't feel a itch of remorse the system made them this way. And you are talking about how a Resource based economy is out touch with human behavior? And this is in the US lets not speak of the poorer parts of the world.
So... there will be no crime in an RBE society? All crimes in a monetary society are actually acts of survival forced by harsh environmental factors?
To me, this shit reads like "You don't agree with me, so I'll send you to a special camp until you do", because that is in essense what you are saying. Indeed, this system is nothing short of a total dictatorship. It doesn't matter if you claim that it (the system) composes "optimal" values, they need to be my values (or there needs to be room for my values) or I will not be satisfied and happy as you claim I will be.
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.
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
Can't believe this went ignored, this guy has a pretty good point.
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.
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
Can't believe this went ignored, this guy has a pretty good point.
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.
There might be more responses, but that's the one that came to mind and I found mcc's response sufficient personally.
Dude what? Did you just claim that the RBE solves racism?
of course. bigotry,racism and prejudice. We will also need to build up a language that is more efficient in communicating the advanced understandings we have today.
So... there will be no crime in an RBE society? All crimes in a monetary society are actually acts of survival forced by harsh environmental factors?
What is crime? Crime is socially unaccepted behavior. Around 90% of all crimes today will disappear because they are a result from our monetary system, the harsh environment caused by inequality for example that creates the fertilized soil for inappropriate behavior, I feel however that we will be able to get rid of as much as 99% using superior schools that helps build emotional resilience and understanding.
What is a value disorder? Is this a commonly accepted diagnosis? What is its characteristics?
Naturally offensive values that do not align with the symbiotic and emergent nature of the universe and has reached the point in which you are harming yourself and people/systems around you.
Around 90% of all crimes today will disappear because they are a result from our monetary system,
Are 90% of crimes committed for the intent of furthering the perpetrator's financial or material well-being?
the harsh environment caused by inequality for example that creates the fertilized soil for inappropriate behavior,
The black market will be destroyed?
I feel however that we will be able to get rid of as much as 99% using superior schools that helps build emotional resilience and understanding.
How does an RBE provide superior schooling that builds emotional resilience and understanding?
Naturally offensive values that do not align with the symbiotic and emergent nature of the universe and has reached the point in which you are harming yourself and people/systems around you.
That's fluff that doesn't really answer the question. What is a value disorder? Disagreeing with RBE? Wanting to possess private property?
Are 90% of crimes committed for the intent of furthering the perpetrator's financial or material well-being?
At least i would asume. There not manny other crimes, only murder,mutilation and rape i can think of wich could have different motives but i doubt they more then 10% of all crimes (not counting traffic offenses) Other crimes then economic crimes could sky rocket in an rbe btw Noone knows what bored humans who got everything they want will try to keep themselves entertained.
What is a value disorder? Wanting to possess privater property? <- probably this. Overvaluing private property and items, based on the false idea that they are inherently scarce.
What will be the incentive for it? Obviously there are some people that might want things that are considered really offensive just like today.
How does an RBE provide superior schooling that builds emotional resilience and understanding?
By implementing the latest studies and technologies to make a school that is designed, That is if we will even have compulsory public school system.
Expect this tho if thats the case. Shorter days more information more physical learning no exams(As we think of them today)Look at the Finnish school module right now which is considered the best in the world currently.
At least i would asume. There not manny other crimes, only murder,mutilation and rape i can think of wich could have different motives but i doubt they more then 10% of all crimes (not counting traffic offenses) Other crimes then economic crimes could sky rocket in an rbe btw Noone knows what bored humans who got everything they want will try to keep themselves entertained.
The environment that created these behavior are studied, And so far we have plenty of studies that show that inequality,Structural violence and monetary deprivation is the main breeding ground for many of these "crimes"
obviously a rich kid can be deprived of other things such as love and recognition that might cause him to act out or behave in other socially offensive ways. But most murders,Mutilation,rape can be tracked down to monetary deprived environment that still uses a very Darwinist module for survival.
On June 01 2012 04:47 Rassy wrote: What is a value disorder? Wanting to possess privater property? <- probably this. Overvaluing private property and items, based on the false idea that they are inherently scarce.
I don't get it. If resources aren't scarce, and everyone can have everything they ever wanted, then why don't we have that today? Your argument would then come down to the system, and money, which we have made. Great, so now you've established that we've created a system which consolidates wealth systematically... but why would these people want to do that if they could just share?
And now we're back to one of the biggest reasons why this shit will never work; People always want more. Our current system is designed so that you can get more by being smart and being productive. Being productive therefore isn't pointless, as it means that you can advance yourself. Blabla problems with capitalism, sure, there are, but that's another discussion. We're discussing switching systems completely, and as far as that goes noone has shown how the RBE will actually work, at all. For example, the "school system" DeliCiousVP just mentioned is a suggestion of different systems with nothing concrete and nothing substantial with no research behind it. Research takes time and, to take a relevant example, in the area of most effective school systems there's still no conclusive research.
Jacque Fresco came up with his idea of a RBE 30+ years ago and made no progress, beyond drawings and a small, personal research facility in Florida.
In the past few years Fresco had some success (people actually have heard of it) with the Venus Project (TVP) because Zeitgeist movies brought it to light and people started donating money. TVP then broke away from Zeitgeist when Fresco decided that they were not raising enough money.
So now, their plan is to do more advertising by making movies, in order to raise more money . They are also raising more money by selling their pictures and ideas to Exemplar Zero. They are raising all this money so that they can get what they want - a test city and a theme park.
If RBE, an economic system that can supposedly function without money, is real then why did TVP have no success until they started using money to solve their problems and get what they want?
EDIT: TVP also stands for the ideal of total access to technology and yet does not allow anyone to access its own technology.
Some are some are not. We have an abundance of food,water,energy,shelter obviously we don't have an abundance of diamonds. But using technology to the maximum potential what cant we do?
People always want more. Our current system is designed so that you can get more by being smart and being productive
Abusive,exploitive and ruthless.That is how you make big money
nothing concrete and nothing substantial with no research behind it.
Thats how i would describe everything you ever wrote. obviously thats not the case with me as i base everything on sources,studies and technologies currently available. Simple truth is you are just wrong.
In the past few years Fresco had some success (people actually have heard of it) with the Venus Project (TVP) because Zeitgeist movies brought it to light and people started donating money. TVP then broke away from Zeitgeist when Fresco decided that they were not raising enough money.
So now, their plan is to do more advertising by making movies, in order to raise more money . They are also raising more money by selling their pictures and ideas to Exemplar Zero. They are raising all this money so that they can get what they want - a test city and a theme park.
When i met jacque he barely had the cloths on his back he actually had to sell of part of his designs which he have in Venus Florida yes. He spoke with great sadness of how he could barely afford to travel around, He does make enough money to sustain himself today and more.
The outing between Jacques and peter was more due to Roxanne thinking that peter was taking credit for jacque's work, She was wrong she is frail and this is not strange considering that one of the greatest mind that ever lived is 95 years old and soon to leave this world. Today they are on good terms and even had a TED talk they held together.
Peter was also opposed to trying to "raise" money for a Hollywood production movie saying that it was not a reasonable goal for them to put since the money they would have to make were in the tens of millions at least.
Don't worry guys, whenever I rape/murder/abuse/arsonize/vandalize/trespass someone or something it's always for monetary reasons. Delicious is totally correct in this regard.
In the past few years Fresco had some success (people actually have heard of it) with the Venus Project (TVP) because Zeitgeist movies brought it to light and people started donating money. TVP then broke away from Zeitgeist when Fresco decided that they were not raising enough money.
So now, their plan is to do more advertising by making movies, in order to raise more money . They are also raising more money by selling their pictures and ideas to Exemplar Zero. They are raising all this money so that they can get what they want - a test city and a theme park.
When i met jacque he barely had the cloths on his back he actually had to sell of part of his designs which he have in Venus Florida yes. He spoke with great sadness of how he could barely afford to travel around, He does make enough money to sustain himself today and more.
The outing between Jacques and peter was more due to Roxanne thinking that peter was taking credit for jacque's work, She was wrong she is frail and this is not strange considering that one of the greatest mind that ever lived is 95 years old and soon to leave this world. Today they are on good terms and even had a TED talk they held together.
Peter was also opposed to trying to "raise" money for a Hollywood production movie saying that it was not a reasonable goal for them to put since the money they would have to make were in the tens of millions at least.
My question still stands. If they can make the claim that running an entire economy without money is possible then they should be able to at least be able to gather enough resources, without money, in order to test it.
On June 01 2012 06:18 1Eris1 wrote: Don't worry guys, whenever I rape/murder/abuse/arsonize/vandalize/trespass someone or something it's always for monetary reasons. Delicious is totally correct in this regard.
Don't forget thoughtcrimes! But don't worry, you'll be sent to reprogramming centres so that you see things the "correct" way in no time.
First we will replace the current programming centres called "business schools" and "universities", where people are programmed to work in a capitalistic system and to think its the only system possible.
On June 01 2012 06:39 Rassy wrote: First we will replace the current programming centres called "business schools" and "universities", where people are programmed to work in a capitalistic system and to think its the only system possible.
We will replace them with resource based schools, where people will be programmed to work in a resource-based economy and think it's the only system possible.
...
But yeah totally. I still remember; some kid at my school tried to start a Marxist club and the capitalist thugs revoked his admittance and burned his parent's house down.
On June 01 2012 06:39 Rassy wrote: First we will replace the current programming centres called "business schools" and "universities", where people are programmed to work in a capitalistic system and to think its the only system possible.
Of course it's not the only system possible. It's just the best one.
Don't worry guys, whenever I rape/murder/abuse/arsonize/vandalize/trespass someone or something it's always for monetary reasons. Delicious is totally correct in this regard.
The environment they were raised in. Not monetary reasons all though that obviously exist as well.
My question still stands. If they can make the claim that running an entire economy without money is possible then they should be able to at least be able to gather enough resources, without money, in order to test it.
We are not running a sustainable economy today, in fact we are actually running an anti-economy as to economize is to conserve, But we are living in a cyclical consumption society for "stability"
Don't forget thoughtcrimes! But don't worry, you'll be sent to reprogramming centres so that you see things the "correct" way in no time.
awesome don't we have that already?
But yeah totally. I still remember; some kid at my school tried to start a Marxist club and the capitalist thugs revoked his admittance and burned his parent's house down.
Don't you worry we will fix your homicidal arson tendencies in our new reprogramming center.
Of course it's not the only system possible. It's just the best one.
Exactly obviously we can go back to kings and queens dictators Nazi/communism experiment take two., We have lots of things to chose from so lets see what fits the current technology we have today best!
My question still stands. If they can make the claim that running an entire economy without money is possible then they should be able to at least be able to gather enough resources, without money, in order to test it.
We are not running a sustainable economy today, in fact we are actually running an anti-economy as to economize is to conserve, But we are living in a cyclical consumption society for "stability"
You still didn't answer the question. If you really believe that RBE works and that money destroys the planet then the last thing that The Venus Project should be doing is use money.
You still didn't answer the question. If you really believe that RBE works and that money destroys the planet then the last thing that The Venus Project should be doing is use money.
You don't have a choice either you whore out or get locked up/out from the resources.
You still didn't answer the question. If you really believe that RBE works and that money destroys the planet then the last thing that The Venus Project should be doing is use money.
You don't have a choice either you whore out or get locked up/out from the resources.
Can't you just get volunteers and provide a list of resources people can donate? Otherwise it might seem like they found a more convenient way to organize resources.
Can't you just get volunteers and provide a list of resources people can donate? Otherwise it might seem like they found a more convenient way to organize resources.
I can see that so how many planets do you have to donate?i will settle for one Goldilocks Terra planet.
Can't you just get volunteers and provide a list of resources people can donate? Otherwise it might seem like they found a more convenient way to organize resources.
I can see that so how many planets do you have to donate?i will settle for one Goldilocks Terra planet.
Why would you need to donate many planets just to make a movie and a theme park? Seems like a big waste of resources...
Why would you need to donate many planets just to make a movie and a theme park? Seems like a big waste of resources...
I cant promise it wont be a theme park or a movie made on the whole planet, why is that a pre-requisite demand you have?
Ok, I think you got lost somewhere in the conversation.
The Venus Project is using money to make a theme park, movie and test city (phase 1, 2 and 3). All this will be used to show that a world without money can exist.
So why don't they just use their RBE techniques to create all that without money?
Central to their claim that RBE works is that people will work without money as an incentive and that resources can be organized without money. And yet after 30+ years of not using money they got nowhere, and so here they are using money to get what they want.
You still didn't answer the question. If you really believe that RBE works and that money destroys the planet then the last thing that The Venus Project should be doing is use money.
You don't have a choice either you whore out or get locked up/out from the resources.
Can't you just get volunteers and provide a list of resources people can donate? Otherwise it might seem like they found a more convenient way to organize resources.
TVP has 10k fans on Facebook or whatever, surely a few of those people believe strongly enough in this movement to devote their time and resources to the effort, instead of just money?
Don't worry guys, whenever I rape/murder/abuse/arsonize/vandalize/trespass someone or something it's always for monetary reasons. Delicious is totally correct in this regard.
The environment they were raised in. Not monetary reasons all though that obviously exist as well.
Plenty of people have been raised in enviourments where they can have literally anything they want and they've still gone on to commit horrendous acts. You think giving everyone stuff will just make them become docile?
On June 01 2012 07:27 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Don't you worry we will fix your homicidal arson tendencies in our new reprogramming center.
Reprogramming? Oh dear. That sounds eerily similar to the Ministry of Love in 1984...
Ok, I think you got lost somewhere in the conversation.
The Venus Project is using money to make a theme park, movie and test city (phase 1, 2 and 3). All this will be used to show that a world without money can exist.
The duty to change the world don't fall on the shoulder on a 95 year old engineer Einstein talked a lot about these things without going out giving pamphlets, the zeitgeist movement work for change, as does freeworldcharter and there will be more.
so why don't they just use their RBE techniques to create all that without money?"Technologies" and some are but they still need money to access the resources some greedy banker has claimed they own.
Central to their claim that RBE works is that people will work without money as an incentive
It is already proven that they do, especially in jobs that require higher cogitative functions which is what will be needed in the future. And people always have the incentive to follow their interests.
lenty of people have been raised in enviourments where they can have literally anything they want and they've still gone on to commit horrendous acts. You think giving everyone stuff will just make them become docile?
I recognize that human behavior is much more complex than that, And i don't want people to be docile i want them to be empowered,inquisitive and not afraid to be wrong with a highly developed "EQ" Emotional intelligence.
No, we don't.
Apparently you never watched the news went to school or belonged to any form of religious institute.Do you even know how much of you is you?
Ok, I think you got lost somewhere in the conversation.
The Venus Project is using money to make a theme park, movie and test city (phase 1, 2 and 3). All this will be used to show that a world without money can exist.
The duty to change the world don't fall on the shoulder on a 95 year old engineer Einstein talked a lot about these things without going out giving pamphlets, the zeitgeist movement work for change, as does freeworldcharter and there will be more.
so why don't they just use their RBE techniques to create all that without money?"Technologies" and some are but they still need money to access the resources some greedy banker has claimed they own.
Central to their claim that RBE works is that people will work without money as an incentive
It is already proven that they do, especially in jobs that require higher cogitative functions which is what will be needed in the future. And people always have the incentive to follow their interests.
Why can't they just ask people with the resources (who aren't bankers BTW) they need to give them up, for free, in exchange for free access to Venus City and all of its abundance? My guess is that the vast majority of people tell them to pay up or screw off.
Apparently you never watched the news went to school or belonged to any form of religious institute.Do you even know how much of you is you?
I'm sorry but how ignorant of society are you? What people do on their own is wholly different from state mandated practices such as, you know, the law. So immidiately we can discard the media and religious institutions. Schools? I'm sorry but they don't prosecute you for thoughtcrime (at least they don't do it here in Sweden, I would assume the US would be no different). "But they force you to learn basic knowledge!", no shit, still not about thoughtcrimes.
Edit: To make the distinction clearer for you: You have to learn, you don't have to agree.
'm sorry but how ignorant of society are you? What people do on their own is wholly different from state mandated practices such as, you know, the law. So immidiately we can discard the media and religious institutions. Schools? I'm sorry but they don't prosecute you for thoughtcrime (at least they don't do it here in Sweden, I would assume the US would be no different). "But they force you to learn basic knowledge!", no shit, still not about thoughtcrimes.
Edit: To make the distinction clearer for you: You have to learn, you don't have to agree.
Hehe and this coming from the guy who said he would dominate others just because people are stupid and thats your hobby. man please your the least informed swede i ever seen. I don't even know what this thought crime is coming from.
All these arguments are only valid once you have achieved a post scarcity economy. But we do not have a post scarcity economy yet, and therefore it won't work today. You just can't impose a speculative future society on the world today any more than you can create a machine just because you speculate that it will exist in the future.
That's why The Venus Project needs money. We do not have a post scarcity economy and therefore they need money to get anything done! So it is silly to argue to get rid of money today. You need money to build up your productive capital and fund the research you need to get there.
'm sorry but how ignorant of society are you? What people do on their own is wholly different from state mandated practices such as, you know, the law. So immidiately we can discard the media and religious institutions. Schools? I'm sorry but they don't prosecute you for thoughtcrime (at least they don't do it here in Sweden, I would assume the US would be no different). "But they force you to learn basic knowledge!", no shit, still not about thoughtcrimes.
Edit: To make the distinction clearer for you: You have to learn, you don't have to agree.
Hehe and this coming from the guy who said he would dominate others just because people are stupid and thats your hobby. man please your the least informed swede i ever seen. I don't even know what this thought crime is coming from.
Did you just brainfart completely?
First of all I said that would be my hobby in an RBE. It is not anything I do currently, other people don't interest me enough infront of other things I could do. The entire point of that, though, was that once I start dominating others the system would fail and you had no failsafe against that.
Secondly, you don't even know what we're discussing anymore?
Don't forget thoughtcrimes! But don't worry, you'll be sent to reprogramming centres so that you see things the "correct" way in no time.
awesome don't we have that already?
See, you confirmed that these value disorders are a thoughtcrime which would be fixed (through some vague psychological process), and then you went on to claim that there are already thoughtcrimes apparent in society today. You bring up religion, news and school. Since religion and news have nothing to do with how the state organizes things they fall off, and so we were discussing schools. You with me so far? Good. Then I said that as far as schools go you can't actually commit thoughtcrimes as you don't have to agree to anything they teach you, you just need to learn it. If you think what the school is teaching you is wrong, that's fine (even though it makes you an idiot, but whatever). You don't get sent in for reprogramming because you believe, for example, that evolution is "just a theory" or "wrong", but you need to listen when the teacher tells you what the fuck evolution actually is and why it makes sense, and why it is commonly accepted by virtually everyone.
So are you up to date on what we are discussing now? Can you offer any sort of argument as to how schools don't allow thoughtcrimes (or institutionalize such things in any way what so ever)?
Like every yes or no question it is not possible to answer as the answer wich i would like to give is "yes but"
I do agree that rbe wont work without having abundance of all of the goods we need, and most of the goods we want.
Delicious might think different about this btw, and he has been the main defender I cant speak for him but as far as i know the defenders of rbe do agree with this. It is a mood point for them annyway since abundance will be a given fact in an rbe.
On June 01 2012 13:27 Rassy wrote: Like every yes or no question it is not possible to answer as the answer wich i would like to give is "yes but"
I do agree that rbe wont work without having abundance of all of the goods we need, and most of the goods we want.
Delicious might think different about this btw, and he has been the main defender I cant speak for him but as far as i know the defenders of rbe do agree with this. It is a mood point for them annyway since abundance will be a given fact in an rbe.
Abundance is a given fact in an RBE, because, RBE cannot function without abundance. People, without total abundance, will probably have something they want that they cannot get. Delicious gave me a step-by-step information on how to get to an RBE. (from thread "the free world charter", page 70)
Step1:Social reforms/regulation of the markets/Valueshifts/charity organizations provided with subsities Step2: Create abundance for the nessceties of life without a pricetag. Start placing the nesscery infrastructure to exit the monetary system. Step3: The monetary system is now 100% obsolete, and values have shifted from ownership to access, social concern is personal concern.
Without abundance, it would suck if you wanted something because it wouldn't be fair to others, even I'd you are willing to work for it
On June 01 2012 13:22 Toasterbaked wrote: Well... Let's reach am agreement first. Do you agree that an RBE will never work without having superabundance for every good we want/need?
It's a yes/no question. If you say yes, we can discuss on whether if we can achieve superabundance or not
If you say no, then doesn't RBE assume every single resource will be so abundant that all resources lose value, and therefore makes money obsolete?
Yes, that's how I see it. You need superabundance first - then you can use RBE or communism or whatever you want as economics and money will be pointless.
In the time between now and then however, you are stuck with money and capitalism since that's the only thing that works when you have scarcity.
In the future can we have superabundance? Sure, why not? But will it take 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years? I have no idea.
It's alarming how little understanding of economics most posters in this thread (esp. the proponents of this RBE system) show. Our economic system in its current state has evolved as a response to one thing, and one thing only - the problem of how to distribute scarce resources to different members of society, and money is merely there as a means to achieve this distribution in a few ways.
Let's give a short example of, say, widgets. The world currently can produce 10,000 widgets/year, but the demand for widgets is 50,000/year. What happens in the current economic system? The price of widgets goes up, which changes the quantity demanded of widgets (the only people who can get widgets are those who can afford it; the people who can't afford it still want widgets, but now widgets are more expensive than what they are willing to pay for them).
Now, what happens is that savvy entrepreneurs see that the price of widgets is skyrocketing, so people flock into the widget producing industry in order to capture some of these profits. Over time, the number of widgets produced increases, the price of widgets goes down (tending towards the cost of production), and everyone who wants a widget gets a widget at the price they are willing to pay.
Of course, this is a gross oversimplification of the way the system currently works - in reality, there are many obstacles to the system achieving this perfect level of efficiency (such as government regulations, monopolies, evil politicians, etc.), but by and large, the economic system is able to achieve this to a remarkable degree of efficiency.
Note that in the beginning of my post, I said that this is humanity's current solution to the problem of how to distribute scarce resources. Now what happens if resources were not scarce? (i.e. we can produce whatever people want at whatever quantity for everyone in the world) Well, then I guess the RBE would work, with an important caveat. Whatever technological system that Zeitgeisters come up to control the production and distribution of resources would have to be absolutely perfect - any kinks in it would be disastrous. Today's economic system relies on self-regulation and feedback systems (i.e. supply and demand) to determine the perfect level of production, price, etc. Without a perfect computer that knows exactly what society wants, this will be impossible.
Of course, this is all assuming the scarcity problem can be solved, which we are arguably not even close to. I haven't even touched on the psychological, cultural, and logistical problems of implementing this system.
TL;DR: the current economic system already does what Zeitgeisters claim to be able to do, but is able to evolve and deal with scarcity much better than any human designed system could.
The guy at 11 minutes is an idiot (and I did not watch the rest, nor will I). At least you agree that there is no thoughtcrime in our current (western) society, good to know.
"It's alarming how little understanding of economics most posters in this thread (esp. the proponents of this RBE system) show. Our economic system in its current state has evolved as a response to one thing, and one thing only - the problem of how to distribute scarce resources to different members of society, and money is merely there as a means to achieve this distribution in a few ways."
Hmm well yes you are right , But... One of the arguments of rbe is that capitalism makes resources and products scarce. Resources and products are not inherently scarce annymore with current technology according to rbe advocates, Contrary to the past, where the lack of technology made products and resources scarce. Capitalism didnt solve this scarecity with new found technologys, instead it cultivated it.
On June 01 2012 21:16 Rassy wrote: "It's alarming how little understanding of economics most posters in this thread (esp. the proponents of this RBE system) show. Our economic system in its current state has evolved as a response to one thing, and one thing only - the problem of how to distribute scarce resources to different members of society, and money is merely there as a means to achieve this distribution in a few ways."
Hmm well yes you are right , But... One of the arguments of rbe is that capitalism makes resources and products scarce. Resources and products are not inherently scarce annymore with current technology according to rbe advocates, Contrary to the past, where the lack of technology made products and resources scarce. Capitalism didnt solve this scarecity with new found technologys, instead it cultivated it.
yes, most likely, though there is some truth in it.
It suprises me btw hat none of the people arguing against an rbe is attacking the basis of it. The basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products for everyone in the world with current technology. As soon as people manage to proove that this is wrong, the whole rbe falls. Noone in this thread has so far seriously attacked this point. Rbe didnt do much to proove its side either btw, though it did give an example with a calculation of all farmland in the world and how much it should be able to produce, They probably did manny more calculations to come to the conclusion that scarecity is artificial though i am not sure where to find them (lol).
With knowing everything i know i dont think its a completely unreasonable claim. Therefore i have been trying to find more info on the calculations but that is not easy to find unfortunatly. Rbe should maybe provide more calculations and research on potential production as its a verry strong argument for their case.
Funny dat DeliciousVP would post a movie of Molyneux of Free Domain Radio.
Delicious, you are aware that Molyneux is an 'anarcho-capitalist' that has demolished the venus project?
There are a lot of different people across many "ideologies" that recognize some of the flaws in the system.
Many of you guys completely disregard the value shift from a competitive-personal concern to a cooperate-social concern for personal concern.
That comes from an understanding of the technology available today coupled with a EQ that reflects that we live in the 21st century.
the basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products
Define products? Do you mean the necessities of life such as food,water,shelter,communication,transport,tools(Computer) Or do you refer to extravaganzas like Diamond hats?
Whatever the monetary system can produce, We can produce more because in a Resource based economy no "fictional" obstacles exist such as money.
On June 01 2012 21:33 Rassy wrote: yes, most likely, though there is some truth in it.
It suprises me btw hat none of the people arguing against an rbe is attacking the basis of it. The basis of rbe is that we can produce enough products for everyone in the world with current technology. As soon as people manage to proove that this is wrong, the whole rbe falls. Noone in this thread has so far seriously attacked this point. Rbe didnt do much to proove its side either btw, though it did give an example with a calculation of all farmland in the world and how much it should be able to produce, They probably did manny more calculations to come to the conclusion that scarecity is artificial though i am not sure where to find them (lol).
With knowing everything i know i dont think its a completely unreasonable claim. Therefore i have been trying to find more info on the calculations but that is not easy to find unfortunatly. Rbe should maybe provide more calculations and research on potential production as its a verry strong argument for their case.
Well the idea that we could have superabundance today is complete crap.
You would literally need to show something like 20X the entire productive capacity of the USA (trucks, factories, mines, roads, bridges, trains, machines, buildings, farms, educated workforce etc.) just sitting somewhere, unused, just to bring the entire world up to USA standards... which isn't even superabundance.
As long as all that doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then you would need to take time and resources to build them - you'd have scarcity - and then the RBE just doesn't work.
You would literally need to show something like 20X the entire productive capacity of the USA (trucks, factories, mines, roads, bridges, trains, machines, buildings, farms, educated workforce etc.)
fart-facts
As long as all that doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then you would need to take time and resources to build them - you'd have scarcity - and then the RBE just doesn't work.
That don't sound like a very practical way to do it? Why would you do it like that?Nor am i sure thats even the case.
You would literally need to show something like 20X the entire productive capacity of the USA (trucks, factories, mines, roads, bridges, trains, machines, buildings, farms, educated workforce etc.)
fart-facts
Fart-facts? 20X the USA economy spread over the world would bring world per capita GDP up to USA standards (roughly). Our economy comes from our productive capacity (factories, machines etc.) so to boost the world economy you'd need to boost the world's productive capacity.
As long as all that doesn't exist (and it doesn't) then you would need to take time and resources to build them - you'd have scarcity - and then the RBE just doesn't work.
That don't sound like a very practical way to do it? Why would you do it like that?
If you want more stuff you need to build the productive capacity to produce those products.
We don't even have enough private houses in the country for every family (talking about the US here,) but the vast majority of families want to live in their own house at some point in the future.
Yes housing is a good point. We dont have enough houses though i guess we could start building them. There is lots of room (besides in the netherlands ><) and there plenty logs to chop or stones to bake.
There is something odd going on with houses btw. In the 50,s a house costed about 3 times the anual net. salery. Now a house cost about 10 times an anual net. salery. People should be able to build a house in 3 years of manhour wich would be like 6000 hours, Shouldnt that be enough to chop the wood, make the planks, and build a house? The land might be a problem but america has no lack of land, it could be cheap. Everyone can do some research on this but am pretty convinced it should be possible in 6000 man hour to build a house from complete scratch. Then how come we now have to pay 10 years manhour to get something what only takes 3 years of man hour to build? It feels as if the system makes us way less efficient , 10 years work to get something wich only takes 3 years of work to make.
@ below:
Ok you have a decent point, houses now are indeed alot different then the houses from the 50,s Do they now realy take 20k manhour to build though? No i think it still takes around 6000 man hour to build a house and that improved technology now allows us to build better houses in 6000 hours then in 1950 This is only my guess though. Imo it is absolutely not feasible and durable to spend 10 years of your working life on getting a house, it feels as if it takes way to much time compared to the time you need to work to get all other things. Its not only not feasible, i also think it is not needed.
Housing could maybe be a good example of scarcity created by the system though i have to admit i would need a bit more data before i can be sure of this.
On June 02 2012 01:04 Rassy wrote: Yes housing is a good point. We dont have enough houses though i guess we could start building them. There is lots of room (besides in the netherlands ><) and there plenty logs to chop or stones to bake.
There is something odd going on with houses btw. In the 50,s a house costed about 3 times the anual net. salery. Now a house cost about 10 times an anual net. salery. People should be able to build a house in 3 years of manhour wich would be like 6000 hours, Shouldnt that be enough to chop the wood, make the planks, and build a house? The land might be a problem but america has no lack of land, it could be cheap. Everyone can do some research on this but am pretty convinced it should be possible in 6000 man hour to build a house from complete scratch. Then how come we now have to pay 10 years manhour to get something what only takes 3 years of man hour to build? It feels as if the system makes us way less efficient , 10 years work to get something wich is worth 3 years of work:s
Houses today are not the same as they were in the 50's.
"In 1950, the average home was 1000 square feet, growing to an average size of 2000 square feet in 2000."
Add into that technology and quality and houses are more expensive. If you want to buy a cheap house for 3X annual salary you can do that - but standards of the 50's are not the standards of today so expect to be disappointed.
Do they realy take now 20k manhour to build though? No i think it still takes around 6000 man hour to build a house and that improved technology now allows us to build better houses in 6000 hours then in 1950 This is only my guess though. Imo it is absolutely not feasible and durable to spend 10 years of your working life on getting a house, it feels as if it takes way to much time compared to the time you need to work to get all other things. Its not only not feasible, i also think it is not needed.
Technology exist that can build a house from the ground up in 24 hours using 3D technology and its not a cardboard box house either. If you go even further back you can use prefabricated parts and assemble them on place this process can take between 48-72 hours depending on a variety of factors.
Fart-facts? 20X the USA economy spread over the world would bring world per capita GDP up to USA standards (roughly). Our economy comes from our productive capacity (factories, machines etc.) so to boost the world economy you'd need to boost the world's productive capacity.
This is so incorrect i cant even fathom how you can believe something so silly, Here you get a little tutorial up your alley.
you only need to overcome the monetary system by 1% to beat it which is a cake wonk since the system don't recycle or try and reach abundance.
You know, for people like me who want to heed your appeal "to understand what TVP really is about", got tricked by your following "First of all" into thinking that a short summary of the project can be found in the upcoming paragraph, only to then realize that they have to watch a 90 minute video on youtube to satisfy their initial curiosity. :p
Anyways, I'll definitely check that video out, it sounds very interesting. Especially because - since ever I have been a child - I wondered why nobody except me was dreaming of a world where all tedious labors would be done by machines and everybody could just work in science or art, depending on their interests.
Do they realy take now 20k manhour to build though? No i think it still takes around 6000 man hour to build a house and that improved technology now allows us to build better houses in 6000 hours then in 1950 This is only my guess though. Imo it is absolutely not feasible and durable to spend 10 years of your working life on getting a house, it feels as if it takes way to much time compared to the time you need to work to get all other things. Its not only not feasible, i also think it is not needed.
Technology exist that can build a house from the ground up in 24 hours using 3D technology and its not a cardboard box house either. If you go even further back you can use prefabricated parts and assemble them on place this process can take between 48-72 hours depending on a variety of factors.
Nice accounting. You need to count the hours and resources that went into making the prefab parts and the machines that made the prefab parts too. 'Labor hours saved' is not the only thing you need to account for.
Fart-facts? 20X the USA economy spread over the world would bring world per capita GDP up to USA standards (roughly). Our economy comes from our productive capacity (factories, machines etc.) so to boost the world economy you'd need to boost the world's productive capacity.
This is so incorrect i cant even fathom how you can believe something so silly, Here you get a little tutorial up your alley.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here...
Edit: You changed your post so let me respond: RBE cannot work w/o already having superabundance. If you disagree show evidence. You have yet to do so after 80+ pages of arguing for it.
You know, for people like me who want to heed your appeal "to understand what TVP really is about", got tricked by your following "First of all" into thinking that a short summary of the project can be found in the upcoming paragraph, only to then realize that they have to watch a 90 minute video on youtube to satisfy their initial curiosity.
Here is a better thread giving you more sources and information about a resource based economy i only had 2 hours to work on it before it got censored hope it helps.
Nice accounting. You need to count the hours and resources that went into making the prefab parts and the machines that made the prefab parts too. 'Labor hours saved' is not the only thing you need to account for.
No you don't if you have a machine that can construct a thousand houses through 3D technology you don't calculate like that.
So how long will it take to make this house? Using 3D technology it will take 24 hours.
You know, for people like me who want to heed your appeal "to understand what TVP really is about", got tricked by your following "First of all" into thinking that a short summary of the project can be found in the upcoming paragraph, only to then realize that they have to watch a 90 minute video on youtube to satisfy their initial curiosity.
Here is a better thread giving you more sources and information about a resource based economy i only had 2 hours to work on it before it got censored hope it helps.
Nice accounting. You need to count the hours and resources that went into making the prefab parts and the machines that made the prefab parts too. 'Labor hours saved' is not the only thing you need to account for.
No you don't if you have a machine that can construct a thousand houses through 3D technology you don't calculate like that.
So how long will it take to make this house? Using 3D technology it will take 24 hours.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Your math is to only measure outputs. You need to measure inputs as well since inputs are not infinite.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Haha no that is not relevant you just want it to work like that to strengthen your argument, Lets go into a factory and we talk to the manager and we ask how long does it take for a car to be done from start to finish?
According to you he will say 2 years because thats how long it took to invent the original infrastructure? No! He will say the relevant time for the product in question not the machinery behind it because it has no relevance here.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
Yes you do calculate like that. You must add up all costs!!
Haha no that is not relevant you just want it to work like that to strengthen your argument, Lets go into a factory and we talk to the manager and we ask how long does it take for a car to be done from start to finish?
According to you he will say 2 years because thats how long it took to invent the original infrastructure? No! He will say the relevant time for the product in question not the machinery behind it because it has no relevance here.
Edit: it's an irrelevant argument anyways. This technology is still new and not widely available yet. If it is more efficient it will be used... pretty plain and simple.
At least you can admit that you were wrong good.
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
No, you don't add it up in terms of 'time.' Time is not the only resource you need to consider. You add up all resources you use with a common term (money) to compute your inputs and you then compare it to your outputs.
If you want to just use time then you would amortize the time over time (or use) as you would amortize the cost of the equipment over time (or use).
You know PR would be happy to have you.
Bro you are trying to convince people that the world in 2012 is a post scarcity economy. That is EPIC level BS.
If we have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet why don't we?
Bad governments, for one.
Warlords, for another.
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
Bro you are trying to convince people that the world in 2012 is a post scarcity economy. That is EPIC level BS.
If we have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet why don't we?
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
You see you guys don't know, truth is you guys are clueless. I know how to solve these problems we know we offer real solutions and real change, and not only for the poor and starving people of the world but for everyone. Everything i say is backed up by science studies and technology not fact-farts that i see you guys throwing around. I don't have to resort to terms like NEVER and HUMAN NATURE.
We live in a system that promotes scarcity yet assumes that we can have infinite growth? a Resource based economy don't assume that we have infinite resources no quite the opposite. But a monetary system assumes that we can have a cyclical assumption and infinite growth paradigm forever. we have depleted in seas,polluted fresh water created massive deserts.
Only reason you guys can afford to have such an ignorant world view is because you were hatched on the good side of the fence.
On June 01 2012 21:16 Rassy wrote: "It's alarming how little understanding of economics most posters in this thread (esp. the proponents of this RBE system) show. Our economic system in its current state has evolved as a response to one thing, and one thing only - the problem of how to distribute scarce resources to different members of society, and money is merely there as a means to achieve this distribution in a few ways."
Hmm well yes you are right , But... One of the arguments of rbe is that capitalism makes resources and products scarce. Resources and products are not inherently scarce annymore with current technology according to rbe advocates, Contrary to the past, where the lack of technology made products and resources scarce. Capitalism didnt solve this scarecity with new found technologys, instead it cultivated it.
Why can't we have advanced technology with capitalism? Scarcity is becoming solved with capitalism with technology- Starving children were the norm 200 years ago. The average standard of living has indeed increased- for example, we live longer on average than we did in the past.
The RBE cannot exist without technology which must create superabundance. That does not mean that the RBE creates advanced technology.
Why won't businesses want to develop new technologies to make their workings more efficient? Technology can improve efficiency, and efficiency causes them to be able to create their products at a lowered cost. This means the business benefits because their lowered prices can compete with other businesses, which are driven to create even more efficient technology to lower their own costs.
So, how has capitalism created scarcity with newfound technologies, regarding the point I made above?
It has nothing to do with money. When the local government steals your aid shipments or some warlord or fanatic militia does, and your aid workers get killed or kidnapped or kidnapped then killed, you stop sending aid shipments after it happens too many times.
The reason these threads go on and on and on is because whenever you get stuck on a certain topic you deflect it to another one. We were just discussing if we currently have a post-scarcity economy or not. Clearly we do not - and now you want to deflect and move on to a new topic - world hunger (which we've already talked about).
Do you want to drop the current topic? If so we can't come back - you need to either stay on topic or concede the point so that we don't return to it later in an endless loop. I'm not going to keep playing the topic merry-go-round.
You see you guys don't know, truth is you guys are clueless. I know how to solve these problems we know we offer real solutions and real change, and not only for the poor and starving people of the world but for everyone. Everything i say is backed up by science studies and technology not fact-farts that i see you guys throwing around. I don't have to resort to terms like NEVER and HUMAN NATURE.
Dude, I have a master's degree in this stuff (and so do others responding to you) so no I'm not 'clueless'. I ask you basic questions about how a RBE will work and you fail to answer beyond using adjectives like 'efficient' and citing random technologies. You do NOT back it up with scientific studies that are in any way relevant to the economic questions you are being asked.
All you do is say stuff like "we'll be more efficient and produce more with 3D printers" which is not an answer because we do not have enough 3D printers to produce everything we need today. So you will have to use the scarce resources we have today to produce the infrastructure required to build the printers you will utilize in the future.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
Currently to do that we use the price mechanism to limit current consumption to what is possible and coordinate production to produce what is demanded by consumers.
In a RBE, as best as I can tell, that will be coordinated through 'science' and 'technology' and other things that are currently incapable of making value judgements between multiple production possibilities. This leaves how a RBE will work on an internal and technical basis a complete mystery to people (like myself) that know how the current system works and know what is needed to make it run on a technical level.
I have problems with accepting something from people, who created Zeitgeist movie part one, full of intentional lies about Christianity. it has been definitely debunked, for example here http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeitgeistpartone.shtml
Why can't we have advanced technology with capitalism?
Because abundance is not absorb-able in a monetary system. You cant make money on something if you have an abundance of it.
Also in a monetary system we create inferior goods yes inferior, Most people think well wont competition try to create the best good possible in order to compete for market share? No it is much more profitable to mass produce inferior goods that are intrinsically inferior due to having to reduce the production cost. And also they are have built in planned obsolescence this means that the goods are designed to break down after a certain usage, you especially see this in cellphones,cars,computers this is built in an not an accident. This is very good for maintaining cyclical consumption and profit as you have to go back every 1-3 years and get a new product.
Scarcity is becoming solved with capitalism with technology
Rephrasing "Scarcity is being solved by technology and braked by capitalism"
The average standard of living has indeed increased- for example, we live longer on average than we did in the past.
Improvement in the world has nothing to do with wealth and everything to do with technological/social progress.
The RBE cannot exist without technology which must create superabundance..
a Resource based economy only works due to the technological progress we have today yes, Our system for monetary exchange is a horrible system but it "worked" 200-300 years ago back than we didn't even have the tools to destroy our planet like we have today. On a second note our monetary system works even worse today because we have fractional banking(Create money out of thin air through debt) most "economy" students learn about Adam smith and his teachings. Little do they know that Adam smith never expected investment banking and fractional currency manipulation, he lived 250 years ago after all.
that does not mean that the RBE creates advanced technology.
No it utilize advanced technology, and provides an environment where technological progress can flourish and be quickly implemented. And the social implications are ..the.religions depiction of what heaven is cant even compete with what we can create and is it so far fetch? go back 200 years and place a person from that age in our world it would be more magical and heavenly than he could have ever fathomed.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
What resources are that? do you even know? do you know what materials are rare and what are not? Do you know if we have the resources to create 3D technology on a massive scale? You would be surprised at the amount of waste that could easily provide the world with the necessities and goods many times over.
Dude, I have a master's degree in this stuff
Cute, come back with a PhD
I have problems with accepting something from people, who created Zeitgeist movie part one, full of intentional lies about Christianity. it has been definitely debunked, for example here
There were some minor inconsistencies that were inaccurate I believe the newest versions dealt with that. The general message however is still the same. These debunking usually only have access to Internet information which is lacking. The sources that are being questioned are usually the ones tied with Acharya S who have traveled around the world collecting data and people are questioning her authenticity. Which i would not but i can see why Christians would.
Since resources are scarce today building the printers and the infrastructure to build the printers themselves will require that something else does not get produced. That requires a value judgement between different production possibilities.
What resources are that? do you even know? do you know what materials are rare and what are not? Do you know if we have the resources to create 3D technology on a massive scale? You would be surprised at the amount of waste that could easily provide the world with the necessities and goods many times over.
We do not have the capacity to produce 3D printers on a massive scale today. No one has built enough factories as of today. That's what matters.
You seem to be confusing things like 'iron in the ground' as a resource with the capacity to extract iron through mining and produce steel in steel mills, etc.
We do not have the capacity to produce 3D printers on a massive scale today. No one has built enough factories as of today. That's what matters.
Sure we do not that we need to today more important things to do.
So let me get this straight, you literally think that companies are sitting on tons to unused capacity and they are just not using it because they are a bunch on meanie heads?
"won't businesses want to develop new technologies to make their workings more efficient?"
Businesses definatly want to work efficiently but can you tell me in what interest it would be of anny business to create abundance? The price would drop to zero once everyone has a durable cheap product and the company has lost its market to make monney on. Businesses, specially thoose in wich competition has deminished due to fusions and near monopolys of a few big players have little to gain from making items abundant. The best example of this would be the oil industry btw.
Just as companys have little to gain by making items durable. Now you can argue that competition will force companys to make durable and cheap items, and it works like this in theory but this is not what we see in reality. Maybe its due to kartels and near monopolys, wich allows existing companys to easily push out newcommers who have a better and cheaper product (or they just assimilate the company in a take over bid, wich happens verry often) There probably manny reasons but as it is now i see little motive for companys to make their products abundant or durable. Not only would they loose their market, they would also loose the control over all their workers, who then dont have to work 8 hours a week annymore
to sum it up: I see manny motives for big companys to not create abundance, and the only motive i see for creating it (competition and be better and cheaper then your competitor) is not working in reality, at least i dont see it.
see manny motives for big companys to not create abundance, and the only motive i see for creating it (competition and be better and cheaper then your competitor) is not working in reality annymore, at least i dont see it.
This don't strike you as obvious Jonny? i bet Rassy don't need a master degree to put two and two together and you still don't see it?
You see we have reached a point where we are able to be so efficient in many we don't have a need for a market in many areas, And with a better social understanding no need for a market period.
If a company could make oil abundant they would definetely do so because that means they could keep selling it, as once oil is used it is hard to recycle it and therefore people have to go back and by more. Artificial scarcity is completely different then abundance. In fact, the entire reason behind aritificial scarcity is a lack of abundance. We all know oil is going to run out sooner rather then later, so naturally companies want to make as much as they can off of what's left. Were oil abundant, companies would just try to sell a lot more of it, as that's much easier and efficient (and the demand is astronomically high) then trying to hoard it/parcel it out slowly. In fact, a large percentage of companies in this world would love abudance. The only ones who wouldn't are those that use 100% recyclable products or those that are unable to access the abudance. (i.e. it's buried too deep underground,etc)
You are not aware of a kartel called opec wich has the objective to control production to ensure a good price? Despite every opec member wanting to sell as much as possible, they still limit themselves collectivly.
Your post does make sense though, and i can only say that i dont believe oil is running out. Peak oil is a scam. Latest research now shows that usa can be the 3rd largest oil producer within 10-15 years with scale oil. Have read alot on the oil industry, and a few family members of me have worked all their life for shell and they all told me that oil wont run out for 100 years+ I do agree though that this isnt realy hard evidence , its merely a personal believe.
to sum it up: I see manny motives for big companys to not create abundance, and the only motive i see for creating it (competition and be better and cheaper then your competitor) is not working in reality, at least i dont see it.
Most industries fall into the economic category called monopolistic competition where profits are maximized by producing until marginal revenue equals marginal cost. It's not more profitable to restrict supply to boost up the price - your competitor will just say 'thanks for the extra market share' all the way to the bank. Nor would it be more profitable to just buy them out - they aren't stupid and would only sell out if you spent more buying them than the higher price would be worth.
They only way you could make more money by restricting supply is by forming a cartel where everyone involved agrees to raise prices together - which is illegal unless a government does it (ex. OPEC).
I'm not sure where you are not seeing competition to be honest. Outside of OPEC even oil companies compete and invest heavily in increasing supply (shale oil, tar sands, horizontal drilling etc.).
I don't like Cartels either but the biggest problem with OPEC is it's backed by various countries, and therefore they have executive control and consider their own constituents getting oil more important than citizens in either countries getting oil, even if it could potentially make them more money and the fact that they can't be touched by cartel/monopoly laws.. (I don't think BP would really care if they sold to someone in Iran or the USA, as long as they were making money, but I doubt the National Iranian Oil Company would feel the same way.) This is arguably the reason behind the idea "the war in iraq was for oil", as some people believe the US government wanted to reduce OPEC's control and give more oil control back to Shell, Exxon, etc. (They control about 6-7% of Oil in the world nowadays, compared to 80% before OPEC) That's a discussion for another time however.
As for peak oil. It's not so much that oil reserves are gone, it's that we aren't able to produce as much as we once were able to. And the fact that natural gas isn't taken into account (which you are right, the USA is no.3 in terms of NG reserves) makes it a lot more complicated.
If a company could make oil abundant they would definetely do so because that means they could keep selling it, as once oil is used it is hard to recycle it and therefore people have to go back and by more. Artificial scarcity is completely different then abundance. In fact, the entire reason behind aritificial scarcity is a lack of abundance. We all know oil is going to run out sooner rather then later, so naturally companies want to make as much as they can off of what's left. Were oil abundant, companies would just try to sell a lot more of it, as that's much easier and efficient (and the demand is astronomically high) then trying to hoard it/parcel it out slowly. In fact, a large percentage of companies in this world would love abudance. The only ones who wouldn't are those that use 100% recyclable products or those that are unable to access the abudance. (i.e. it's buried too deep underground,etc)
No company set on making profits loves abundance. They hate it and actively denies that it exist or stops it. And remember nobody is saying that just because a company is manufacturing scarcity does it mean that we have abundance in that area but what it does mean is that it is less scarce then we are led to believe.
They love cost efficiency and a lot if not always does cost efficiency clash in someway with real efficiency that is tied to nature rather than fictional currency and profits.
If a company could make oil abundant they would definetely do so because that means they could keep selling it, as once oil is used it is hard to recycle it and therefore people have to go back and by more. Artificial scarcity is completely different then abundance. In fact, the entire reason behind aritificial scarcity is a lack of abundance. We all know oil is going to run out sooner rather then later, so naturally companies want to make as much as they can off of what's left. Were oil abundant, companies would just try to sell a lot more of it, as that's much easier and efficient (and the demand is astronomically high) then trying to hoard it/parcel it out slowly. In fact, a large percentage of companies in this world would love abudance. The only ones who wouldn't are those that use 100% recyclable products or those that are unable to access the abudance. (i.e. it's buried too deep underground,etc)
No company set on making profits loves abundance. They hate it and actively denies that it exist or stops it. And remember nobody is saying that just because a company is manufacturing scarcity does it mean that we have abundance in that area but what it does mean is that it is less scarce then we are led to believe.
They love cost efficiency and a lot if not always does cost efficiency clash in someway with real efficiency that is tied to nature rather than fictional currency and profits.
I think we're mixing terms here. I'm not refering directly to the economic term of abundance, that would imply that something is so available that it is free. Nothing in our current infrastructure is free, all of it requires capital, be it labor, other materials, technology, etc, etc. Even if we were to remove money from the equation, it would still take tools to mine coal from the ground and people (or robots) to operate those tools. (+ a bunch of other things) I'm more referencing that if a product had unlimited accessable quantities. Companies would love that. No oil company truly wants oil to run out, because even if makes them a profit today, it will leave them bankrupt tomorrow.
It couldn't be any more then a few degrees outside. I'm wearing warm clothes, I have a roof over my head. I have food in my stomach and reserves in the fridge. All this and I'm not happy. I find myself confused, caught in the web of my own manifesting revelations. An individual with his own established self beliefs who is capable of many things, but find my own fundamental beliefs challenged by a hypocritical society that strips me of my power. Left with not a choice, but a direction. A society that censors our mind with fraudulant beliefs setting our path for a vicious cycle of primal error in perception, directing us towards forever more suffering and death. The continuous cycle of unnecessary death are self-evident proof that mankind has been led astray.
We have been led blindly by an illusion. A mistaken inherent understanding that we already have a profound knowledge of our belonging. This self-perpetuating awareness that manifests a fiery spark like that of Tesla's lightbulb is a pre-fabricated model which is reflected from the self. A superficial construct that brings chaos and order.
We live in a world of hatred, bigotry, class elitism, ego, narcissim, entitlements to wealth, privilege and power. A world where political heads lie, slander and take us into a repute of political despotism. A world that has never been nastier, meaner, greedier, more arrogant and conceited. A society that swallows partisan corporate media and a God that co-exhists in a seperate existence. That is the conceptual model we have adapted as reality.
Until now, no person has gone through the vigorous intensity of feeling that will unite our civilisation as a singlular benefactor. That's what hurts my soul more then anything, is knowing the system is broken and people just continue on, submitting... to be so naive to ignore it because they have already let go. It's nothing to complex, nothing particularly mind blowing. It's a soothing science that few understand, but even the smart and interesting people have begun to be nothing but pervasive. That it's structure lay so deeply embedded in the roots it trickles through the crevasses rotting the very core only seeding a catalyst for the same homogeneous paradox.
This is my first post on TL but I have been an avid reader for a long time. Topics like this hit a soft spot in my heart because I believe so strongly in equality and don't see it being out of reach. I am 23 years old and look forward to spending my life trying to eliminate the monetary system and implementing a resource based system.
t couldn't be any more then a few degrees outside. I'm wearing warm clothes, I have a roof over my head. I have food in my stomach and reserves in the fridge. All this and I'm not happy. I find myself confused, caught in the web of my own manifesting revelations. An individual with his own established self beliefs who is capable of many things, but find my own fundamental beliefs challenged by a hypocritical society that strips me of my power. Left with not a choice, but a direction. A society that censors our mind with fraudulant beliefs setting our path for a vicious cycle of primal error in perception, directing us towards forever more suffering and death. The continuous cycle of unnecessary death are self-evident proof that mankind has been led astray.
We have been led blindly by an illusion. A mistaken inherent understanding that we already have a profound knowledge of our belonging. This self-perpetuating awareness that manifests a fiery spark like that of Tesla's lightbulb is a pre-fabricated model which is reflected from the self. A superficial construct that brings chaos and order.
We live in a world of hatred, bigotry, class elitism, ego, narcissim, entitlements to wealth, privilege and power. A world where political heads lie, slander and take us into a repute of political despotism. A world that has never been nastier, meaner, greedier, more arrogant and conceited. A society that swallows partisan corporate media and a God that co-exhists in a seperate existence. That is the conceptual model we have adapted as reality.
Until now, no person has gone through the vigorous intensity of feeling that will unite our civilisation as a singlular benefactor. That's what hurts my soul more then anything, is knowing the system is broken and people just continue on, submitting... to be so naive to ignore it because they have already let go. It's nothing to complex, nothing particularly mind blowing. It's a soothing science that few understand, but even the smart and interesting people have begun to be nothing but pervasive. That it's structure lay so deeply embedded in the roots it trickles through the crevasses rotting the very core only seeding a catalyst for the same homogeneous paradox.
This is my first post on TL but I have been an avid reader for a long time. Topics like this hit a soft spot in my heart because I believe so strongly in equality and don't see it being out of reach. I am 23 years old and look forward to spending my life trying to eliminate the monetary system and implementing a resource based system.
Well written deep and dark. I'm glad you joined i also recognize your nick.
On June 03 2012 13:12 JesusHadAegis wrote: It couldn't be any more then a few degrees outside. I'm wearing warm clothes, I have a roof over my head. I have food in my stomach and reserves in the fridge. All this and I'm not happy. I find myself confused, caught in the web of my own manifesting revelations. An individual with his own established self beliefs who is capable of many things, but find my own fundamental beliefs challenged by a hypocritical society that strips me of my power. Left with not a choice, but a direction. A society that censors our mind with fraudulant beliefs setting our path for a vicious cycle of primal error in perception, directing us towards forever more suffering and death. The continuous cycle of unnecessary death are self-evident proof that mankind has been led astray.
We have been led blindly by an illusion. A mistaken inherent understanding that we already have a profound knowledge of our belonging. This self-perpetuating awareness that manifests a fiery spark like that of Tesla's lightbulb is a pre-fabricated model which is reflected from the self. A superficial construct that brings chaos and order.
We live in a world of hatred, bigotry, class elitism, ego, narcissim, entitlements to wealth, privilege and power. A world where political heads lie, slander and take us into a repute of political despotism. A world that has never been nastier, meaner, greedier, more arrogant and conceited. A society that swallows partisan corporate media and a God that co-exhists in a seperate existence. That is the conceptual model we have adapted as reality.
Until now, no person has gone through the vigorous intensity of feeling that will unite our civilisation as a singlular benefactor. That's what hurts my soul more then anything, is knowing the system is broken and people just continue on, submitting... to be so naive to ignore it because they have already let go. It's nothing to complex, nothing particularly mind blowing. It's a soothing science that few understand, but even the smart and interesting people have begun to be nothing but pervasive. That it's structure lay so deeply embedded in the roots it trickles through the crevasses rotting the very core only seeding a catalyst for the same homogeneous paradox.
This is my first post on TL but I have been an avid reader for a long time. Topics like this hit a soft spot in my heart because I believe so strongly in equality and don't see it being out of reach. I am 23 years old and look forward to spending my life trying to eliminate the monetary system and implementing a resource based system.
To bad you won't spend your life trying to educate yourself and making an informed analysis of both systems.
To bad you won't spend your life trying to educate yourself and making an informed analysis of both systems.
I'm not sure what compelled you to have said that AdrianHealey, I think you are quick to jump the gun. I like to think that you are ill-informed on the education I have foregone. Although I am still a baby chicken compared to some of the amazing scientists out there. I hope to be taken under the wing by one of the great modern prometheus of our time and do great things. May it be eliminating plastic from our ocean with a bio-degradable chemical that does not harm or hinder our environment. Or finding a way to deteriorate CFC's from the atmosphere.
You can keep trying to solve your problems by electing "this political party" or "that political party" while your money pays scientists to design weapons and harmful gases to 'preserve and protect a better life for our society'. I rather spend my time as a scientist researching, educating, designing and creating the future.
Could you give me the details on this book please? "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" ?
To bad you won't spend your life trying to educate yourself and making an informed analysis of both systems.
I'm not sure what compelled you to have said that AdrianHealey, I think you are quick to jump the gun. I like to think that you are ill-informed on the education I have foregone. Although I am still a baby chicken compared to some of the amazing scientists out there. I hope to be taken under the wing by one of the great modern prometheus of our time and do great things. May it be eliminating plastic from our ocean with a bio-degradable chemical that does not harm or hinder our environment. Or finding a way to deteriorate CFC's from the atmosphere.
You can keep trying to solve your problems by electing "this political party" or "that political party" while your money pays scientists to design weapons and harmful gases to 'preserve and protect a better life for our society'. I rather spend my time as a scientist researching, educating, designing and creating the future.
Could you give me the details on this book please? "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia" ?
I will order now if you hold it in high regards!
Did you even read this thread?
I think it's great that you have an idealistic vision. But advancing a system which at its core doesn't work (for multiple reasons) just seems silly. By the way, wishing away politics doesn't actually remove politics, you realize that right? You could get in to politics and further your viewpoint on equality, technology, or whatever, and if people agree with you they'll vote for you. You wouldn't be one of these foul politicians you speak of. The problem would then be to get people to agree with you, but that's really the same problem you have today, isn't it?
My aim in life is to promote the necessity of orderly rational change and to use the talents of the gifted in facilitating this effort so that all the "dubious" battles in this world might one day end, leaving way to a more constructive effort towards change.
I'm not and have never planned on being a politician because I am not trying to push a political agenda. I have no interest in running for cabinet as I see no amount of political deliberation being able to forward the cause of rational change because politics is irrational. fact.
Like others I pose a lot of questions. All the time. Questions about life, questions about love, questions about the world. I can't give you the answers. We have not found them yet. We have to start asking ourself the right questions. The only right way to find what you need is to ask the right questions. Before that you may ask a lot of wrong questions. That's life, trial and error.
My problem is not getting people to agree with me, but opening people's eyes to see for themselves. I try to promote my own understanding, shaking society out of this sick perception of complacency. Ridiculing the devastating effects of man's inhumanity to man. I don't do it for myself, or anyone else in particular. It's much more universal then that.
PS. Could you list the things you thought I may have missed so I can address them with a greater clarity.
On June 04 2012 00:03 JesusHadAegis wrote: Yeah, I read this entire thread HellRoxYa!
My aim in life is to promote the necessity of orderly rational change and to use the talents of the gifted in facilitating this effort so that all the "dubious" battles in this world might one day end, leaving way to a more constructive effort towards change.
I'm not and have never planned on being a politician because I am not trying to push a political agenda. I have no interest in running for cabinet as I see no amount of political deliberation being able to forward the cause of rational change because politics is irrational. fact.
Like others I pose a lot of questions. All the time. Questions about life, questions about love, questions about the world. I can't give you the answers. We have not found them yet. We have to start asking ourself the right questions. The only right way to find what you need is to ask the right questions. Before that you may ask a lot of wrong questions. That's life, trial and error.
My problem is not getting people to agree with me, but opening people's eyes to see for themselves. I try to promote my own understanding, shaking society out of this sick perception of complacency. Ridiculing the devastating effects of man's inhumanity to man. I don't do it for myself, or anyone else in particular. It's much more universal then that.
PS. Could you list the things you thought I may have missed so I can address them with a greater clarity.
Bullshit. I accept that you don't want to touch politics, neither do I, but it is still the medium through which we run things (and it always will be, in one form or another). It's what's gotten us to where we are today. I know you mentioned that we were better of in earlier times, as wrote Rosseau in his time, but that's just not true. It wasn't true in his time, and it isn't true in ours. Even in the political realm, ignoring everything else, the everyday citizen has been given more and more power.
Beyond that though I think you're on the right track as far as the overarching idea goes. I, too, would like to see a world better for everyone. I just have no illusions about things such as the RBE. The world isn't perfect and any and all idealism in the world isn't going to change that. That being said, there's obviously a lot of things we can do. To start off changing things, though, you need to understand the way things are and, probably even more importantly, why they are that way. The stage we are at today is one we've arrived at through societal evolution, from one train of thought to another. If you were to look through this thread again it should be painfully obvious that noone's saying society today (in whatever country) is perfect, but they are arguing against the RBE because it would, by what we've seen historically, lead to a catastrophe if forcefully implemented (the only way you could ever implement it today, or perhaps ever).
Lastly, I'd just like to point out to you that equality, and what equality is, and the conflict between equality and freedom (to not have your property taken for equalization's sake) is a political question. You can't just say "nu-uh, not my views!".
On June 03 2012 13:12 JesusHadAegis wrote: This is my first post on TL but I have been an avid reader for a long time. Topics like this hit a soft spot in my heart because I believe so strongly in equality and don't see it being out of reach. I am 23 years old and look forward to spending my life trying to eliminate the monetary system and implementing a resource based system.
If you've read the thread, then you already know I've posted some thoughts in here that sparked agreement with many sides. I'm going to have to disagree with the idea of a resource-based system. The problem with resources being pit against resources is just this, "What happens when the resource you can offer is abundant everywhere and nobody needs it?" Suddenly, you find yourself with absolutely nothing of value.
What does money really do for us?: The whole purpose the concept of "money" came to be is that humans in even ancient societies figured out that they needed some sort of "universal medium". A "currency" that is accepted by all and is therefore good to exchange for anything you actually DO need. This accelerates and facilitates the passage of goods and services from person to person much more easily than a "barter" or "resource-based" economic system. While the idealistic "Star Trek" society of the Federation might have been able to do away with money altogether, we are not nearly so advanced that we can manage something of that sort.
A Brief History of Money: The problem with money isn't that it exists as a concept, but that it is quite literally a commodity that has been cornered and monopolized by a few select hands. I sincerely believe that monetary abolishment is not the answer to our problems in this day and age (maybe a few hundred years from now...), but that monetary reform is the answer to our problems now. It has already happened throughout history. The 1800s brought the "Greenback" system in America. The early American colonies used a "Colonial Script" system that also was proven extremely successful. There are probably examples of other countries in history attempting to gain back power over their own money from the people who have been dubbed, "The Money Changers", but I am not so much an expert in the histories of other countries. The only other examples I know of (not HOW, but THAT they did) were Napoleon of France, Queen Elizabeth I of England as well as some other past leaders of the Netherlands, Russia and Asia.
Why are we as a world in massive and somehow exponentially-growing debt?: The problem is the money changers are simply too powerful in the system that now exists. Anyone from Greece who is an expert on WHY their crisis exists will agree with this. The borrowing that happens on a massive scale world-wide is a system of debt that revolves around exchanging debt. The vast majority of Americans are probably too ignorant or uneducated to know that the dollar itself is one of the largest exports America has had throughout recent history. Constant borrowing from the same institutions (IMF, World Bank, Any large banking company) perpetuates the debt. Interest is the weapon by which debt is created on a massive level.
Why hasn't anyone done anything about this if its so simple?: So how can you fight them? It would have to be a world-wide effort to dispel the spell of the money changers and purge the world of all debt and interest-burdened agreements. This has not yet occurred. Isolated instances of attempting to distribute and use interest-free currency have indeed happened throughout history. Each and every instance brought with it an nearly-unbelievably (by today's standards) high level of general wealth to the people. However, each and every time the money changers found out about it, they would stage enormous world-crushing events to smite the interest-free currency trade. It is the single greatest weapon we could use against them.
It would have to be worldwide instantly because otherwise the money changers will simply do what they have always done. They will bribe and support the growth of other countries who still believe in, follow and borrow from their system until they are military super-powers. Then those super-powers will go on a massive rampage throughout the world until the participants of the free money trade die off or surrender their rights to their own money.
What about a gold, silver or platinum-backed currency?: FIAT currency or "money created out of nothing" is perfectly fine and might even be the most preferable solution. Gold or Silver or any sort of "resource-backed" currency can be even more easily cornered as a market since all you would have to do is locate and monopolize the industries surrounding the resource that the new money is backed by. On the other hand, money that is controlled by the people and only the people will most likely only ever be used and created for their own benefit (unless they're unanimously massively suicidal).
My own personal conclusion and opinion: Money is necessary at least for a little while longer. I find the problem not with money itself, but rather who in the world is handling, creating and regulating its flow.
You say that politics is the medium through which we run things and I could not agree with you more and it would be naive of me to argue otherwise. I understand that it has gotten us where we are today. Are you happy with where we are now? With the system that lies and manipulates the masses with warped propaganda and a ruling class of elite that subject you to borders and boundaries. You will never rise to the top, you will forever remain a peasant in comparison. Is this equality? You mention that the everyday citizen has been given more and more power. I am inclined to disagree on that statement. Everything we have is because we fought hard for it. Not because it was given to us. Everything that man touches becomes corrupt. This might not work, nothing has yet... We had kings, they didn't work. We implemented prime ministers that represent a party which is a voice of the majority of the people. Doesn't work.
Like all good ideas trying to address economic advancement, or ethics, fairness, and enlightenment for the human race. As soon as you give it to a bunch of people, they always manage to screw it up. Mainly because power and selfishness play a strong part in those who are in charge, and are unwilling to give up their perks which come at the expense of everyone else. This is what needs to be changed, not just the system, but people.
Which one is more dangerous? A capitalistic regime which pushes the drive for competition or a resource based economy that pushes for equality amongst all. Capitalism is so dangerous for our future because it has the appearance of working to create wealth, when in actuality pure capitalist societies can destroy lives through slavery to monolithic corporations, and rape the planet by systematic waste through over-exploitation. It positively encourages the cults of kings, dictatorship, and social disenfranchisement through the impoverishment of those who can never accrue enough capital to exploit others below their social-economic ladder. Pure capitalism is the way the wealthy get wealthier without work. Who makes more money, a man that dedicates his life to educating the younger generation and envisioning them with dream's or the fat cat which makes money because they have money?
I'm not suggesting we implement this system through force or through vote. I'm saying we educate the world and it becomes unanimous. Whenever anything new is brought up, people get mad, afraid, scared, because your upsetting the balance. We have a tough job ahead. All of us. If you wish to live in a world without war, poverty, unemployment, hunger, human suffering, you have to communicate with other people. If you sit back and do nothing, nothing will happen, I can assure you nothing will happen.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
This come directly from The Venus Project"s Website.
Resource Based Economy
The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
A resource-based economy is just another name for Communism without the notation of corruption. Every civilian are equal.
Everyone would be given the same furniture, computer, house, car, education, handbag, wallet etc.... That is because it will be the 'most efficient' 'thing'. Any other product would be considered inferior. Whether your a doctor, trolley collector, repairman or truckie. You will also eat the same food, everyday, every week, because any other food produced will be labelled as inferior/unhealthy. That means, no more McDonalds, KFC, Subway etc....
Education wise, the society (I will refrain from the term government) will allocate you a job in which you will focus upon and that will be your job for the rest of your life, because if you decide to do something else then it won't be efficient, the ONLY choice is to switch with another person who wants to take your job. So if you got allocated as a garbage collector, then well.... your a garbage collector for the rest of your life. Hey... let's go a bit deeper, they will analyse your DNA to see what will be fit for you.
Your personal life would be reduced to little to no choices. Society makes the choice for you.
The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival.
Modern society has access to highly advanced technology and can make available food, clothing, housing and medical care; update our educational system; and develop a limitless supply of renewable, non-contaminating energy. By supplying an efficiently designed economy, everyone can enjoy a very high standard of living with all of the amenities of a high technological society.
A resource-based economy would utilize existing resources from the land and sea, physical equipment, industrial plants, etc. to enhance the lives of the total population. In an economy based on resources rather than money, we could easily produce all of the necessities of life and provide a high standard of living for all.
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
In a resource-based economy all of the world's resources are held as the common heritage of all of Earth's people, thus eventually outgrowing the need for the artificial boundaries that separate people. This is the unifying imperative.
We must emphasize that this approach to global governance has nothing whatever in common with the present aims of an elite to form a world government with themselves and large corporations at the helm, and the vast majority of the world's population subservient to them. Our vision of globalization empowers each and every person on the planet to be the best they can be, not to live in abject subjugation to a corporate governing body.
Our proposals would not only add to the well being of people, but they would also provide the necessary information that would enable them to participate in any area of their competence. The measure of success would be based on the fulfilment of one's individual pursuits rather than the acquisition of wealth, property and power.
At present, we have enough material resources to provide a very high standard of living for all of Earth's inhabitants. Only when population exceeds the carrying capacity of the land do many problems such as greed, crime and violence emerge. By overcoming scarcity, most of the crimes and even the prisons of today's society would no longer be necessary.
A resource-based economy would make it possible to use technology to overcome scarce resources by applying renewable sources of energy, computerizing and automating manufacturing and inventory, designing safe energy-efficient cities and advanced transportation systems, providing universal health care and more relevant education, and most of all by generating a new incentive system based on human and environmental concern.
Many people believe that there is too much technology in the world today, and that technology is the major cause of our environmental pollution. This is not the case. It is the abuse and misuse of technology that should be our major concern. In a more humane civilization, instead of machines displacing people they would shorten the workday, increase the availability of goods and services, and lengthen vacation time. If we utilize new technology to raise the standard of living for all people, then the infusion of machine technology would no longer be a threat.
A resource-based world economy would also involve all-out efforts to develop new, clean, and renewable sources of energy: geothermal; controlled fusion; solar; photovoltaic; wind, wave, and tidal power; and even fuel from the oceans. We would eventually be able to have energy in unlimited quantity that could propel civilization for thousands of years. A resource-based economy must also be committed to the redesign of our cities, transportation systems, and industrial plants, allowing them to be energy efficient, clean, and conveniently serve the needs of all people.
What else would a resource-based economy mean? Technology intelligently and efficiently applied, conserves energy, reduces waste, and provides more leisure time. With automated inventory on a global scale, we can maintain a balance between production and distribution. Only nutritious and healthy food would be available and planned obsolescence would be unnecessary and non-existent in a resource-based economy.
As we outgrow the need for professions based on the monetary system, for instance lawyers, bankers, insurance agents, marketing and advertising personnel, salespersons, and stockbrokers, a considerable amount of waste will be eliminated. Considerable amounts of energy would also be saved by eliminating the duplication of competitive products such as tools, eating utensils, pots, pans and vacuum cleaners. Choice is good. But instead of hundreds of different manufacturing plants and all the paperwork and personnel required to turn out similar products, only a few of the highest quality would be needed to serve the entire population. Our only shortage is the lack of creative thought and intelligence in ourselves and our elected leaders to solve these problems. The most valuable, untapped resource today is human ingenuity.
With the elimination of debt, the fear of losing one's job will no longer be a threat. This assurance, combined with education on how to relate to one another in a much more meaningful way, could considerably reduce both mental and physical stress and leave us free to explore and develop our abilities.
If the thought of eliminating money still troubles you, consider this: If a group of people with gold, diamonds and money were stranded on an island that had no resources such as food, clean air and water, their wealth would be irrelevant to their survival. It is only when resources are scarce that money can be used to control their distribution. One could not, for example, sell the air we breathe or water abundantly flowing down from a mountain stream. Although air and water are valuable, in abundance they cannot be sold.
Money is only important in a society when certain resources for survival must be rationed and the people accept money as an exchange medium for the scarce resources. Money is a social convention, an agreement if you will. It is neither a natural resource nor does it represent one. It is not necessary for survival unless we have been conditioned to accept it as such.
Well as long as we're allowed to quote things from other websites as entire responses
Most people view this solution as a "utopian" vision that does not seem to be grounded in reality; in particular because it depends on the idea that people will not always sabotage or compete with one another. Critics of the idea often cite that human self-interest is a deeply ingrained human trait, whereas the Venus Project claims that self-interested behavior is a socialized condition.
Critics will also cite the commonly-held belief that just because one does a day's work, that somehow gives them the right to get paid, and that people will always demand compensation when contributing labor or investing any of themselves into the progress of society. The conclusion is that without some form of monetary compensation, people will have no motivation to participate or contribute in society.
Additional criticisms are based on the idea that even if the system could work in theory, it is highly susceptible to abuse by those in power. To support this, critics cite the historical examples of societies that came the closest to the vision of a centrally planned society, communism, where many goods were only available in sufficient quantity on the black market, because the intelligent resource distributors had decided that the proles did not require bourgeois luxuries, such as shoes.
Edit: grammar..always grammar. Also I find that last line hilarious..."did not require bourgeois luxuries, such as shoes" XD. Yeah I don't think I want Jacque Fresco and a group of elites to decide what I need for me, or any other 80+ year old people.
a resource based economy is built upon solid science. That being said we will see in time what we move towards after the collapse of our current monetary paradigm.
Zeigeist in one sentence: One world goverment is bad, but look at this new one world goverment we can have!.
Be careful because people like to re-package and re-name ideas. It sounds nice in theory, but the problem isn't world goverment...it's whether muderous vultures who care about profit margins and power gain control of it..... and they always package it with justice, love and brotherhood - throw in a few pictures of dead civilians and you can rally a nation into almost anything as history has proved. Be careful.
The theory behind governing a resource based economy is solid, but people who are opposed to TVPs reasoning disregards this, we cant turn you over, only you can read this.
On June 08 2012 08:50 DeliCiousVP wrote: a resource based economy is built upon solid science. That being said we will see in time what we move towards after the collapse of our current monetary paradigm.
How the fuck is it built upon solid science if the shit doesn't exist yet or it's not financially feasible.
I'm getting sick of all these Zeitgeist posts that don't reply to the logical posts, but say the same bullshit to every post, just worded differently and use youtube videos (because youtube videos are more informational than journals and references quoted in thesis's)
You say that the current government(s) are corrupt, yet you propose one WORLD government. Who's going to be the leader? Some self-educated architecture? Hmm, seems legit.
A resource based economy is a simple matter in wording really. What you need is to harvest green energy from; * Wind * Solar * Wave or Thermal.. Or all of the above.
Then you need to produce food, I dont know how deep you wanna go in this, but agricultural science is proven to be very effective when used as a tool to plant seeds, enrich the soil and harvest your crops.
Then you need to make shelter! How and what you want to build is really up to YOU or scientific method for constructing a shelter made to last.
I think the idea behind the words resource - based - economy is that everyone who wants to build shelter, harvest green energy and produce food together can do so and enjoy its "proven" success.
What I mean by "proven success" is that we already harvest green energy, we already produce food, and last but not least we already construct shelters.
BUT the bureucratic process of doing all these things is so slow it makes me depressed, seriously.
A resource based economy is a simple matter in wording really. What you need is to harvest green energy from; * Wind * Solar * Wave or Thermal.. Or all of the above.
Then you need to produce food, I dont know how deep you wanna go in this, but agricultural science is proven to be very effective when used as a tool to plant seeds, enrich the soil and harvest your crops.
Then you need to make shelter! How and what you want to build is really up to YOU or scientific method for constructing a shelter made to last.
I think the idea behind the words resource - based - economy is that everyone who wants to build shelter, harvest green energy and produce food together can do so and enjoy its "proven" success.
What I mean by "proven success" is that we already harvest green energy, we already produce food, and last but not least we already construct shelters.
BUT the bureucratic process of doing all these things is so slow it makes me depressed, seriously.
Edited for information.
Price helps coordinate production and absent that you need either a direct substitute for price (an algorithm to reduce various inputs to a common term) or rely on central planning. Neither of which work - algorithms don't exist and central planning has severe limitations.
Simply saying 'we'll make stuff' ignores the complexity involved in coordinating production and consumption between many suppliers and many consumers.
On June 22 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Simply saying 'we'll make stuff' ignores the complexity involved in coordinating production and consumption between many suppliers and many consumers.
I agree one hundred percent, it ignores stuff completely. What I wrote was a basic premise of what a resource based economy is about. Would you like me to divulge into specific areas of complexity? I wont. I burn for the resource based economy because I researched it on my own, every piece of information led me to read more and more, this is what shaped my views, all things must start small and expand greater in complexity and coordinating between supply and demand, I do not deny it.
On June 22 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Simply saying 'we'll make stuff' ignores the complexity involved in coordinating production and consumption between many suppliers and many consumers.
I agree one hundred percent, it ignores stuff completely. What I wrote was a basic premise of what a resource based economy is about. Would you like me to divulge into specific areas of complexity? I wont.
All you did was state random things you would like to exist and have (solar power, food, houses). You did not describe an economic system. So no, you did not even write a basic premise of what a RBE is.
Have a serious think about where your labour is going to come from. Money is just a means of valuating human effort, according to the laws of supply and demand. If we really wanted this, it would be something humanity would have created long ago.
On June 22 2012 04:28 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Simply saying 'we'll make stuff' ignores the complexity involved in coordinating production and consumption between many suppliers and many consumers.
I agree one hundred percent, it ignores stuff completely. What I wrote was a basic premise of what a resource based economy is about. Would you like me to divulge into specific areas of complexity? I wont.
All you did was state random things you would like to exist and have (solar power, food, houses). You did not describe an economic system. So no, you did not even write a basic premise of what a RBE is.
To expand: Where does the food come from? Who makes the solar panels? Who makes the houses? What jobs would the workers have to abandon? Are people willing to see other services and conveniences get more expensive and/or completely unavailable as a direct result of freeing up these people?
That aside, Food, Shelter and Energy is all we need? Do we not already have all that? The science isn't viable for green energy to be cheap yet, and/or there aren't enough people working in jobs that could help to provide green energy, but under the current system it's already getting there. Let's face it, some people are just more useful than others. How does your new society plan on recognising that? Why should they put more effort in, even if they are more capable, when they could do nothing and gain the same benefits? This is why communism doesn't work in it's ideal form.
Resource economy is working out pretty well in North Korea so far. Keep up the good work guys, can't wait until the whole planet is as excellent as your country! Dear leader be praised.
EPT
.
![[image loading]](http://www.pbs.org/pov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/kony-2012-nothing-is-more-powerful-than-an-idea-whose-time-has-come-300x164.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.kekkai.org/google/devilsadvocate/alpha-centauri-pic4.png)
![[image loading]](http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/471442_361336907255654_146500522072628_900081_65621952_o.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/free_money_scam-300x266.jpg)
