EPTDid we beat entropy?
That is awesome!
The Free World Charter - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
Did we beat entropy? That is awesome! | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
On May 05 2012 13:53 windsupernova wrote: Wait so did we invent unlimited resources already? Did we beat entropy? That is awesome! energy through solar, wind, wave, geothermal means; food through aeroponics/hydroponics and vertical farming; water through ocean desalination. and using whatever resources we have now to create a better infrastructure as opposed to them being privatized and sold for the sake of profit to those who have the purchasing power while leaving the rest empty-handed. | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:12 xeo1 wrote: energy through solar, wind, wave, geothermal means; food through aeroponics/hydroponics and vertical farming; water through ocean desalination. and using whatever resources we have now to create a better infrastructure as opposed to them being privatized and sold for the sake of profit to those who have the purchasing power while leaving the rest empty-handed. All of those ideas are extremely inefficient and to power the world would be next to impossible. Also this profit comes from people with good ideas you deserve to be empty handed if you are not part of them you are nothing but an animal and just like in the wild nothing is given to you. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 05 2012 12:05 strOke wrote: There are some often-misunderstood core concepts here: The fundamental idea that drives our social and economic systems is *scarcity*. Scarcity is the condition, and problem, that makes profit-based wealth management successful. Scarcity is also the reason that even ideologically-pure communism (which we've never seen attempted, don't be fooled), has always been doomed. Can't give equally to all unless there's enough for all. "Not enough to go around" is what makes us work out different wealth distribution systems in the first place. The thing is, we have a new fancy thing these days, called "technology." Properly applied, one of the principal purposes for technology is to *reduce* scarcity. The better technology gets, the less scarcity there is, and the more feasible it is for everyone to get the things that are no longer rare and precious. The biggest thing that this idea goes wrong, is that it assumes that technology can replace jobs. It doesn't, it only shifts jobs to different areas. For example, when machines does most of the farming for us, we moved out to the city and started doing businesses more and more; People will always thrive for something to do, and there will always be supply and demand for SOMETHING. If technology replaces all the labour work that we do now, we still can not remove money. Say we do get to a stage where technology replaces all of our labour work so that everyone gets everything for free like he says in the video. People will have nothing to do, so with their free time, people will turn to something else, and that is probably entertainment and recreations. So most of the world will then revolve around things like movies, games, sports, theme-parks, etc etc. But guess what, we need real people to develop ideas for those things such as games and theme-parks, or athletes to play those sports, or actors and singers for movies, etc etc. These "ideas", "creativities", and "skills" will become the new commodities that we demand and supply; so until technology can replace those (which I don't think ever will), we are back to square one again, and we would need a medium of exchange to facilitate the supply and demand of these new items. TLDR: Technology doesn't replace jobs and reduce scarcity, it merely shifts jobs to something else and scarcity to different things. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:12 xeo1 wrote: energy through solar, wind, wave, geothermal means; food through aeroponics/hydroponics and vertical farming; water through ocean desalination. and using whatever resources we have now to create a better infrastructure as opposed to them being privatized and sold for the sake of profit to those who have the purchasing power while leaving the rest empty-handed. Everything you listed is NOT FREE! The all require resources that are NOT infinite. | ||
|
CajunMan
United States823 Posts
On May 05 2012 07:18 rackdude wrote: Show me a country that was ever communist. Lol, that is the paradox (if you don't get it, read about communism and you will find out why if you ever name a communist state you just named a state that wasn't communist). That's because communism can not be achieved every country that has tried has failed miserably for one of the many reasons it fails before it even begins. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:14 CajunMan wrote: As perfect as it sounds the idea just could never work. Doctors and Firefighters deserve more compensation for the job they do over some jack off who delivers pizza. There would be a mass uprising at some point of those forced to work harder than the rest of us. Also in order for this to happen there could be only one of any product no "Coke" no "Pepsi" just government soda. The idea is rooted in an idea that is beyond measure wrong in every way even in the animal kingdom which we take root from. I like the mentioning of Cocacola vs Pepsi, because this points to another big problem with this "everything is free" idea. The question is, what is going to motivate us to develop new ideas/items or improve upon our current ones? The current driving force for that is competition. But if everyone gets everything for free anyways, there is no more driving force to further improve upon what we have; why should I be the one that has to work and think up all these new ideas and development when everyone else just sits there with their arms crossed and gets them all anyways? In another word, if there is only one type of Coke, and everyone gets the same one for free, why would anyone further spend their time to improve and develop better products? | ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
As a result there would be a stagnation in human development where everyone lives just to live, no advancement of any sort because people won't have that working mindset anymore. Assuming that all this no money nonsense would work which is an extremely big assumption! | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Everything you listed is NOT FREE! The all require resources that are NOT infinite. they could be free if we want them to be. we have way more of them than oil, the sun will keep shining for about 5 more billion years and the ocean/wind/earth's core will keep flowing for about the same amount of time, and food we can always grow especially if we manage them wisely as opposed to the current wastefulness. did you know about 40 percent of all food today goes to waste? I have seen it firsthand  | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:27 xeo1 wrote: they could be free if we want them to be. we have way more of them than oil, the sun will keep shining for about 5 more billion years and the ocean/wind/earth's core will keep flowing for about the same amount of time, and food we can always grow especially if we manage them wisely as opposed to the current wastefulness. did you know about 40 percent of all food today goes to waste? I have seen it firsthand Living space is a resource and is limited. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:27 xeo1 wrote: they could be free if we want them to be. we have way more of them than oil, the sun will keep shining for about 5 more billion years and the ocean/wind/earth's core will keep flowing for about the same amount of time, and food we can always grow especially if we manage them wisely as opposed to the current wastefulness. did you know about 40 percent of all food today goes to waste? I have seen it firsthand No they can't be free! Just because you take money away doesn't mean that it is free. Someone has to make it. You can't just suddenly order up infinite solar panels. You need to build more factories, more machines, open more mines, train more workers, etc. Did you know that if food, and everything else for that matter, was "free" even more would be wasted? | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:14 CajunMan wrote: As perfect as it sounds the idea just could never work. Doctors and Firefighters deserve more compensation for the job they do over some jack off who delivers pizza. There would be a mass uprising at some point of those forced to work harder than the rest of us. Also in order for this to happen there could be only one of any product no "Coke" no "Pepsi" just government soda. The idea is rooted in an idea that is beyond measure wrong in every way even in the animal kingdom which we take root from. All of those ideas are extremely inefficient and to power the world would be next to impossible. Also this profit comes from people with good ideas you deserve to be empty handed if you are not part of them you are nothing but an animal and just like in the wild nothing is given to you. firefighters actually get less compensation than a pizza delivery boy... and there is no reason to work harder, machines can do it harder than we ever possibly will. why couldn't there be coke and pepsi and arizona green tea just like now? they are just recipes can be put into a machine, and voila you have anything you want. think of a vending machine but instead of having to pay for the cup of beverage, you get it for free. these ideas are NOT inefficient. what we have no is inefficient. by the way, one day's worth of sunlight could provide enough energy for the Earth's 6 billion people for 27 years. we just have to focus on making enough solar panels and working on the most efficient design out of current oil without monetary restrictions and the intervention of big oil businesses. a good idea doesn't guarantee you profit... and most wealthy people didn't even have a good idea, take the people of wall street for example. manipulating money to make even more money, without social contribution. | ||
|
Mondieu
Romania803 Posts
| ||
|
Etrnity
United States88 Posts
On May 05 2012 03:21 xeo1 wrote: A charter advocating the elimination of money. Watch the video! http://www.freeworldcharter.org/en I think it is a plausible idea and will happen sometime in the future. Think about it, most of us work mundane jobs (which could be automated) in order to acquire the necessities of life of which we have an abundance of, with most of the profit going to the the owners of the company. Basically, a minority of people get unimaginably wealthy and live off the energy of the majority. In reality, it is technology that scientists and engineers created, by building on passed down knowledge, which allows us to live the way we do now. But someone "owns" that technology due to purchasing power and reaps its fruits. What if we collaboratively owned them and used them to provide for ourselves, without the need for money and the supposed owners? This class hierarchy based on economical status is nonsense, in other words. Best recent example is Planetary Resources, a company formed by a handful of wealthy people to mine asteroids for their resources, of course benefiting mostly their private interests. Yet, they have no idea whatsoever on how to achieve this, so they are hiring the best scientists and engineers around the world to do the job for them. Today, profit is primary to the environment and even human health and concern. Hunger, poverty, war, unsustainable management, planned obsolescence, and a whole array of social problems result from it. Clearly, something is fundamentally wrong and no politician or money related solution will fix it. This charter is a step in the right direction. This will never come to fruition, for the hearts of men are so easily corrupted, especially by greed... | ||
|
Goozen
Israel701 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:27 xeo1 wrote: they could be free if we want them to be. we have way more of them than oil, the sun will keep shining for about 5 more billion years and the ocean/wind/earth's core will keep flowing for about the same amount of time, and food we can always grow especially if we manage them wisely as opposed to the current wastefulness. did you know about 40 percent of all food today goes to waste? I have seen it firsthand What you and otherr people are forgetting is that global wealth will need to be avrged out. If yoh have a pc your in the top 5%. So basicly you will need to give up most of what you own and go down to a tenth of what you currently have. In addition you would also need to achieve world peace, and that will also not happen. All the talk of solar and wind energy is irrelevant as we cannot get the power we require from only those sources. This idea is Flawed even before we reach the communisim issue and tbe fact some cluless hippie came up with it should show how unviable it is. | ||
|
Etrnity
United States88 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:12 xeo1 wrote: energy through solar, wind, wave, geothermal means; food through aeroponics/hydroponics and vertical farming; water through ocean desalination. and using whatever resources we have now to create a better infrastructure as opposed to them being privatized and sold for the sake of profit to those who have the purchasing power while leaving the rest empty-handed. You suggest that the sun will always shine, that the wind will always blow sufficiently, that the moon will always circulate, that the earth will always be warm. You believe that elements will never lose energy. We know that the universe is losing energy and that what was once ordered is descending into chaos. I'm not sure on what you beliefs are in regard to the future, but we always have, and always will have limited resources. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
we have plenty of space on earth. we can build on and under the ocean, up in the sky (example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Seed_4000), and underground. by the time we cover all this land, we will probably colonize space and attain even more resources. by the way, the world's whole population can fit into Texas with 0.25 acres per person to spare. the only limiting factor really is money related. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:46 xeo1 wrote: the only limiting factor really is and opportunity cost | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:12 xeo1 wrote: energy through solar, wind, wave, geothermal means; food through aeroponics/hydroponics and vertical farming; water through ocean desalination. and using whatever resources we have now to create a better infrastructure as opposed to them being privatized and sold for the sake of profit to those who have the purchasing power while leaving the rest empty-handed. You should really read I, Pencil. http://www.fee.org/library/books/i-pencil-2/ Perhaps you may learn some humility and knowledge in the process. The hubris of central planners never ceases to amaze me. | ||
|
xeo1
United States429 Posts
On May 05 2012 14:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No they can't be free! Just because you take money away doesn't mean that it is free. Someone has to make it. You can't just suddenly order up infinite solar panels. You need to build more factories, more machines, open more mines, train more workers, etc. Did you know that if food, and everything else for that matter, was "free" even more would be wasted? I assume people would be more eager to build everything we need to support a system that benefits them, not just a private minority like today. why would more food be wasted? currently it is wasted because someone paid for it so by 'right' you have to throw it away. | ||
| ||
