I do think that we already have some fairly large changes brought by abundance, but that they're not being adequately and efficiently utilized, and they are not distributed very fairly.
edit: and consumerist ideology makes it seem like we have less than we do.
On May 07 2012 17:23 sam!zdat wrote: That's very well said, doubleups.
I do think that we already have some fairly large changes brought by abundance, but that they're not being adequately and efficiently utilized, and they are not distributed very fairly.
edit: and consumerist ideology makes it seem like we have less than we do.
We don't actually have abundance, we just have more efficiency. The simple fact is, there isn't enough stuff on the planet to support everyone that's here at a quality of life that first world countries would not consider poverty. We can be even more efficient, but that still doesn't solve the problem, it just alleviates some of the symptoms.
that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
I read through the free world charter and all those frequently asked question and perfect short answers... Well if you want to convince someone rather critical get some actual data. Get research, get the concepts right... Currently its more like "wouldn't it be nice to be free to do whatever you want without working while erasing poverty, greed and all that other bad stuff? Yes lets do it!"... Great. Hippies. Thats clearly not the way to bring a concept to an interested public. All you do is providing reassurance to people who think that way anyway... It's like Santorum talking for the religious right, he will get their vote but not more...
And btw. it doesn't help if you engage in a discussion with polemics and prejudice towards all those indoctrinated capitalists... Why even talk about it then?
On May 07 2012 15:30 BluePanther wrote: I think you deride finance as "imaginary" because you don't really understand what it accomplishes, how it works, or why it works. Finance makes trade incredibly more efficient, and there is a lot of money to be made for that reason..
Well, I'm tired of explaining that I'm devoting a great deal of time right now to understanding how finance works, and earlier in this thread I was defending its utility. At this point the conversation is just people explaining competition to me and giving me the neoliberal party line. I understand all of these things, I think capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of civilization, but I don't think that it is the end of history, Fukuyama can go jump in a lake.
Anyway, I've heard all this before and I think we've run out of things to say to each other. Have a good night!
edit: just in case people think I'm defending the op, I'm not, that's silly. Just want to clear up that confusion if it exists.
So what do you think is the "end game"?
Also, you keep saying "I'm devoting time to understanding this" but you don't really say what... I'm not some idiot off the street: I have a B.S. in Social Sciences (i.e., economic sociology) and a J.D., where my studies focus on social structures. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
I will answer that for him, although it might not be his answer.
The end game is a post scarcity economy. This may indeed remain capitalistic in nature, or it may not, it's simply too far away for us to reasonably make predictions.
The universe, and even just our neighbourhood is a very large place, presumably with a lot of untapped resources, resources we should be attempting to use, certainly there should be enough to at least make sure there are no large portions of humanity who's basic needs are not met.
Money is ultimately just a tool, you can't eat money, you can't breathe money, I guess you can burn money to keep you warm, but it's not even a great fuel. Money is pegged to the amount of available material and labour resources, and all total money can only reasonably worth as much as material and labour we have access to. In that way, ultimately, money is not 'real' in that increasing overall amount of money will not increase overall standard of living. You must increase the overall available resources that is represented by that money.
Assuming our population does not explode in proportion to new resources that we tap into, there is enough 'stuff' in the local neighbourhood to meet everyone's material needs (not to say we have the technology to do this yet, merely that the basic building blocks are available, and that this is in theory viable).
will finish this later, getting kicked out of the lab ><
This is not incompatible with what I'm saying. As resources become more available and less scarce, then you are merely changing the value of the waste. Not using something that is essentially free means that wasting it is less detrimental to the system. Efficient use of that resource less useful. The value of efficiency optimization plummets, and an equilibrium is hit somewhere, even if it gets to the point where it is completely negligible.
For example, there is a huge difference in how waste of a resource like gold is treated compared to a product like paper. Gold, a scarce resource, is recycled fanatically. Paper, a more abundant resource as of now, is recycled with less enthusiasm and efficiency. The more abundant the resource, the less effort is put into recycling or reusing it. In other words, less efficient usage is cost-effective for our time/pleasure. However, gold commands a much higher attentiveness for being cost-effective.
It's all an equilibrium. You can throw money out the window, it doesn't matter. Money is merely an instrument by which one is able to valuate these decisions which happen with or without money's existence.
I didn't say it would be incompatible, just answering your question of what the endgame would be. That is the logical 'endgame' for what human economy would strive for, where everything is basically so abundant, where people's basic needs are so easily looked after that they would only be doing any meaningful amount of work to pursue their interests.
All economic models are based, somewhere down the line, on a scarcity of resources. Since all human economies have been based as such. So if we should ever reach a post scarcity economy, who knows if our model still holds true?
Imagine this: We have access to so much resources and automation, that individually we can do basically do anything we want(ok it's unrealistic, I'm sure we could find hobbies that wasted enough resources to not be viable if we tried). Then what is the point of our current model of currency or ownership? If someone who owned basically nothing could still access any amount of resources they could reasonably use due to abundance, then whats the point of being the equivalent of today's billionaire?
I'm not saying all economic models will definitely break down, merely that a post scarcity economy is operating outside the bounds of what all current economic models are built to represent, and the results will be wildly unpredictable, at least for us.
But it's still the same system...
I'm saying we don't know what the system would be. In my example I'm merely pointing out our current model of the system becomes rather meaningless since there's no point accruing currency as it won't increase your quality of life or make you financially more secure. Assuming that the system does actually break down, then I'm sure we would be smart enough to use a different system.
I'm not proposing an alternate system, just saying that it is possible that our current model can completely break down due to large changes brought about by abundance. In which case it wouldn't be the same system, since the system we have might very well not be meaningful, and therefore not useful.
Currency has nothing to do with it.... How many times must I explain that currency is just a method of measuring said waste? If you completely remove the measurement method, it doesn't change the fact that there is still waste. The underlying system still exists, unchanged. How we measure it might change, but the system is still the same.
On May 07 2012 15:30 BluePanther wrote: I think you deride finance as "imaginary" because you don't really understand what it accomplishes, how it works, or why it works. Finance makes trade incredibly more efficient, and there is a lot of money to be made for that reason..
Well, I'm tired of explaining that I'm devoting a great deal of time right now to understanding how finance works, and earlier in this thread I was defending its utility. At this point the conversation is just people explaining competition to me and giving me the neoliberal party line. I understand all of these things, I think capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of civilization, but I don't think that it is the end of history, Fukuyama can go jump in a lake.
Anyway, I've heard all this before and I think we've run out of things to say to each other. Have a good night!
edit: just in case people think I'm defending the op, I'm not, that's silly. Just want to clear up that confusion if it exists.
So what do you think is the "end game"?
Also, you keep saying "I'm devoting time to understanding this" but you don't really say what... I'm not some idiot off the street: I have a B.S. in Social Sciences (i.e., economic sociology) and a J.D., where my studies focus on social structures. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
I will answer that for him, although it might not be his answer.
The end game is a post scarcity economy. This may indeed remain capitalistic in nature, or it may not, it's simply too far away for us to reasonably make predictions.
The universe, and even just our neighbourhood is a very large place, presumably with a lot of untapped resources, resources we should be attempting to use, certainly there should be enough to at least make sure there are no large portions of humanity who's basic needs are not met.
Money is ultimately just a tool, you can't eat money, you can't breathe money, I guess you can burn money to keep you warm, but it's not even a great fuel. Money is pegged to the amount of available material and labour resources, and all total money can only reasonably worth as much as material and labour we have access to. In that way, ultimately, money is not 'real' in that increasing overall amount of money will not increase overall standard of living. You must increase the overall available resources that is represented by that money.
Assuming our population does not explode in proportion to new resources that we tap into, there is enough 'stuff' in the local neighbourhood to meet everyone's material needs (not to say we have the technology to do this yet, merely that the basic building blocks are available, and that this is in theory viable).
will finish this later, getting kicked out of the lab ><
This is not incompatible with what I'm saying. As resources become more available and less scarce, then you are merely changing the value of the waste. Not using something that is essentially free means that wasting it is less detrimental to the system. Efficient use of that resource less useful. The value of efficiency optimization plummets, and an equilibrium is hit somewhere, even if it gets to the point where it is completely negligible.
For example, there is a huge difference in how waste of a resource like gold is treated compared to a product like paper. Gold, a scarce resource, is recycled fanatically. Paper, a more abundant resource as of now, is recycled with less enthusiasm and efficiency. The more abundant the resource, the less effort is put into recycling or reusing it. In other words, less efficient usage is cost-effective for our time/pleasure. However, gold commands a much higher attentiveness for being cost-effective.
It's all an equilibrium. You can throw money out the window, it doesn't matter. Money is merely an instrument by which one is able to valuate these decisions which happen with or without money's existence.
I didn't say it would be incompatible, just answering your question of what the endgame would be. That is the logical 'endgame' for what human economy would strive for, where everything is basically so abundant, where people's basic needs are so easily looked after that they would only be doing any meaningful amount of work to pursue their interests.
All economic models are based, somewhere down the line, on a scarcity of resources. Since all human economies have been based as such. So if we should ever reach a post scarcity economy, who knows if our model still holds true?
Imagine this: We have access to so much resources and automation, that individually we can do basically do anything we want(ok it's unrealistic, I'm sure we could find hobbies that wasted enough resources to not be viable if we tried). Then what is the point of our current model of currency or ownership? If someone who owned basically nothing could still access any amount of resources they could reasonably use due to abundance, then whats the point of being the equivalent of today's billionaire?
I'm not saying all economic models will definitely break down, merely that a post scarcity economy is operating outside the bounds of what all current economic models are built to represent, and the results will be wildly unpredictable, at least for us.
But it's still the same system...
I'm saying we don't know what the system would be. In my example I'm merely pointing out our current model of the system becomes rather meaningless since there's no point accruing currency as it won't increase your quality of life or make you financially more secure. Assuming that the system does actually break down, then I'm sure we would be smart enough to use a different system.
I'm not proposing an alternate system, just saying that it is possible that our current model can completely break down due to large changes brought about by abundance. In which case it wouldn't be the same system, since the system we have might very well not be meaningful, and therefore not useful.
Currency has nothing to do with it.... How many times must I explain that currency is just a method of measuring said waste? If you completely remove the measurement method, it doesn't change the fact that there is still waste. The underlying system still exists, unchanged. How we measure it might change, but the system is still the same.
What in the world are you on about? I have never disagreed with you about currency/money being merely a measure, in fact that was the very first thing I said.
Waste is not the problem, it would be nice to be efficient, but there is only so much stuff, being efficient cannot give you more stuff than you have. Abundance means you can afford to be wasteful, heck everyone can afford to be wasteful (assumedly within reason). It's exactly not the same system because it would be pointless to measure waste in a post scarcity economy, where there is simply more where that came from.
I think your trying to pick a fight where there isn't one, I was merely providing an answer to what a logical end game would be. And pointing out that our economic models are not built to model a situation where a post scarcity economy exists.
On May 07 2012 15:30 BluePanther wrote: I think you deride finance as "imaginary" because you don't really understand what it accomplishes, how it works, or why it works. Finance makes trade incredibly more efficient, and there is a lot of money to be made for that reason..
Well, I'm tired of explaining that I'm devoting a great deal of time right now to understanding how finance works, and earlier in this thread I was defending its utility. At this point the conversation is just people explaining competition to me and giving me the neoliberal party line. I understand all of these things, I think capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of civilization, but I don't think that it is the end of history, Fukuyama can go jump in a lake.
Anyway, I've heard all this before and I think we've run out of things to say to each other. Have a good night!
edit: just in case people think I'm defending the op, I'm not, that's silly. Just want to clear up that confusion if it exists.
So what do you think is the "end game"?
Also, you keep saying "I'm devoting time to understanding this" but you don't really say what... I'm not some idiot off the street: I have a B.S. in Social Sciences (i.e., economic sociology) and a J.D., where my studies focus on social structures. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
I will answer that for him, although it might not be his answer.
The end game is a post scarcity economy. This may indeed remain capitalistic in nature, or it may not, it's simply too far away for us to reasonably make predictions.
The universe, and even just our neighbourhood is a very large place, presumably with a lot of untapped resources, resources we should be attempting to use, certainly there should be enough to at least make sure there are no large portions of humanity who's basic needs are not met.
Money is ultimately just a tool, you can't eat money, you can't breathe money, I guess you can burn money to keep you warm, but it's not even a great fuel. Money is pegged to the amount of available material and labour resources, and all total money can only reasonably worth as much as material and labour we have access to. In that way, ultimately, money is not 'real' in that increasing overall amount of money will not increase overall standard of living. You must increase the overall available resources that is represented by that money.
Assuming our population does not explode in proportion to new resources that we tap into, there is enough 'stuff' in the local neighbourhood to meet everyone's material needs (not to say we have the technology to do this yet, merely that the basic building blocks are available, and that this is in theory viable).
will finish this later, getting kicked out of the lab ><
This is not incompatible with what I'm saying. As resources become more available and less scarce, then you are merely changing the value of the waste. Not using something that is essentially free means that wasting it is less detrimental to the system. Efficient use of that resource less useful. The value of efficiency optimization plummets, and an equilibrium is hit somewhere, even if it gets to the point where it is completely negligible.
For example, there is a huge difference in how waste of a resource like gold is treated compared to a product like paper. Gold, a scarce resource, is recycled fanatically. Paper, a more abundant resource as of now, is recycled with less enthusiasm and efficiency. The more abundant the resource, the less effort is put into recycling or reusing it. In other words, less efficient usage is cost-effective for our time/pleasure. However, gold commands a much higher attentiveness for being cost-effective.
It's all an equilibrium. You can throw money out the window, it doesn't matter. Money is merely an instrument by which one is able to valuate these decisions which happen with or without money's existence.
I didn't say it would be incompatible, just answering your question of what the endgame would be. That is the logical 'endgame' for what human economy would strive for, where everything is basically so abundant, where people's basic needs are so easily looked after that they would only be doing any meaningful amount of work to pursue their interests.
All economic models are based, somewhere down the line, on a scarcity of resources. Since all human economies have been based as such. So if we should ever reach a post scarcity economy, who knows if our model still holds true?
Imagine this: We have access to so much resources and automation, that individually we can do basically do anything we want(ok it's unrealistic, I'm sure we could find hobbies that wasted enough resources to not be viable if we tried). Then what is the point of our current model of currency or ownership? If someone who owned basically nothing could still access any amount of resources they could reasonably use due to abundance, then whats the point of being the equivalent of today's billionaire?
I'm not saying all economic models will definitely break down, merely that a post scarcity economy is operating outside the bounds of what all current economic models are built to represent, and the results will be wildly unpredictable, at least for us.
But it's still the same system...
I'm saying we don't know what the system would be. In my example I'm merely pointing out our current model of the system becomes rather meaningless since there's no point accruing currency as it won't increase your quality of life or make you financially more secure. Assuming that the system does actually break down, then I'm sure we would be smart enough to use a different system.
I'm not proposing an alternate system, just saying that it is possible that our current model can completely break down due to large changes brought about by abundance. In which case it wouldn't be the same system, since the system we have might very well not be meaningful, and therefore not useful.
Currency has nothing to do with it.... How many times must I explain that currency is just a method of measuring said waste? If you completely remove the measurement method, it doesn't change the fact that there is still waste. The underlying system still exists, unchanged. How we measure it might change, but the system is still the same.
What in the world are you on about? I have never disagreed with you about currency/money being merely a measure, in fact that was the very first thing I said.
Waste is not the problem, it would be nice to be efficient, but there is only so much stuff, being efficient cannot give you more stuff than you have. Abundance means you can afford to be wasteful, heck everyone can afford to be wasteful (assumedly within reason). It's exactly not the same system because it would be pointless to measure waste in a post scarcity economy, where there is simply more where that came from.
I think your trying to pick a fight where there isn't one, I was merely providing an answer to what a logical end game would be. And pointing out that our economic models are not built to model a situation where a post scarcity economy exists.
I think you missed the earlier discussion, and what the debate was about. The system in question is capitalism. And that is still capitalism, just with a hugely large amount of waste. But it's still capitalism.
On May 07 2012 15:53 xeo1 wrote: human nature: We are not born with greed, envy, hatred or bigotry. Our behavior and values are reflective of the culture we are exposed to.
On May 07 2012 15:30 BluePanther wrote: I think you deride finance as "imaginary" because you don't really understand what it accomplishes, how it works, or why it works. Finance makes trade incredibly more efficient, and there is a lot of money to be made for that reason..
Well, I'm tired of explaining that I'm devoting a great deal of time right now to understanding how finance works, and earlier in this thread I was defending its utility. At this point the conversation is just people explaining competition to me and giving me the neoliberal party line. I understand all of these things, I think capitalism is a necessary stage in the development of civilization, but I don't think that it is the end of history, Fukuyama can go jump in a lake.
Anyway, I've heard all this before and I think we've run out of things to say to each other. Have a good night!
edit: just in case people think I'm defending the op, I'm not, that's silly. Just want to clear up that confusion if it exists.
So what do you think is the "end game"?
Also, you keep saying "I'm devoting time to understanding this" but you don't really say what... I'm not some idiot off the street: I have a B.S. in Social Sciences (i.e., economic sociology) and a J.D., where my studies focus on social structures. I'm not just talking out of my ass.
I will answer that for him, although it might not be his answer.
The end game is a post scarcity economy. This may indeed remain capitalistic in nature, or it may not, it's simply too far away for us to reasonably make predictions.
The universe, and even just our neighbourhood is a very large place, presumably with a lot of untapped resources, resources we should be attempting to use, certainly there should be enough to at least make sure there are no large portions of humanity who's basic needs are not met.
Money is ultimately just a tool, you can't eat money, you can't breathe money, I guess you can burn money to keep you warm, but it's not even a great fuel. Money is pegged to the amount of available material and labour resources, and all total money can only reasonably worth as much as material and labour we have access to. In that way, ultimately, money is not 'real' in that increasing overall amount of money will not increase overall standard of living. You must increase the overall available resources that is represented by that money.
Assuming our population does not explode in proportion to new resources that we tap into, there is enough 'stuff' in the local neighbourhood to meet everyone's material needs (not to say we have the technology to do this yet, merely that the basic building blocks are available, and that this is in theory viable).
will finish this later, getting kicked out of the lab ><
This is not incompatible with what I'm saying. As resources become more available and less scarce, then you are merely changing the value of the waste. Not using something that is essentially free means that wasting it is less detrimental to the system. Efficient use of that resource less useful. The value of efficiency optimization plummets, and an equilibrium is hit somewhere, even if it gets to the point where it is completely negligible.
For example, there is a huge difference in how waste of a resource like gold is treated compared to a product like paper. Gold, a scarce resource, is recycled fanatically. Paper, a more abundant resource as of now, is recycled with less enthusiasm and efficiency. The more abundant the resource, the less effort is put into recycling or reusing it. In other words, less efficient usage is cost-effective for our time/pleasure. However, gold commands a much higher attentiveness for being cost-effective.
It's all an equilibrium. You can throw money out the window, it doesn't matter. Money is merely an instrument by which one is able to valuate these decisions which happen with or without money's existence.
I didn't say it would be incompatible, just answering your question of what the endgame would be. That is the logical 'endgame' for what human economy would strive for, where everything is basically so abundant, where people's basic needs are so easily looked after that they would only be doing any meaningful amount of work to pursue their interests.
All economic models are based, somewhere down the line, on a scarcity of resources. Since all human economies have been based as such. So if we should ever reach a post scarcity economy, who knows if our model still holds true?
Imagine this: We have access to so much resources and automation, that individually we can do basically do anything we want(ok it's unrealistic, I'm sure we could find hobbies that wasted enough resources to not be viable if we tried). Then what is the point of our current model of currency or ownership? If someone who owned basically nothing could still access any amount of resources they could reasonably use due to abundance, then whats the point of being the equivalent of today's billionaire?
I'm not saying all economic models will definitely break down, merely that a post scarcity economy is operating outside the bounds of what all current economic models are built to represent, and the results will be wildly unpredictable, at least for us.
But it's still the same system...
I'm saying we don't know what the system would be. In my example I'm merely pointing out our current model of the system becomes rather meaningless since there's no point accruing currency as it won't increase your quality of life or make you financially more secure. Assuming that the system does actually break down, then I'm sure we would be smart enough to use a different system.
I'm not proposing an alternate system, just saying that it is possible that our current model can completely break down due to large changes brought about by abundance. In which case it wouldn't be the same system, since the system we have might very well not be meaningful, and therefore not useful.
Currency has nothing to do with it.... How many times must I explain that currency is just a method of measuring said waste? If you completely remove the measurement method, it doesn't change the fact that there is still waste. The underlying system still exists, unchanged. How we measure it might change, but the system is still the same.
If you remove money from an otherwise unchanged system there would actually be much, much more waste. In the form of drastically increased 'search costs' for consumers. The only way to imagine free market economy without money would be a barter system which requires consumers to find producers that want the goods or services they have in excess. A hairdresser having to find a baker that needs his hair cut, stuff like that. So a world with extreme abundance, quite quickly becomes much less abundant in the absence of money. I'm not sure if this is even worth discussing.
Logically speaking, if everything goes well the robots will replace more and more human labour with time. So, the people will have to reduce the work day slowly until we supposedly reach 100% unemployment. Assuming robots will be able to do literally everything for us.
Now, you would think - in this situation the solution would be to get rid of money, like the authors suggested. Wrong answer. The resources are limited, so we can't provide everything for everyone.
What will happen then? Well, everybody will earn money from investments. And will spend them as usual on things that are created from factories. The only difference - all the work you will have to do, is to decide what to do with your money. And then, just do whatever you want all day. Sounds good.
On May 07 2012 15:53 xeo1 wrote: human nature: We are not born with greed, envy, hatred or bigotry. Our behavior and values are reflective of the culture we are exposed to.
Of course we are, every animal is.
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem presenting scientific evidence to back that statement up.
Except you will, because it's wrong.
False, uneducated beliefs about the so-called "human nature" are neither facts nor viable opinions. If you build your belief system on the basis that living beings - ANY living beings - are born with inherent greed, envy, hatred and bigotry (which is complete and utter bullshit), no wonder your emergent opinions on social issues are going to be flawed.
This is chronically the case with most people who cite human nature, yet their whole "knowledge" of human nature actually comes from biased perception of their own nature - which reflects the values and state of society they live in rather than some biological profile of our species.
I belive there we would have a hard time finding people doing the crappy jobs that computers and machines still cant do. There are LOTS of dirty work that isnt solvable with machines atm. And a quite big error in the clip, there isnt rescourses to go around for everyone. That is a fact.
Oh and the kicker ofc, the people that is in control aka the people that can pay enough money to get their wish made laws, would prolly dislike this thing. Hence you need to make a revolt for it to start the movement going aka blood and gory, ruthless killing and so on.
On May 07 2012 15:53 xeo1 wrote: human nature: We are not born with greed, envy, hatred or bigotry. Our behavior and values are reflective of the culture we are exposed to.
Of course we are, every animal is.
Then I'm sure you'll have no problem presenting scientific evidence to back that statement up.
Except you will, because it's wrong.
False, uneducated beliefs about the so-called "human nature" are neither facts nor viable opinions. If you build your belief system on the basis that living beings - ANY living beings - are born with inherent greed, envy, hatred and bigotry (which is complete and utter bullshit), no wonder your emergent opinions on social issues are going to be flawed.
This is the case for most people who cite human nature, but their whole "knowledge" of human nature is really derived from their biased perception of their own nature, which actually only reflects the values and state of society they live in rather than some biological profile of our species.
Are you denying the existence of a human nature? Because that would actually be ridiculous.
I don't know if greed, envy, hatred and bigotry are inherent. But identifying with groups is a cultural universal, everyone in all cultures that have ever been looked at do it. A natural consequence from identifying with groups is feeling animosity towards groups that are percieved to be opposing to your own. Our brains are naturally wired to favor generalizations based on fuzzy reasoning.
Very few humans lose the ambition to improve their own situation, to increase their well-being, no matter how well-off they are already. Pretty much everyone feels envious to some extent when someone else recieves something they would have wanted for themselves.
All of these things can be overcome, but denying their existence is not a good idea.
On May 07 2012 20:46 Crushinator wrote: Are you denying the existence of a human nature? Because that would actually be ridiculous.
I don't know if greed, envy, hatred and bigotry are inherent. But identifying with groups is a cultural universal, everyone in all cultures that have ever been looked at do it. A natural consequence from identifying with groups is feeling animosity towards groups that are percieved to be opposing to your own. Our brains are naturally wired to favor generalizations based on fuzzy reasoning.
Very few humans lose the ambition to improve their own situation, to increase their well-being, no matter how well-off they are already. Pretty much everyone feels envious to some extent when someone else recieves something they would have wanted for themselves.
All of these things can be overcome, but denying their existence is not a good idea.
Where did I deny its existence? It's the nature of human nature that is being debated.
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, i.e. independently of the influence of culture.
Greed, envy, hatred and bigotry have no meaning outside of cultural context. A human will seek to satisfy his needs, but he has no inherent motivation to go out of his way to hoard artificial wealth or profess hatred of others based on irrational concepts. All these things are a product of social and cultural norms. So unless the society artificially motivates them to do otherwise, humans will be content to act only to satisfy their needs, and none of these needs actually include extreme wealth, luxury and power.
It's given that humans will generally behave in a way that serves their self-interest. However, what specifically serves their self-interest depends entirely on the society they live in. In our society, greed is in our interest because the society is (artificially) built in a way that rewards it. In an alternative society, greed would be pointless or potentially self-destructive. Social context determines the interests that people use to model their behavior, but the behavior itself is not hard-coded anywhere.
On May 07 2012 20:46 Crushinator wrote: Are you denying the existence of a human nature? Because that would actually be ridiculous.
I don't know if greed, envy, hatred and bigotry are inherent. But identifying with groups is a cultural universal, everyone in all cultures that have ever been looked at do it. A natural consequence from identifying with groups is feeling animosity towards groups that are percieved to be opposing to your own. Our brains are naturally wired to favor generalizations based on fuzzy reasoning.
Very few humans lose the ambition to improve their own situation, to increase their well-being, no matter how well-off they are already. Pretty much everyone feels envious to some extent when someone else recieves something they would have wanted for themselves.
All of these things can be overcome, but denying their existence is not a good idea.
Where did I deny its existence? It's the nature of human nature that is being debated.
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally, i.e. independently of the influence of culture.
Greed, envy, hatred and bigotry have no meaning outside of cultural context. A human will seek to satisfy his needs, but he has no inherent motivation to go out of his way to hoard artificial wealth or profess hatred of others based on irrational concepts. All these things are a product of social and cultural norms.
It's given that humans will generally behave in a way that serves their self-interest. However, what specifically serves their self-interest depends entirely on the society they live in. In our society, greed is in our interest because the society is (artificially) built in a way that rewards it. In an alternative society, greed would be pointless or potentially self-destructive. Social context determines the interests that people use to model their behavior, but the behavior itself is not hard-coded anywhere.
The tone you took while talking about human nature led me to believe it was likely that you denied its existence. I'm glad to see I was wrong, but there are many people who believe people are born with a blank slate, with no predisposistions whatsoever, like in Locke's philosophy, or that all people are prefectly righteouss in a natural environment (Noble Savage).
The ammount of people who think they understand even the most basics of how the economy works is astounding!
Im reading so much stuff thats flawed (from both sides of the argument) that my brain is about to explode into a gory mess of blood and pink.
Im at work, so I will not go too in-depth right now, but ill try to point out a few flaws on the fly.
1) There will be a time when we see everyone get equal pay
False. While it is true that one can argue about the value of ones job, (Say a doctor versus a coal miner) there is a reason that a doctor earns more. Its a bit like demand versus supply. Here is a hypothetical situation for you: Person A, who drops out of college, and you, who goes on to study for another good 10 years to become a doctor.
Person A dropped out and went to work at McDonalds. He had spent no effort learning his job and now recieves an anual income. You on the other hand, spend 10 more years on rigurous study. Finaly you've made it and you are now a doctor. Guess what? You've just earned yourself the same salary as your friend the McDonalds worker.
Now, passion for the human body and healing people aside, what incentive do you have to study 10 years and earn the same as that screw up who dropped out of college? Would you be motivated knowing that after your hard work, you'll be earning the same as him?
A counter agrument you might come up with is 'well, you dont want to work just for the money, right?' This is a very valid argument and I recommend everyone to follow their hearts and not their wallets while trying to become happy in your working life. But ultimately, a few exceptions aside, there are multiple jobs that you can do that make you happy, without having to go trough years and years of study.
There is also the fact of opporunity cost on this one. (wiki it) You know how much money you lose when you study 10 years more? Assuming you dont have a part-time job at McDonalds, ofcourse. But then again, why study for doctor when you can work there for the same pay?
2) Resources are unlimited
False. Holy cow this is false... I cant even comprehend how people think we have unlimited resources in this world. Ever heard of oil? My god are you ignorant if you support this statement.
Im not just talking pure energy recourses here either. You can argue wether solar energy and the likes are infinite (they are not, but that would take me a long time to explain to people who think the above statement is true anyway) but are you really suggesting that stuff like drinkable water/food/healthcare are infinite?
I feel sad about humanity having to give arguments for this but here goes: Water, talking about the liquid stuff we drink, not where the whales pee in, is already rapidly becoming THE source where wars will be fought over. Especially in the middle east where its pretty damn hot. Yes there are ways to filter salt water but this comes at a steep cost. And even then the water is not infinite on this world. Sure we can last a long time filtering some of the salt water that can be filtered. but we will run out eventually. (for more in depth about this, please google stuff like 'water problem in future, and the likes... may open your eyes)
Food is even more of a problem then water. Food is very dependant on where, how, when, what. All those factors will result in either a lot of food or a scarcity. Again, it is true that right now we have the means to feed all mouths that need feeding (and we should) but with the changing environment and the rapid growth of humanity, this will also become an issue in the near future (again, look it up, its there)
I am at work so im very sorry if you dont think i've put enough reasonable arguments in there, or that I didnt back it up with the right articles, but im already typing too much. If I have time ill make a nice in-depth post with citations and the likes to any counter argument made. I could type at least a dozen more of these statements but alas, work calls me!
On May 07 2012 17:26 Szordrin wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc that would be the correct link for the incentives video btw. A very interesting one btw.
The thing about this Zeitgeist Movement, Free World Charter, Venus project etc. is that they see problems which exist and are problematic but then apply concepts and ideas that simply can't work out. This then results in people taking serious concerns a lot less seriously because its basically just crazy people talking...
Jacue Fresco and Peter joseph are some of the most well educated people that understand how people work. Their understanding of the world around us trascends yours and mine by tenfolds im just glad i have gotten high enough to realise that.
People keep saying that TZM dont have answers for example they have nothing but answers they can answer whatever question you have with ease, Most of this is because the question you have is the same as a million other have. And like a million other you.
Make a statement in the guise of asking a question. apply value win or lose to answer meaning if the person dont recognize your supposed "question" that is actually a statement to be true. you dismiss whatever they answer because you are not reasonable. here is a few examples.
But we have seen this before in stalin communist russia and it failed. Where is the question ? person tries to answer well our system is nothing like stalin communist russia. You have already shut down because person did not recognize you statement as true. One is forces to manipulate like teachers do all the time.
But we have seen this before in stalin communist russia and it failed. Yes your exacly right(Your mind is now open) Time to start changing your values. Just like communist russia it is about sharing with each other but as you so smartly pointed out it would never work because communism was so inferior to capitlism (start tieing in with your values) So we take the good part that is sharing and we put it in another system that is inspired by capitilism(Even tho it may not hold any ties)
I then continue to describe the system with your mind alot more open everytime you look doubtful i will tie in something you said just like you arrived at this all by yourself.
This technique is used by teachers all over the world.
People belive that their open minded, But their not its a joke even im not open minded i get emotional responses to things all the time because im a human just like you. If you wanna achieve something close to being open minded you have to first realize that you can be wrong and to realize that your wrong is to change its to improve.
Making a statement and pretending its a question will only bring you an unsatisfactory answer. which will cause a further negative emotional reaction we can see it in this tread everywhere.
On May 07 2012 22:12 AbuseYouMerc wrote: 2) Resources are unlimited
False. Holy cow this is false... I cant even comprehend how people think we have unlimited resources in this world. Ever heard of oil? My god are you ignorant if you support this statement.
Words to learn.
Abundant Scarce Unlimited
Unlimited and abundant is not the same thing. OIL is considered scarce.
There is alot of things that we have abundant of and a few things were scarce on. Alot of times we measure whats abundant and scarce by how long it takes for our planet to create more of it.
Making up statement that people dont make does not make them ignorant it makes you ignorant, I also wanna state that 95% of what you say is outright incorrect just like 1+1 dont equal =38
On May 07 2012 15:53 xeo1 wrote: human nature: We are not born with greed, envy, hatred or bigotry. Our behavior and values are reflective of the culture we are exposed to.
Yes we are born this way. Our behavior is surprisingly close to animals, which we are. We have evolved hundreds of thousand years, and civilization have existed for barely 5.000 years. Greed, envy and other basic emotions are instincts humans are born with, because one time they served a purpose (however, because we are human it is possible to control emotions to a certain level).
Culture is just the context of human behavior. Another culture, another religion etc...
do all the time.
EPT
