On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
On May 06 2012 22:37 DeliCiousVP wrote: Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
This is plain wrong. If you have everything there is less incentive. Imagine a genius engineer who is working to support his family, pay for his hobbies etc. AND having a great interest in his field of work/pursue of recognition. Your dream is only removing the first couple of incentives and not adding new ones at all. Most people would not be interested in research if the only incentive is fame.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Its a myth you think researchers and scientist make great money? it was thought that Jonas salk(The guy who cured polio) would patent it and become filthy rich instead he gave it out free to everyone. its men like him that advance us as a society.
What you are talking about is a myth the money is the only incentive myth. -a myth while commenly belived to be true is false
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
Dose it also do the dishes? How exactly will this end war and all the religious conflicts? enlighten us.
On May 06 2012 23:42 DeliCiousVP wrote: Offer food and shelter in exchange for the weapons hold peaceful discussions in the squares where everyone can speak out without fear of persecution.
Almost no religious/territorial conflict will be solved by this.
offer people what they need and want and they will behave alot better. Im sure it can be worked out if alot of people put their mind to it maybe thats a problem you wanna solve?
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields? I would also like to point out that planned economies have proven much less succesful in feeding the whole population than relatively free ones, see Maoist China, North Korea and Stalinist Russia. Famine is most prevalent when governements set a price limit on food, or in war zones. In other words, there where market mechanisms break down due to human incompetence. Malnoursihment is not impossible in free markets, but the tried alternatives have a much worse track record.
I would also like to point to the fact that people like Steven Pinker have done a good job explaining how economic forces play a huge role in the prevention of war, despite the popular belief that wars are all about money, it also seems peace is all about money.
I say that you are a liar and a charlatan, sir. You actually can't do any of things you claim.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields? I would also like to point out that planned economies have proven much less succesful in feeding the whole population than relatively free ones, see Maoist China, North Korea and Stalinist Russia. Famine is most prevalent when governements set a price limit on food, or in war zones. In other words, there where market mechanisms break down due to human incompetence. Malnoursihment is not impossible in free markets, but the tried alternatives have a much worse track record.
I would also like to point to the fact that people like Steven Pinker have done a good job explaining how economic forces play a huge role in the prevention of war, despite the popular belief that wars are all about money, it also seems peace is all about money.
I say that you are a liar and a charlatan, sir. You actually can't do any of things you claim.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Will you please back up your sources rather than pointing out random numbers and rough baseless estimates? You're making it harder and harder for people to actually believe you.
YOU are the one that is supposed to give legit sources because YOU are the one trying to prove that this system is better than the current one. If you are too lazy to do some research on your part rather than follow some random video then you are the prime example of what would happen in a society where everything is just given to you without effort.
On May 06 2012 21:53 DeliCiousVP wrote: Allright gentlemens im back gonna clear some stuff up.
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.
So in terms of money paid everything is free, but now to get stuff that are not basic needs we need to individually work for it? That is inefficient and waste of the human labor.
People who are naturally gifted at something become generalists because they need only to learn how to fulfill their own needs like building a car, house, plumbing etc. These generalists will undoubtedly create worse products with lack of experience and knowledge of their field. Homemade cars, food and utilities will be of a lower quality and less efficient. Using labour hours worked as a measure of efficiency (since your world don't have any money), a corporation backed by the incentive to succeed and competition will be more likely to created more cars per hour, potatoes per hour, wrenches per hour, anything really as opposed to this system where everyone just creates just enough for themselves (Why should they work more than what they are required to without extra pay? A fucking pat in the back?). Say if I am good at crunching numbers and maintaining financial records. Why cant I just earn "money" which I can do so efficiently and professionally ( cause I'm good at it) and then trade it with people who are good at manufacturing cars efficiently? In your world, I will be growing potatoes, designing my own car (stuff I am not good at) when my true calling is to work with finances. This would result in a better allocation of resources, actually helping in scarcity because we are not wasting as much to create the same level of goods/services.
Regarding your answer to communism marxism dictatorship: Show me the sources, the published articles, the scientific methods used. I really want to read how intellectuals like PhD professors and philosophical thinkers rationalise this. Finding dirt on our current system of capitalism is easy. Showing how The System failed in the GFC and multiple other events is even easier. But proving our current system is bad does not equate to proving that your system works.
Even better, show me a foolproof step-by-step plan in implementing that will not result in partial (doesn't have to be complete because anything worse than status quo will be considered utter failure) anarchy.
I consider myself an open-minded fellow when it comes to economics and money. Whichever way is the best way, it is my way. You are obviously a big fan of this FWC system, but you are not pushing forward your agenda quite right. Link us some sources that would help cement our understanding of the reasoning behind your views.
The key idea behind the Resource Based Economy has to be ‘the efficient use of our planet’s resources to comfortably sustain the lives of everyone living on it whilst allowing every human alive to realise their full potential’. By incorporating the RBE the idea is that by not having to enter menial employment in order to survive human beings can realise their full potential, and by doing this the human race will progress far more rapidly.
On May 06 2012 23:52 DeliCiousVP wrote: offer people what they need and want and they will behave alot better. Im sure it can be worked out if alot of people put their mind to it maybe thats a problem you wanna solve?
I want eggs benedict and a caviar omelette everyday for breakfast, duck foie gras seared ahi tuna for dinner, a Lamborghini and a limo, three castle sized houses; one in Italy, Florida and Tokyo, a private jet, a private yacht, 8000 acres of land complete with farms, hunting grounds and zoos, a stable of thirty prize winning horses, half the paintings in the louvre, my own submarine, a private lake, a golf course, 400 robot servants and butlers, a pet jaguar, my own sports team, and carnegie hall.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields? I would also like to point out that planned economies have proven much less succesful in feeding the whole population than relatively free ones, see Maoist China, North Korea and Stalinist Russia. Famine is most prevalent when governements set a price limit on food, or in war zones. In other words, there where market mechanisms break down due to human incompetence. Malnoursihment is not impossible in free markets, but the tried alternatives have a much worse track record.
I would also like to point to the fact that people like Steven Pinker have done a good job explaining how economic forces play a huge role in the prevention of war, despite the popular belief that wars are all about money, it also seems peace is all about money.
I say that you are a liar and a charlatan, sir. You actually can't do any of things you claim.
I see walls of text that suggest alot of you didnt see the video that this tread is based off, I suggest watching it and then come back and edit out things answered in the video.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: 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.
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.
let me rephrase
Without money and a competive working climate people will be free to pursure their intrest there will be greater incentive to create and experience. This new boost of incentive will translate into new products being made not to create profits but to earn prestige/recognition this will push us forward in terms of technology and inovation by tenfolds.
I also suggest reading tallins comment about incentive.
I actually don't think that idea is unreasonable. If mankind advances to the point where nobody has to work to sustain themselves, every mind will be completely free to pursue intellectual interest at a whim. Scientific advancement through the ages has been primarily pursued by the wealthy nobility. Only quite recently in human history has there been a shift where society reached a point where we, as a taxpaying society, have been able to sponsor the pure intellectual pursuits of the less wealthy.
However, reality is that we do not possess the productive capabilities to provide sufficient wealth to everyone, without requiring a large amount of human labour. We are not even remotely close to being able to organize a society in a way that you propose. This doesn't mean the idea isn't an interesting one to discuss, aslong as we establish that current scarcity of capital and, and current technological limitations do not allow us to create a leisure society. In our current situation, implementing a planned economy will, in my best understanding, inevitably lead to such a stagnation in technology and innovation in production, that such an endeavour will ultimately be counterproductive.
I fail to see where the elimination of money is a necesary condition for such a system, and I fail to see how making the allocation of goods less efficient can even be conducive to such a system.
There are also ethical concerns when it comes to denying people the right to pursue increased wealth, that I will ignore for the time being.
Is that so
We had the technology to end world hunger/war 50 years ago and now we have the technology and resources to house and feed billlions upon billions more then we are today. Today we produce food for 10 billion people every year yet 1 billion people are starving. And more people are considered overweight then starving.
Our system is a circus its a joke if there were aliens above us watching how we conduct ourself and who we think we are and how we think everything around us works. They would just pop out their alien popcorn and wait for nuclear war because its a miracle we survived this far.
All i would offer is this.
-End to war -End to slavery(Through debt/Force) -End to sickness -End to selfestime conflicted problems -Freedom to travel around the world fast efficent to live where you want to do what you want(within reason) -Focus on the individual customization your house/car and maybe even your genes.
And eventualy i belive and this is a belief based on what ive seen so far coming.
-Inmortality you choose when you wanna die.
So how will you be producing all this food without labor? Will your system be forcing people to work the fields? I would also like to point out that planned economies have proven much less succesful in feeding the whole population than relatively free ones, see Maoist China, North Korea and Stalinist Russia. Famine is most prevalent when governements set a price limit on food, or in war zones. In other words, there where market mechanisms break down due to human incompetence. Malnoursihment is not impossible in free markets, but the tried alternatives have a much worse track record.
I would also like to point to the fact that people like Steven Pinker have done a good job explaining how economic forces play a huge role in the prevention of war, despite the popular belief that wars are all about money, it also seems peace is all about money.
I say that you are a liar and a charlatan, sir. You actually can't do any of things you claim.
That's nice. How much does it cost? Is it viable? If so why doesn't everyone already use it?
Don't tell me it is free.
Also, who will build and maintain this system, for no material rewards? I know our Swedish friend, who undoubtedly has all the required mechanical skill, will be the first in line to volunteer, but I suspect this may not be a one man job.
On May 06 2012 22:16 StarBrift wrote: Without money and a competetive working climate there is no incentive to actually do anything.
[citation needed]
It's a fundamental part of economics. It's not that people will necessarily sit around all day. It's more a matter of how people spend their time. Sure there will be farmers that still want to farm to feed their local community. But what's the incentive to produce specific crops? The ones that are actually in high demand? And how does the farmer measure if growing that type of food is efficient for him without pricing? Does he have to use too much fertilizer to make the crops grow? What counts as too much?
Pricing isn't just an arbitrary number. It's an aggregation of information relating to supply and demand.
Going back to incentives, how do you get people to do the jobs that suck? Or are hard to do? Sure, some will naturally like doing them but to get enough people to do it you need an incentive. In a market economy that's higher pay. In communism that's taken care of by secret police and the military.
EPT
