On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
On May 06 2012 19:18 NIIINO wrote: -what about sportsmen ? for gold medal they get better food or just glory ? (probably going too far here. sorry)
Many sports of today bring no monetary gain, they in fact cause monetary losses for many players.
Take a lower GM player, probably spends 30 hours a week playing or doing things related to the game. Monetary gain is probably around $50 for that time. Go down to diamond and you have some people spending the same amount of time and gaining no money while having expenses in electricity, computer parts, the game itself, a place to play, internet and so on.
Basically, sports is done because it is fun, not because there is money in it.
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
That's the starting point, robots do all labour, humans will be free to do whatever they want that doesn't disrupt the society, as reintroducing currency would. You are not allowed to sell anything, there is no currency, you can give away goods, or even trade goods, but that makes no sense since you can just have them for free anyway. Instead of going to jail you would end up in a mental care facility because your actions make no sense at all. I can understand why you don't like this society, since your place would be in jail or in a mental care facility.
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
You are not allowed to sell anything, there is no currency, you can give away goods, or even trade goods, but that makes no sense since you can just have them for free anyway.
What makes trading goods fundamentally different from selling them according to you?
And I dont understand why it doesn't make sense to trade them. I thought we had already established that resources are finite, and as such you can't have as much as you want. If I have too many bricks but not enough iron to hold my destruction derby, I would want to exchange bricks for iron, no?
So, if some people have too little iron and too many bricks, other people have too little bricks and too much iron, trade will occur. After a while people figure out that having to go out and find a specific person that has iron and needs bricks doesn't make much sense. People figure out it would be more efficient to make one good the standard trading good. Specifically a good that is very valuable relative to its size, is easy to carry around and is relatively hard to fake. Lets say an amount of gold shaped with specific dimension, lets call them coins for our convenience.
On May 06 2012 19:18 NIIINO wrote: -what about sportsmen ? for gold medal they get better food or just glory ? (probably going too far here. sorry)
Many sports of today bring no monetary gain, they in fact cause monetary losses for many players.
Take a lower GM player, probably spends 30 hours a week playing or doing things related to the game. Monetary gain is probably around $50 for that time. Go down to diamond and you have some people spending the same amount of time and gaining no money while having expenses in electricity, computer parts, the game itself, a place to play, internet and so on.
Basically, sports is done because it is fun, not because there is money in it.
sports=/=Esports
K... Let us take Chess then. You have a fee for your club, costs for going to events and you will likely never win anything. You can also play it online, which then translates to the same costs as for SC2.
Another example, soccer. There are hundreds of clubs in Sweden, only the top 50 or so actually make money to break even. The others people pay themselves to go to events and games.
On May 06 2012 19:18 NIIINO wrote: -what about sportsmen ? for gold medal they get better food or just glory ? (probably going too far here. sorry)
Many sports of today bring no monetary gain, they in fact cause monetary losses for many players.
Take a lower GM player, probably spends 30 hours a week playing or doing things related to the game. Monetary gain is probably around $50 for that time. Go down to diamond and you have some people spending the same amount of time and gaining no money while having expenses in electricity, computer parts, the game itself, a place to play, internet and so on.
Basically, sports is done because it is fun, not because there is money in it.
sports=/=Esports
K... Let us take Chess then. You have a fee for your club, costs for going to events and you will likely never win anything. You can also play it online, which then translates to the same costs as for SC2.
Another example, soccer. There are hundreds of clubs in Sweden, only the top 50 or so actually make money to break even. The others people pay themselves to go to events and games.
Well the sportsmen is the weakest counter here really. what about garbage men? plumbers? coroners? think they would do their job when other people get to do nothing? or would a desk clerk make the same as the consturction worker who works alot harder? if everyone gets the same you have no incentive to work hard or even care that much
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
he doesnt realize that in this new world, resource itself IS money. It would be similar to using rare minerals as money. How is this in any way different from the idea of communism? Granted, it wont be affected by things like speculation, but in the end, it will be the form of currency. It will fail for the same reason communism fails. There will need to be a governing body. These people will have influence and power over the masses. The only way to prevent this is to put robots into positions of oversight. I dont think anyone would feel comfortable with AI's in the highest positions of influence.
Another problem is the loss of motivation among the people. Labor and production can be automated, but research would stagnate. You could argue that people, being freed from financial constraints could devote their attention to research and dev. I dont think that would be the case though. People are pretty hedonistic in nature. Alot of people would do nothing at all and consume resources. What if someone makes a great discovery? They will just release it to the public for the betterment of society? They will bargain it for more resources or whatever.
If AI's become increasingly sophisticated that they could conduct research AND hold positions of influence, were going too close to the singularity problem. Skynet and what not lol.
Well this is a verry bad idea. Monney alows for specialisation in labour wich greatly increases productivity. It also enables us to steer the economy by tweeking the amount of monney. We have to be realistic here. If santa would exist or if humans where not selfish , greedy and lazy then maybe we wouldnt need monney but reality dictates otherwise unfortunatly.
Maybe should see it different, monney doesnt realy exist and its only virtual. Its just an imaginary balance account where we keep track of all services we give to society and all services we take from society. Keeping track is needed unfortunaly because else 99.9% of the people would take more then they give and the system would collapse verry fast.
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
You are not allowed to sell anything, there is no currency, you can give away goods, or even trade goods, but that makes no sense since you can just have them for free anyway.
What makes trading goods fundamentally different from selling them according to you?
And I dont understand why it doesn't make sense to trade them. I thought we had already established that resources are finite, and as such you can't have as much as you want. If I have too many bricks but not enough iron to hold my destruction derby, I would want to exchange bricks for iron, no?
So, if some people have too little iron and too many bricks, other people have too little bricks and too much iron, trade will occur. After a while people figure out that having to go out and find a specific person that has iron and needs bricks doesn't make much sense. People figure out it would be more efficient to make one good the standard trading good. Specifically a good that is very valuable relative to its size, is easy to carry around and is relatively hard to fake. Lets say an amount of gold shaped with specific dimension, lets call them coins for our convenience.
I answered before, you can't trade resources, you get the finished product directly. You could of course illegally recycle them, then get some raw materials, and trade those in a black market, just like you can do illegal stuff now, and if there's a decent legal system, you will eventually get caught. The reason it's illegal is that people who for greed want more resources than the planet can sustain, work towards destroying the planet itself. I guess in a more fascist version of this utopistic society you would end up dead once you get caught.
On May 06 2012 03:02 DeathCompany wrote: Mmmmmm so... what ever i am entitled to and can receive... the homeless man down the block who doesnt work or anything. gets aswell?
You think u work hard ? Your think you work harder then a 16 hour sweatshop laborer that works for less then a dollar? You are siphoning of the stockmarket exploiting the rest of the world. If that hobo isen't entitled to anything your entitled to half of a dollar a day. We all live on welfare from our countries whether we work or not.
The sweatshop laborer doesn't get paid as much because he's not as productive. Now, it's not his fault, he DOES work hard, but he doesn't have the productive infrastructure (machines, transportation, etc.) that western workers have.
This problem gets solved over time by the capital markets and international corporations. Since workers in foreign countries are cheaper it is more profitable to make stuff there. That profit motive entices businesses to invest in those countries. Over time those investments make the workers more productive and their wages rise.
That's not just theory. That's what has happened and continues to happen to this day and it has uplifted hundred of millions of people out of grinding absolute poverty.
You do realize we cant support that sort of planet right? The amount of consumtion, pollution, waste, etc... that most develop nations produce, if rivaled by all other nations, would cause us to deplete our resources and destroy what semblance of an environment we have left. We wouldnt have enough food, enough anything really to sustain 7 billion people on a north american lifestyle. There need to be poor in order for there to be rich. Thats just the way it is. We can work together and stifle our advancement, or we can help a little here and there, and continue to advance. You cant really do both.
We are depleting our planet now faster then ever. The captilism experience is drawing to a close and our planet is scared and have suffered alot for it.
Rich vs Poor is over we have enough resources to share with everyone to live a very comftorable lfiestyle,technology exist today where we can grow 100 acres of food worth on 1 acre.
It is imoral illogical and inhumane to watch people 1 billion people starve to death while we white people talk about conversion rates freedom and how capitalism is the last goverment form in our evolution as humans.
You are insane. You can't argue on one hand that capitalism is depleting the Earth too fast and then say that on the other hand your resource economy will produce MORE.
Your magic technology to do that DOES NOT EXIST!
Don't say solar power. It's more expensive. If you go down that road you will produce less for everyone. You can't have it both ways...
No one is letting 1 billion people starve to death. You are a fool to even suggest such a thing!
a world without money well u cant use solar power thats to "expensive" see the irony in that comment.
Cyclical consumption is depleting the planet "Creating goods with planned obsolence in mind".
and the proof is everywhere if you take a look its in a song its in the suffering of a starving childs eyes. i know alot about many of these things but i dont know it all. And so far the most enlighetened direction and most rational of all solutions are a Resource based economy as described by jacque fresco.
many of you that ridicule this now will look back at yourself a year from now or twenty and realise that you were young once. Make an effort now and accept a truth every individual should " I can be wrong but thats okay"
and all i mention is well documented with sources, None of this stuff is magical make belive or utopia but obviously it appears like that and thats the point that shows that it has impact. Everytime someone says thats utopia their recognizing that this is Good but to good to be true so it must be wrong.
He's talking about expensive as in that it takes a lot of energy to create a solar panel compared to the small amount of energy one produces. If you have a source, please include it, along with a quotation from the source that clearly supports your opinions. No wikipiedia...
For example, where did you find the source that the Earth could easily have enough renewable resources with the technology today that it could replace all of the nonrenewables used?
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
You are not allowed to sell anything, there is no currency, you can give away goods, or even trade goods, but that makes no sense since you can just have them for free anyway.
What makes trading goods fundamentally different from selling them according to you?
And I dont understand why it doesn't make sense to trade them. I thought we had already established that resources are finite, and as such you can't have as much as you want. If I have too many bricks but not enough iron to hold my destruction derby, I would want to exchange bricks for iron, no?
So, if some people have too little iron and too many bricks, other people have too little bricks and too much iron, trade will occur. After a while people figure out that having to go out and find a specific person that has iron and needs bricks doesn't make much sense. People figure out it would be more efficient to make one good the standard trading good. Specifically a good that is very valuable relative to its size, is easy to carry around and is relatively hard to fake. Lets say an amount of gold shaped with specific dimension, lets call them coins for our convenience.
I answered before, you can't trade resources, you get the finished product directly. You could of course illegally recycle them, then get some raw materials, and trade those in a black market, just like you can do illegal stuff now, and if there's a decent legal system, you will eventually get caught. The reason it's illegal is that people who for greed want more resources than the planet can sustain, work towards destroying the planet itself. I guess in a more fascist version of this utopistic society you would end up dead once you get caught.
Well, you did state several times you can trade goods, no? It seems that now you have changed your mind for some reason. When I use 'Iron' and 'Bricks', these are just placeholder names for any phyiscal thing. It is irrelevant if the thing is a finished product or raw materials.
So now, you can't trade anything. I geuss everyone just gets what their robot overlords allocate to them. And everyone is perfectly happy. Except all the people that are dead or in jail, but who cares about those evil people, right?
Heres an interesting idea, instead of bothering to let humans live in the real world where they will just do damage to themselves and the planet, maybe our robot overlords should place all humans in some sort of tank, filled with some sort liquid that efficiently sustains their body. To entertain the mind they should hook up our minds into some virtual reality world where we actually think we are living in a real world, but can do no real damage.
lol this idea is madness. in a perfect world where humans are perfect this would seem plausible. but there are reasons why it wouldn't. humans are not perfect beings, thus the poverty issues etc.
if man had the slightest potential to fulfill this, then it wouldn't have had to suffer in the first place.
On May 06 2012 18:51 Ganondorf wrote: Some answers seem to imply that this proposal does not want to substitute money with resources.. but that's exactly what it does. It's the one limit you physically have, raw materials.
I think there will be robotic prostitutes. Humans might have sex for fun or reproduction, but the concept of doing it as a job, or doing any job because you need to survive, is not within this model. In the words of Picard people will work to improve themselves and the society they live in, not to earn money, so sorry no human prostitute for you.
In a world without money, where everything is supposedly free, can I own a car? Someone will build it for me paint it the color I want, put in the engine I want? Can I go out one day and get 10 cars for free to hold my own personal destruction derby? If not, will I be able to build my own cars so that such a derby may be held? Who will supply me the parts I need? Will I be allowed to mine the iron ore and construct the machines I need to make this happen? Can I own an iron deposit? Can I own the land I need to hold my derby? I really like destruction derbies.
Yeah everyone can own a car, since you get your share of resources. Even a nice big car, i guess then your home will be smaller. You can't get cars for free, you use up resources.. you can destroy your car over and over again since you can then recycle the materials and build a new one (adding in the non-recyclable materials from your resource quote).
You cannot own a iron deposit. To make a modern analogy, it's like someone wanting to own a money printing machine.
How is the value of different resources expressed relative to eachother? I imagine every person will be allocated their fair share of iron and their fair share of bricks somehow. Will someone distribute pieces of paper that credit each individual with a certain amount of these resources? Can I trade my fair share of bricks with someone elses fair share of iron? What is stopping a certain resource credit from becoming money? Lets say everyone gets a credit to use up a certain amount of gold. What is stopping gold credits from becoming money?
I wouldn't now argue about more details when most people seem to have misunderstood the proposal and just think anyone thinking it could remotely make sense is wrong and an idiot. Why are you asking if in a society without money, then you can have money ? You'll get goods, not resources, and you don't have to use them all up, now will you ask, can you trade goods ? Sure why not, but there's no real reason to do so. Same as before, why do you ask if in a society without human labor, then some humans can become prostitutes ? There is no money, no labor. If you're trolling, you're being repetitive. If there's no money and no labor, don't add them back in. That's the starting point. If it's too hard to understand, let's say everyone who wants to add money back to start profiting from other people, will go to jail. Of course, all jail guards are robots (before you again ask if humans can do that job. no they cannot). Good luck hacking those guards to get out.
I've yet to see someone criticizing this idea for what was really proposed and for what they think it proposes, like communism or a society without money but then you add money back..
You can't just say there is no money and no labour, there, we're done. You have to explain why these things can't exist. I do not understand why there is no labor. Nobody is doing any work? We are subservient to robots? Nobody is controlling the robots? Am I not allowed to sell labour? A robot will put me in jail if I do anything of value to someone else? I don't know man, that doesn't sound like a world I want to live in.
An important point to keep in mind is that nobody decided to implement money one day, it just sort of happened. There is no inherent reason why this wouldn't happen in a 'resource-based economy'. Governments came in much later, they saw the value in protecting the confidence people had in the accepted currencies and started giving out coins with exact amounts of gold or silver so people could be sure that they were getting what they wanted. Precious metals were replaced with pieces of paper when the first banks started giving out IOUs where people were allowed to deposit gold/silver in one location and then withdraw it at another.
You are not allowed to sell anything, there is no currency, you can give away goods, or even trade goods, but that makes no sense since you can just have them for free anyway.
What makes trading goods fundamentally different from selling them according to you?
And I dont understand why it doesn't make sense to trade them. I thought we had already established that resources are finite, and as such you can't have as much as you want. If I have too many bricks but not enough iron to hold my destruction derby, I would want to exchange bricks for iron, no?
So, if some people have too little iron and too many bricks, other people have too little bricks and too much iron, trade will occur. After a while people figure out that having to go out and find a specific person that has iron and needs bricks doesn't make much sense. People figure out it would be more efficient to make one good the standard trading good. Specifically a good that is very valuable relative to its size, is easy to carry around and is relatively hard to fake. Lets say an amount of gold shaped with specific dimension, lets call them coins for our convenience.
I answered before, you can't trade resources, you get the finished product directly. You could of course illegally recycle them, then get some raw materials, and trade those in a black market, just like you can do illegal stuff now, and if there's a decent legal system, you will eventually get caught. The reason it's illegal is that people who for greed want more resources than the planet can sustain, work towards destroying the planet itself. I guess in a more fascist version of this utopistic society you would end up dead once you get caught.
Well, you did state several times you can trade goods, no? It seems that now you have changed your mind for some reason. When I use 'Iron' and 'Bricks', these are just placeholder names for any phyiscal thing. It is irrelevant if the thing is a finished product or raw materials.
So now, you can't trade anything. I geuss everyone just gets what their robot overlords allocate to them. And everyone is perfectly happy. Except all the people that are dead or in jail, but who cares about those evil people, right?
Heres an interesting idea, instead of bothering to let humans live in the real world where they will just do damage to themselves and the planet, maybe our robot overlords should place all humans in some sort of tank, filled with some sort liquid that efficiently sustains their body. To entertain the mind they should hook up our minds into some virtual reality world where we actually think we are living in a real world, but can do no real damage.
lol. This and that bit about coins made me chuckle.
Because using time as "currency" is so much better.
But on a more serious note though. With computers and advanced technology we run into a huge problem on a bartering system. Namely, what qualifies as a sufficient barter for top of the line technology and innovation. Also as people mentioned before, what's the incentive for innovation? If you develop some crazy awesome new technology on a barter based system, you personally gain no extra benefit for it. One could make the case for fame and power becoming the new "currency." But that still leads to a social hierarchy and a class based system, which would essentially lead society right back to where we are just with a slightly different make up for those who have the power and the fame.
Allright gentlemens im back gonna clear some stuff up.
Q: Everyone gets their "fair share" A: Lets take the car example. Lets say the access to a car system dont feel right to you you dont wanna wait 3 minutes for your car to be driven up to you from whatever lot that has them, Then you are free to own one at home and yes it can even be a costumized car.
Q: But lets say i want a mansion and 10 cars? A: The mansion part is actually feasable you might be forced to build it somewhere thats more spacious because there will be zones designated for diffrent sized houses to be built. The resources needed to make a mansion using 3D construction isent even that high. You want 10 cars so what you do is you go the factory and you keep getting the cars out nobody will stop you but. One day someone might knock on your door and ask you why you have 10 cars in your driveway. and this part is important you will be treated as if you have a valuedisorder.
Q: Communism marxism dictatorship? A: Scientific method guided, Resource based, no goverment, one world. in comparasion to Public opinion guided. Fictional profit based. excessive abusive goverments. fractions of humans fighting over resources using inefficent fictional profit based system and force destroying the enviroment.
Q:Naive utopia will never happen human nature and variations on the word "There will always be"? A:Its happening its coming. Our values are shifting but if your reading this and saying to yourself i dont feel my values shift i say dont worry. The majority of people think this is a load of crap so there will be no lack of people telling you that this is some bullshit. But they will shift one by one and then we will get you
It seems to me that both communism (which is proposed in The Free World Charter) and today's capitalism are impossible in the long run. This (or at least the next) century we'll likely have to invent something new or return to the medieval economy. Communism demands perfect people (and people are far from perfect) while capitalism demands fast economic growth (and since we are operating on a finite planet with no prospect of colonizing other plants except in a very long run, the growth may dramatically slow down in several decades; and even if we manage to maintain economic growth for now, it will definitely slow down in a century or two due to thermodynamics). What do you guys think our economy is going to be in a century or two? Will it be something like capitalism but with very little debt and investments, almost no banks and close to zero growth? What is your bet?
Because using time as "currency" is so much better.
But on a more serious note though. With computers and advanced technology we run into a huge problem on a bartering system. Namely, what qualifies as a sufficient barter for top of the line technology and innovation. Also as people mentioned before, what's the incentive for innovation? If you develop some crazy awesome new technology on a barter based system, you personally gain no extra benefit for it. One could make the case for fame and power becoming the new "currency." But that still leads to a social hierarchy and a class based system, which would essentially lead society right back to where we are just with a slightly different make up for those who have the power and the fame.
Damnit man, with your ID you just had such a great opportunity to chime in on my matrix joke.
Fundamentally, bartering won't work because how does one quantify the value of professions that do not make goods? If everyone gets essentially the same stuff, what's the point of going to medical school? Why should anyone become a college professor? Is there a point to become a professional sports player? Where's the incentive to get the advanced training necessary for so many other professions? Is there a point to having colleges?
Because using time as "currency" is so much better.
But on a more serious note though. With computers and advanced technology we run into a huge problem on a bartering system. Namely, what qualifies as a sufficient barter for top of the line technology and innovation. Also as people mentioned before, what's the incentive for innovation? If you develop some crazy awesome new technology on a barter based system, you personally gain no extra benefit for it. One could make the case for fame and power becoming the new "currency." But that still leads to a social hierarchy and a class based system, which would essentially lead society right back to where we are just with a slightly different make up for those who have the power and the fame.
Damnit man, with your ID you just had such a great opportunity to chime in on my matrix joke.
LOL. I couldn't go the obvious route, not this time.
Human beings are not angels. Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything. That lack of incentive translates into no new products being made which also means humanity stands still in terms of technology and innovation.
Before you even want consider an idea like this you have to eliminate wars and facism. You have to be able to guarrantee a good education and values of respect being taught to the entire world. If you don't do these things some people will take advantage of the flaws in the system and get more than their fair share by using voilence.
EPT
and then we will get you
