|
On May 05 2012 06:17 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:59 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:49 EienShinwa wrote:
This is basically what a "Utopian" society is. But ultimately, ideals like these are impossible to achieve, when factoring in human greed. Human greed, much like many other primitive urges people have, can be hammered out via education (not just formal education). The problem is that we live in a society that encourages it. Greed isn't the first bad "habit" that we had to get rid of during the course of civilization. If we didn't get rid of many others, today we would be living in a society where it would be perfectly normal for a man to rape a woman every time they want to have sex (although I suppose it technically wouldn't be rape, since women would naturally accept it as a fact of life), or a society where it was perfectly normal to hurt or kill somebody we disliked or if he had something we wanted. But having people roam around doing things like this turned to be extremely detrimental to the society because it allowed people to hurt one another for their own benefit. Greed does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle. Once it proves to be detrimental enough to the society that people take notice, it too will be hammered out. On May 05 2012 05:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
oh, and you probably already know, but i studied psychology and anthropology, and calling them an exacting science is probably not a good idea. I didn't call them exact sciences, I called them sciences. And for somebody who apparently studied them and at the very least knows what intrinsic motivation is, a statement that "nobody chooses work over play" would certainly seem very uneducated inaccurate incorrect. actually, you are correct. i shouldn't have generalized to everybody. "I" would never choose work over play. thanks for showing me that we shouldn't generalize our own feelings to everybody. btw, the irony in your correction of my statement is beautiful. But we were not discussing feelings, we were discussing science. Based around actual generalizations, rather than individual feelings you seem to cling to as if they were relevant at all. Moreover, if you're so reluctant to "generalize" - what exactly are you doing in this thread to begin with? In fact almost all political or social topics require you to generalize to an extent because they deal with issues that concern a large population. PS. The problem in your statement wasn't the generalization. That is not what I corrected.
you told me that i didnt really want to play video games all day long. how is that not discussing my feelings?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=334953¤tpage=4#67
but whatever, Jopz understood the point i was making.
|
Something like this will never work..
You're going to go online to order something super-expensive which won't exist because the people who were supposed to be building that super-expensive something are going to be at home, online, trying to order something super-expensive.
|
Talin, I don't want to wash the dishes in my home. If I could avoid it, I would. And that has nothing at all to do with capitalism or some horrible boss "exploiting" me. Also, no one has some innate desire to clean other people's shit up. They do it because they get paid to, pure and simple.
|
On May 05 2012 05:54 ampson wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:50 FIStarcraft wrote:On May 05 2012 05:48 ellaguru wrote:
communism doesn't work.
go read some books. [ citation needed] Was the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc. not proof enough? It's certainly sufficient to say that on large scales, Communism has been a resounding failure.
The USSR was a failed workers state; it never even got to the point where it could be called Socialism, much less Communism.
North Korea was a fail upon fails. It is not Communist, nor has it ever been anywhere close to Communism. It was a ploy by the USSR to get influence in Korea.
|
On May 05 2012 05:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
sounds good to me. i want to play video games all day and have others provide my basic necessities.
We're sorry, dAPhREAk, but the Ministry of Distribution has concluded that some of your current possessions, "video game system," is not a necessary or proper allocation of limited State resources. We are confiscating it to provide a superior common welfare and ensure a greater maximum public utility. But we have good news, the national potato ration has been increased by 3 grams! Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
|
This idea basically kills effort and advocates laziness. Money, power etc are simply goals for humanity, in their pursuit to achieve these goals humanity accomplishes great things.
I am failing to understand how this really works. Money is just a replacement for gold and silver, and that's a replacement for barter(trading goods for goods).
For money not to exists, everyone has to have access to the same resources and pleasures. And either there is an excess which makes everyone happy, or it their is a limit to which it doesn't.
How about art as an example, machines can't create art. If I am to make a movie, how do I go about that?
|
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely", only way this would happen is everyone united under one. Once one group has power, it will corrupt absolutely. It won't happen, even if everyone did want it. That's simply not how society works unless you can train everyone to deprive themselves of any form of temptation and take pride in happiness, pride, love/relationships, the qualities of life which pertain no monetary value. Even religion would have to be solidified, most wars in history have been fought over religion, others over monetary values.
|
On May 05 2012 06:18 liberal wrote:
It's not just human nature it's against, but the fundamentals of economics. Scarcity cannot be eliminated no matter how advanced our technology becomes, and the only way to allocate scarce resources without a market is with an authoritarian system which employs force.
Fortunately the fundamentals of Physics say otherwise.
For the purposes of the human race within the obserable universe, certain resources might as well be infinite. Digital software for instance costs almost nothing to replicate. The total energy/matter of the observable universe is beyond anything humanity is likely to need in resources. We don't charge people for breathing air because to all intents and purposes it is a post-scarity resource.
And if your actually concerned about those being finite, entrohpy causing the Heat Death of the Universe should keep you awake at night.
|
On May 05 2012 05:59 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:49 EienShinwa wrote:
This is basically what a "Utopian" society is. But ultimately, ideals like these are impossible to achieve, when factoring in human greed. Human greed, much like many other primitive urges people have, can be hammered out via education (not just formal education). The problem is that we live in a society that encourages it. Greed isn't the first bad "habit" that we had to get rid of during the course of civilization. If we didn't get rid of many others, today we would be living in a society where it would be perfectly normal for a man to rape a woman every time they want to have sex (although I suppose it technically wouldn't be rape, since women would naturally accept it as a fact of life), or a society where it was perfectly normal to hurt or kill somebody we disliked or if he had something we wanted. But having people roam around doing things like this turned to be extremely detrimental to the society because it allowed people to hurt one another for their own benefit. Greed does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle. Once it proves to be detrimental enough to the society that people take notice, it too will be hammered out. Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 05:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
oh, and you probably already know, but i studied psychology and anthropology, and calling them an exacting science is probably not a good idea. I didn't call them exact sciences, I called them sciences. And for somebody who apparently studied them and at the very least knows what intrinsic motivation is, a statement that "nobody chooses work over play" would certainly seem very uneducated inaccurate incorrect.
And who's going to teach them?
Who's goign to build the schools?
Who's going to harvest the raw materials for the school?
Who's going to import and transport the materials from the areas where they naturally are?
The answer? Not me. Why? Because I don't have to and I don't' want to.
|
On May 05 2012 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 06:17 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:59 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:49 EienShinwa wrote:
This is basically what a "Utopian" society is. But ultimately, ideals like these are impossible to achieve, when factoring in human greed. Human greed, much like many other primitive urges people have, can be hammered out via education (not just formal education). The problem is that we live in a society that encourages it. Greed isn't the first bad "habit" that we had to get rid of during the course of civilization. If we didn't get rid of many others, today we would be living in a society where it would be perfectly normal for a man to rape a woman every time they want to have sex (although I suppose it technically wouldn't be rape, since women would naturally accept it as a fact of life), or a society where it was perfectly normal to hurt or kill somebody we disliked or if he had something we wanted. But having people roam around doing things like this turned to be extremely detrimental to the society because it allowed people to hurt one another for their own benefit. Greed does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle. Once it proves to be detrimental enough to the society that people take notice, it too will be hammered out. On May 05 2012 05:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
oh, and you probably already know, but i studied psychology and anthropology, and calling them an exacting science is probably not a good idea. I didn't call them exact sciences, I called them sciences. And for somebody who apparently studied them and at the very least knows what intrinsic motivation is, a statement that "nobody chooses work over play" would certainly seem very uneducated inaccurate incorrect. actually, you are correct. i shouldn't have generalized to everybody. "I" would never choose work over play. thanks for showing me that we shouldn't generalize our own feelings to everybody. btw, the irony in your correction of my statement is beautiful. But we were not discussing feelings, we were discussing science. Based around actual generalizations, rather than individual feelings you seem to cling to as if they were relevant at all. Moreover, if you're so reluctant to "generalize" - what exactly are you doing in this thread to begin with? In fact almost all political or social topics require you to generalize to an extent because they deal with issues that concern a large population. PS. The problem in your statement wasn't the generalization. That is not what I corrected. you told me that i didnt really want to play video games all day long. how is that not discussing my feelings?
Because those are not feelings, and most certainly not something unique to you.
Playing games all day does not fulfill all the needs you have. And you have the same needs everyone else has because you're - presumably - a human being. The exact ratio and priorities might vary by person, but not so much that would allow you to be somehow radically different than everyone else. I'm pretty sure you know this too, having studied what you have, which makes your rejection of this concept somewhat strange to say the least.
On May 05 2012 06:40 BluePanther wrote:
And who's going to teach them?
Who's goign to build the schools?
Who's going to harvest the raw materials for the school?
Who's going to import and transport the materials from the areas where they naturally are?
The answer? Not me. Why? Because I don't have to and I don't' want to.
Why don't you want to?
|
On May 05 2012 06:17 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 06:07 dAPhREAk wrote:On May 05 2012 05:59 Talin wrote:On May 05 2012 05:49 EienShinwa wrote:
This is basically what a "Utopian" society is. But ultimately, ideals like these are impossible to achieve, when factoring in human greed. Human greed, much like many other primitive urges people have, can be hammered out via education (not just formal education). The problem is that we live in a society that encourages it. Greed isn't the first bad "habit" that we had to get rid of during the course of civilization. If we didn't get rid of many others, today we would be living in a society where it would be perfectly normal for a man to rape a woman every time they want to have sex (although I suppose it technically wouldn't be rape, since women would naturally accept it as a fact of life), or a society where it was perfectly normal to hurt or kill somebody we disliked or if he had something we wanted. But having people roam around doing things like this turned to be extremely detrimental to the society because it allowed people to hurt one another for their own benefit. Greed does the same thing, it's just slightly more subtle. Once it proves to be detrimental enough to the society that people take notice, it too will be hammered out. On May 05 2012 05:54 dAPhREAk wrote:
oh, and you probably already know, but i studied psychology and anthropology, and calling them an exacting science is probably not a good idea. I didn't call them exact sciences, I called them sciences. And for somebody who apparently studied them and at the very least knows what intrinsic motivation is, a statement that "nobody chooses work over play" would certainly seem very uneducated inaccurate incorrect. actually, you are correct. i shouldn't have generalized to everybody. "I" would never choose work over play. thanks for showing me that we shouldn't generalize our own feelings to everybody. btw, the irony in your correction of my statement is beautiful. But we were not discussing feelings, we were discussing science. Based around actual generalizations, rather than individual feelings you seem to cling to as if they were relevant at all. Moreover, if you're so reluctant to "generalize" - what exactly are you doing in this thread to begin with? In fact almost all political or social topics require you to generalize to an extent because they deal with issues that concern a large population. PS. The problem in your statement wasn't the generalization. That is not what I corrected.
To clarify a bit, the problem with a society where you expect EVERYONE to get the same things, and expect EVERYONE to do the same amount of work, not even going into the problem of how to determine what people get, and how to determine what amount of work to expect out of people in return, is that people are not the same.
Everyone, and I think this is a universal truth/assumption that need not be questioned, including dAPhREak and you as you and he just illustrated in your back and forth in this thread, have differing ideas of what you want in life, and how much you want to work and play.
Enforcing a system where everyone gets the same things they may or may not necessarily want, and forcing them to work at a level they may or may not enjoy, will always by its nature result in differing levels of satisfaction, stemming directly from the fact that people are not all the same.
In most first world countries, you have a minimum level of support to prop you up in the case of bad or lean times or when you can't work any more in the form of social safety nets such as Social Security, food banks, health insurance, unemployment benefits, disability benefits, etc.
If you want more than that bare minimum, you work harder, invest in yourself by studying and learning new disciplines, you take risks such as trying to find a better paying job, or heck even starting your own business.
And that is the beauty in the modern system of monetary value we have; each individual can, to some extent, tailor his lifestyle and luxuries to the levels that he can be happy with, provided that he has the ability and willingness to work for what he wants.
Of course, it's not without it's flaws, but I'd much rather be the one to determine what I want and what I expect in life, rather than getting what everyone else is having and being forced to take it or leave it.
|
Are we really discussing communism? Because I thought we closed the book on that a couple decades ago.
|
End of progress.
I can't think of a way to motivate people without money to make society run.
People are still needed to produce food and to manage distribution. Why would they work for free?
Which hospitals get the equipment they need?
I think the video is idealistic and ignores these arguments.
|
On May 05 2012 06:46 Beorning wrote:
Are we really discussing communism? Because I thought we closed the book on that a couple decades ago.
Apparently not everyone read that book 
|
Idealism at its finest.
/yawn
|
On May 05 2012 06:49 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 05 2012 06:46 Beorning wrote:
Are we really discussing communism? Because I thought we closed the book on that a couple decades ago. Apparently not everyone read that book
I think it's more like the Holywood trend right now where they have to remake every movie with NEW technology because the can't think of anything new.
|
Look, even in heaven, when someone wants something he has to work for it.
I suppose "Hour Worked" is the only true currency
|
People shouldn't have to worry about what food they are going to eat everyday (with some exceptions, like the quality of said food). People shouldn't have to worry about where they will sleep at night. People should care as much about other people as they do themselves.
I don't think we were every reach a point where all those things happen in this world. But I'm open to look at some new ideas and revisit some old ones. Its a simple solution to a very complicated issue it seems. I don't know how you motivate people to improve the world in anyway better than what we have now :S
|
On May 05 2012 03:44 sikeTM wrote:
Edit: I know nothing about natural resources etc... But let's say everyone in the world was well fed and taken care of properly. Wouldn't natural resources run out extremely fast given all the people who weren't eating before are eating now, driving cars, using electricity, using oil, etc.. Can someone enlighten me on this?
There is more than enough resources on this planet to satisfy everyone, if people were willing to live in moderation.
|
Its a noble enough idea, but this isnt Star Trek. Humanity hasnt reached a point where they have a common goal to strive for together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
