more people have access to jobs, wealth, and opportunity than ever before.
Unemployment is going up worldwide because of technological unemployment, Wealth is only going up if you dont take inflation into account which we obviously do and the wealth gap between rich and poor is increasing. in the west world we have some opportunities but in the third world your opportunities is grealty limited either practicly or through culturual means.
Saying that people would work harder because there's no money involved is nonsense.
Why work harder? Work smarter,easier more efficient and more rewarding.
Even if they truly enjoy their work, do you think they'll be working HARDER rather thank going on a vacation to the alps with their family?
Intrinsic motivation is the most efficient motivation for anything but repetative work.
How will RBE drastically improve technology to that point?
We are already there go to page 1 check the automation videos.
If we had the technology to make robots for everything we do, we would have done that a long time ago.
Social evolution does not keep up with technological evolution it never has so far. But technological evolution is speeding up alot and our social evolution is lagging way to far behind.
statistics are made based on western standards. ofc they'll show what you need them to show. at the african people sho who are you to say that those standards are whuld strive for?. those have value for the one doing the plundering not for the ones getting the shaft.
True but you can still see their deprivation in the statistics with child mortality rate life expectance child per woman. and with gapminder you can go even more advanced.
Countries like India,egypt,china have been players for thousands of years with their own culture,traditions and reasonable stability i dont realy count them like the third world even tho they have alot of these problems.
I think of parts of south,central america west to east africa as the third world that is being polluted and exoploited to the max.
Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics. Now you want to change the topic to 'root causes.'
This has been your method throughout this entire thread. You state an opinion, we disprove it with facts, you then change the topic. It's an endless circle!
Globalization has a 40-45% rate of success and where they "succed" they are still exploting the countries but to a smaller degree. I havent seen you prove anything, all i saw was a link to a website i already use.
I show studies,talks,facts,stasticis and technologies.
Technology is responsibile for all our comforts and and advancements not "fictional currency" Look at your cell phone,bed,door,pen,computer,bicycle,car,heating,electric nets,AC,stove,fridge,toilet,transit.
And monetary incentive does not help our creative flow.
I am aware manny statistics show improvement in africa but i cant help thinking that thoose people are now on average worse off then they are in like 1600 or even 1900. There is a small group wich is alot better off, but the group wich is of worse has grown alot more. The population growth in africa i blame on globalisation and trade indeed.
So you'd prefer that Africa had the same child mortality rate and starvation rate as in 1900 so that there would be less population growth? ... and this would somehow make Africans happier?
Globalization has a 40-45% rate of success and where they "succed" they are still exploting the countries but to a smaller degree. I havent seen you prove anything, all i saw was a link to a website i already use.
So the rapid reduction in poverty worldwide, which really kicked off when India and China entered the global markets, doesn't count as proof?
You say you use gapminder, but apparently you disregard the data that shows the health and wealth of nations increasing. You also disregard the clear trend of once poor third world nations catching up to the rich western nations.
more people have access to jobs, wealth, and opportunity than ever before.
Unemployment is going up worldwide because of technological unemployment, Wealth is only going up if you dont take inflation into account which we obviously do and the wealth gap between rich and poor is increasing. in the west world we have some opportunities but in the third world your opportunities is grealty limited either practicly or through culturual means.
If we had the technology to make robots for everything we do, we would have done that a long time ago.
Social evolution does not keep up with technological evolution it never has so far. But technological evolution is speeding up alot and our social evolution is lagging way to far behind.
statistics are made based on western standards. ofc they'll show what you need them to show. at the african people sho who are you to say that those standards are whuld strive for?. those have value for the one doing the plundering not for the ones getting the shaft.
True but you can still see their deprivation in the statistics with child mortality rate life expectance child per woman. and with gapminder you can go even more advanced.
Countries like India,egypt,china have been players for thousands of years with their own culture,traditions and reasonable stability i dont realy count them like the third world even tho they have alot of these problems.
I think of parts of south,central america west to east africa as the third world that is being polluted and exoploited to the max.
Your claim was that globalization made these countries worse off. We disproved that with statistics. Now you want to change the topic to 'root causes.'
This has been your method throughout this entire thread. You state an opinion, we disprove it with facts, you then change the topic. It's an endless circle!
Globalization has a 40-45% rate of success and where they "succed" they are still exploting the countries but to a smaller degree. I havent seen you prove anything, all i saw was a link to a website i already use.
I show studies,talks,facts,stasticis and technologies.
Technology is responsibile for all our comforts and and advancements not "fictional currency" Look at your cell phone,bed,door,pen,computer,bicycle,car,heating,electric nets,AC,stove,fridge,toilet,transit.
Please do not use sources/videos that advocate RBE, as their opinions may include bias in them.
Can you give me an real-life example of your points that:
Moneyless society causes more efficient work: I believe that if an individual should show up to work at all, it will be to HIS conveniences, not when it's convient for the project he's working on. For example, if he is working on a group project that requires all the members to show up at the same time. However, the individual wants to attend the wedding of his cousin, delaying the project and causing things to become LESS efficient.
You say that incentric motivation is the greatest form of motivation, but do you really think that people would like to show up to work because they want to?
Personally, I'd rather spend time with my family than go to work. How do you make sure there isn't an overflow of people who want a certain job and a lack of people in a necessary job? What if some people don't work at all?
And most importantly, how do we make sure that distribution of goods is fair? How will the hardworking scientist get more rewarded than the lazy bum next door? Will his only reward seriously be "self-enjoyment of self accomplishment" from his job?
By removing money, you're essentially removing the potential of fair distribution of resources in proportion to amount of work one has put into society. In an ideal capitalism, everyone who's not too lazy to work will get rewards equal to the efforts put in. However, the system is not ideal and people starve, as it is the same with all other systems. There will be corruption, people will want more than they have, and others will starve while some are swimming in wine.
Most of these points have been asked throughout the post, and they haven't been sufficiently answered.
Please do not use sources/videos that advocate RBE, as their opinions may include bias in them.
Why not? these videos are for people that belive in the monetary system not for me. I have shown plenty of videos of people that are clueless to a RBE make the points for me.
You say that incentric motivation is the greatest form of motivation, but do you really think that people would like to show up to work because they want to?
"Intrinsic motivation is the most efficient motivation for anything but repetative work." Why? Do you need money to do what you enjoy doing?
Personally, I'd rather spend time with my family than go to work. How do you make sure there isn't an overflow of people who want a certain job and a lack of people in a necessary job? What if some people don't work at all?
You dont have to work at all, the forced labour for income system we have today(slavery) is going out the window thanks to automation. And you are welcome to pursue whatever your intrest may be, As is your family without treat or stress.
And most importantly, how do we make sure that distribution of goods is fair?
Feed,cloth,shelter, offer access to transport,education,meaningfull work, Cultual nesccesities such as cell phones,computers. Good that are to scarce will be priotized based on alot of factors depending on the level of demand and supply and the value of usage.
Also do no note that it will be transition from a monetary system to a resource based economy there is infrastructure that needs to be placed and developed. Its complicated but if no better system then the monetary system exist to regulate the supply and demand for a certain product exist it will be used but i doubt it will be nesscery.
How will the hardworking scientist get more rewarded than the lazy bum next door?
No such thing as a "lazy" person just a maladjusted person to a new situation. Lack of intrest in an area is not a sign of laziness. What we conceive as lazy is the lack of performance in areas where we are socialy expected to perform and it varies per person.
Will his only reward seriously be "self-enjoyment of self accomplishment" from his job?
Yes and the recognition vain as we are.
there will be corruption, people will want more than they have, and others will starve while some are swimming in wine.
Yes if there is incentive and benefits to gain from corrupt behaviour it will occur, This is also recognized and understood and the incentives to act this way will be removed. Nobody is expecting people to behave just because. That being said values we have today will be updated to be more compassionate,sharing and loving.
Social concern is recognized as personal concern because the better off you are the safer iam and the better of iam the richer your life will be.
How do you make sure there isn't an overflow of people who want a certain job and a lack of people in a necessary job?
The human resource will be abundant because we are so used to having so few enginners and scientists creating a society that can hold 10 billion little enginners and scientists busy will be intressting.
My friends on NASA already have the answer tho space but maybe that wont be for everyone.
Thank you for asking questions followed by actual question marks. Its hard to answer statements you keep asking questions i will keep trying to answer them.
On May 26 2012 06:31 DeliCiousVP wrote: Good that are to scarce will be priotized based on alot of factors depending on the level of demand and supply and the value of usage.
Tell me about those factors, who decides those factors, those who ensure those factors are respected, and how do you plan to establish levels of demand and supply and value of usage WITHOUT money.
(and by tell me I mean in your words not by linking a video or a link that doesnt answer any of my questions, thanks)
edit : no monetary system means you cant put values on these things, also question dodged.
Tell me about those factors, who decides those factors, those who ensure those factors are respected, and how do you plan to establish levels of demand and supply and value of usage WITHOUT money.
First off, you need to understand that we are not managing this today with our monetary system. as in supply demannd is being manipulated on so many levels like production,construct, "profit" efficiency over effficiency. Not to mention subsidies currency devalution inflation. and projected scracity manipulation.
and how do you plan to establish levels of demand and supply and value of usage WITHOUT money.
I dont know what you mean here could you be a little clearer. just edit your post and ill reedit this with an answer.
Please do not use sources/videos that advocate RBE, as their opinions may include bias in them.
Why not? these videos are for people that belive in the monetary system not for me. I have shown plenty of videos of people that are clueless to a RBE make the points for me.
You say that incentric motivation is the greatest form of motivation, but do you really think that people would like to show up to work because they want to?
"Intrinsic motivation is the most efficient motivation for anything but repetative work." Why? Do you need money to do what you enjoy doing?
Personally, I'd rather spend time with my family than go to work. How do you make sure there isn't an overflow of people who want a certain job and a lack of people in a necessary job? What if some people don't work at all?
You dont have to work at all, the forced labour for income system we have today(slavery) is going out the window thanks to automation. And you are welcome to pursue whatever your intrest may be, As is your family without treat or stress.
And most importantly, how do we make sure that distribution of goods is fair?
Feed,cloth,shelter, offer access to transport,education,meaningfull work, Cultual nesccesities such as cell phones,computers. Good that are to scarce will be priotized based on alot of factors depending on the level of demand and supply and the value of usage.
Also do no note that it will be transition from a monetary system to a resource based economy there is infrastructure that needs to be placed and developed. Its complicated but if no better system then the monetary system exist to regulate the supply and demand for a certain product exist it will be used but i doubt it will be nesscery.
How will the hardworking scientist get more rewarded than the lazy bum next door?
No such thing as a "lazy" person just a maladjusted person to a new situation. Lack of intrest in an area is not a sign of laziness. What we conceive as lazy is the lack of performance in areas where we are socialy expected to perform and it varies per person.
there will be corruption, people will want more than they have, and others will starve while some are swimming in wine.
Yes if there is incentive and benefits to gain from corrupt behaviour it will occur, This is also recognized and understood and the incentives to act this way will be removed. Nobody is expecting people to behave just because. That being said values we have today will be updated to be more compassionate,sharing and loving.
Social concern is recognized as personal concern because the better off you are the safer iam and the better of iam the richer your life will be.
How do you make sure there isn't an overflow of people who want a certain job and a lack of people in a necessary job?
The human resource will be abundant because we are so used to having so few enginners and scientists creating a society that can hold 10 billion little enginners and scientists busy will be intressting.
My friends on NASA already have the answer tho space but maybe that wont be for everyone.
Thank you for asking questions followed by actual question marks. Its hard to answer statements you keep asking questions i will keep trying to answer them.
So this system absolutely relies on machines being able to provide for every one of the 6 billion people on earth. Also, how will the human nature to seek for better living be removed? Brainwash people?
Has there been ANY demonstrations that robots can completely sustain themselves and humans in practical use?
For example, has there been a power plant that cam run for forever with robots that provide repair to EVERY SINGLE CORNER of the plant, fixes its errors and malfunctions by itself, knowing how to respond in every single possible natural occurrence, and have artificial intelligence?
By what you're telling me, everyone will have to live in the same houses, eat the same quality of meals, sleep in the same quality of beds, and pretty much the same quality of everything. So the person who discovered the technology to send a man to the end of the galaxy and back, discovered a practical and infinite source of energy will receive the same treatment as the man who does nothing sitting in his home? Does that sound fair to you?
If there was a self sustainable automated power plant including fully automated building and repair which the RBE will require, then the cost of power in a mixed market economy will be zero, as there is no "cost" in human labor required to create the power. What tells you that there cannot be a fully automated society with money involved?
Who is your friend in NASA that there can be 6 billion people working on astronomy and less than a thousand people working on agricultural technology will lead to efficient human innovation?
I do not want you to site RBE videos as a source because the videos, obviously, are about convincing people about how RBE's might work. This leads to potentially biased or incorrect information, especially in different wording and presentation. If you want to show a video, please take out the facts from the video that you wish to present and find sources from google that support your argument.
The entire premise of the RBE is built on a fallacy - that money does not equal resources and therefore eliminating money will unlock new resources for humanity.
From The Venus Project Website on RBE:
Consider the following examples: At the beginning of World War II the US had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was no, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war.
We produced those planes by rationing consumer goods (gas, food, etc.) in order to produce more capital goods (factories, steel mills, etc.). In other words, the very example of how the RBE will work is the exact opposite of how the RBE is purported to work. The RBE is purported to create 'abundance' and make everything free and lovely by investing in automation and technology. But the very example they show proves that more capital goods mean fewer consumer goods. In other words, their future society will come at the expense of our well-being today.
Moreover, if everything is free then there is no constraint on businesses to solve their production problems by simply dedicating more resources to the task. This will put a further burden on the current economy as more resources are dedicated to production at the expense of consumption.
This is how planned economies promised and failed to create abundance in the past (USSR and China).
Absent a price system how do you measure efficiency?
By making the best product possible using the least resources possible and making sure it is fully recyclable and interchangable.
This is impossible in a monetary system, as it relies on cyclical consumption based on cyclical consumption planned obsolesence(Products designed to break or malfcuntion preferable after the warrenty expires) Cars,Cellhpones,computers for example.
So this system absolutely relies on machines being able to provide for every one of the 6 billion people on earth. Also, how will the human nature to seek for better living be removed? Brainwash people?
Automation is desired to free people from meaninless jobs, You confuse human nature with human behaviour and behaviour is mainly enviromentaly determined. People need updated values to understand this direction co-operation instead of competetion social concern needs to become personal concern.
Has there been ANY demonstrations that robots can completely sustain themselves and humans in practical use?
Automation like a factory of course there will still be things to do just considerable less. And it already exists in pracitcal use
By what you're telling me, everyone will have to live in the same houses, eat the same quality of meals, sleep in the same quality of beds, and pretty much the same quality of everything. So the person who discovered the technology to send a man to the end of the galaxy and back, discovered a practical and infinite source of energy will receive the same treatment as the man who does nothing sitting in his home? Does that sound fair to you?
You will have the option to fully customize your house and you dont have to own it so you can live anywhere at any time, There will most likely be people that have an intrest in designing beds and if you do aswel maybe thats an intrest worth pursuing for you. If by same quaility you mean the highest quaility then yes.
A person will be recognized and inheritely treated better. if it was me tho i couldent care less what i get i would be happy with being written into the history e-books.
Who is your friend in NASA that there can be 6 billion people working on astronomy and less than a thousand people working on agricultural technology will lead to efficient human innovation?
With your newly updated values i doubt you will be concerned with this. But in the extreme of it society would be adapted to fit the need of humanity.
The entire premise of the RBE is built on a fallacy - that money does not equal resources and therefore eliminating money will unlock new resources for humanity.
Money is a tool used to set a price on scarcity to make trading more efficient. When we create abundance however like food for 10 billion people with a 7 billion population and still have 1 billion people starving and over 1 billion people obese something is wrong with society and we need to restructure and this is it.
We have the ability the create abundance in food/water/shelter/energy all nessceities of life that is what makes our system of "trading and scracity driven economics" obsolete and even corrupt as it holds back technologies that it cannot abosrb into the market..
I cant argue with you all day you do not posses the nesscery knowledge of the world or how the real world economy operates. When the times comes dont fight it violently accept that you can be wrong everyone that understands this direction needs that as a base premise.
Absent a price system how do you measure efficiency?
By making the best product possible using the least resources possible and making sure it is fully recyclable and interchangable.
This is impossible in a monetary system, as it relies on cyclical consumption based on cyclical consumption planned obsolesence(Products designed to break or malfcuntion preferable after the warrenty expires) Cars,Cellhpones,computers for example.
What is the best possible product though? Certain cars take similar amounts of materials to make, but a lot of people prefer Toyotas to Fords, or vice versa. And how would you measure resources? Would you make someone a car made out of gold if they wanted it? Does 1 bar of steel=1 bar of gold now?
Absent a price system how do you measure efficiency?
By making the best product possible using the least resources possible and making sure it is fully recyclable and interchangable.
This is impossible in a monetary system, as it relies on cyclical consumption based on cyclical consumption planned obsolesence(Products designed to break or malfcuntion preferable after the warrenty expires) Cars,Cellhpones,computers for example.
These are just adjectives. How do you measure that? The lowest cost = most efficient use of resources. You say otherwise but offer no way to measure it.
Designing a product to last longer and be recyclable isn't free. It requires more resources... you clearly haven't thought anything through. You are just speculating that it would be more efficient.
Furthermore how do you design a computer or car that will not become obsolete? As long as technology advances things will become obsolete!
The entire premise of the RBE is built on a fallacy - that money does not equal resources and therefore eliminating money will unlock new resources for humanity.
I cant argue with you all day you do not posses the nesscery knowledge of the world or how the real world economy operates.
Lol, you sure about that?
I've asked very simple economic questions that you have been unable to answer. You can't just say "the current system is imperfect so this one must be better!" You need to prove that at the very least that an RBE can work on paper. Math is absolutely necessary to run a factory economically, and without price current math does not work and you offer no new math in its place.
All you offer is propaganda, and the cheapest sales tactic known to humanity - the word FREE.
"People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say. The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies."
Ok then explain to me why africa now is much worse of then it was in 1900, When there was arguably alot less monney/trading going on in africa. There are definatly people starving in africa wich would not have starved without the monetary system. We are plundering the continent, and this plundering is facilitated by monney and trade. This monney is corrupting the leaders in africa who no longer act in the interest of the people and it also has led to manny civil wars.
Africa isn't worse off than it was in 1900 or even 1600. Not in terms of health, education, economic policy or security anyway. I think you have a skewed view of history. The kind of conflict we have in Somalia or the DRC now were the norm, not the exception for much of history. Terrible attrocities against civilians in wars were a fact of life.
Famine was commonplace and dying from a disease was considered normal.
And leaders hardly ever acted in the interests of their subjects. They considered them lesser beings to be used for the "honor" of their leaders. And many subjects agreed with this.
There's room for criticising our current social or financial system. But that criticism should be based on reality, not some made up version of the past.
"People aren't starving because of the monetary system. Frankly, that's just a stupid thing to say. The poorest countries, and the ones most vulnerable to famine, are the countries without democratic governments and without real market based economies."
Ok then explain to me why africa now is much worse of then it was in 1900, When there was arguably alot less monney/trading going on in africa. There are definatly people starving in africa wich would not have starved without the monetary system. We are plundering the continent, and this plundering is facilitated by monney and trade. This monney is corrupting the leaders in africa who no longer act in the interest of the people and it also has led to manny civil wars.
Africa isn't worse off than it was in 1900 or even 1600. Not in terms of health, education, economic policy or security anyway. I think you have a skewed view of history. The kind of conflict we have in Somalia or the DRC now were the norm, not the exception for much of history. Terrible attrocities against civilians in wars were a fact of life.
Famine was commonplace and dying from a disease was considered normal.
And leaders hardly ever acted in the interests of their subjects. They considered them lesser beings to be used for the "honor" of their leaders. And many subjects agreed with this.
There's room for criticising our current social or financial system. But that criticism should be based on reality, not some made up version of the past.
Not to mention that slavery was a fact of life across the entire African continent any time before the imperialist era and was still widespread in 1900, there are still millions of slaves in Africa but nowhere near as many as were living in bondage in previous times.
What is the best possible product though? Certain cars take similar amounts of materials to make, but a lot of people prefer Toyotas to Fords, or vice versa. And how would you measure resources? Would you make someone a car made out of gold if they wanted it? Does 1 bar of steel=1 bar of gold now?
There will no doubt be seval thousand designs of cars that you can request built and driven out, We will use less cars because we will live in an access instead of ownership society. People will have the option to own one but most wouldent want to.
If someone comes in and wants a car of gold they would be treated like they have a value disorder and would most likely enter a second phase where they would have to discuss what their reasoning is for wanting a car of gold.
Designing a product to last longer and be recyclable isn't free. It requires more resources... you clearly haven't thought anything through. You are just speculating that it would be more efficient.
Designing a product to last longer and be recyclable isn't free. It requires more resources... you clearly haven't thought anything through. You are just speculating that it would be more efficient.
Furthermore how do you design a computer or car that will not become obsolete? As long as technology advances things will become obsolete!
You dont design a car or a computer that wont become obsolete that would be silly, You design a product that has the inherit notion that it will be obsolete and thus made recyclable,nterchangable that allows it to be changed updated and recycled with the minimum waste possible.
Like i have been saying all along
These are just adjectives. How do you measure that? The lowest cost = most efficient use of resources. You say otherwise but offer no way to measure it
Measure what? what are you asking or stating?
Not to mention that slavery was a fact of life across the entire African continent any time before the imperialist era and was still widespread in 1900, there are still millions of slaves in Africa but nowhere near as many as were living in bondage in previous times.
I wanna clear something up the standard of living has been going up worldwide basicly for thousands of year this of course have to do with social and technological progress not "wealth"
I would not compare 19th-20th centuary Africa with 21th centuary Africa. But that being said comparing the suffering beiing brought while glancing at the technology we have today it is much worse. Take new factors into consideration aswel Pollution,diseases(New ones like AIDS),famine,More destructive weapons and more people.
The western world is exploiting the third world instead of elevating them and giving them the technology they need.
I wanna clear something up the standard of living has been going up worldwide basicly for thousands of year this of course have to do with social and technological progress not "wealth"
In other words, increasing wealth.
I would not compare 19th-20th centuary Africa with 21th centuary Africa. But that being said comparing the suffering beiing brought while glancing at the technology we have today it is much worse. Take new factors into consideration aswel Pollution,diseases(New ones like AIDS),famine,More destructive weapons and more people.
Of course you don't want to compare, it doesn't look good for you.
You can say that it's much worse as many times as you want, it's still untrue.
The western world is exploiting the third world instead of elevating them and giving them the technology they need.
Incompatible with actual facts.
And we have to have the obligatory unnecessary agitprop image or video tacked on to the end for no other reason than emotional propaganda appeal.
Absent a price system how do you measure efficiency?
By making the best product possible using the least resources possible and making sure it is fully recyclable and interchangable.
This is impossible in a monetary system, as it relies on cyclical consumption based on cyclical consumption planned obsolesence(Products designed to break or malfcuntion preferable after the warrenty expires) Cars,Cellhpones,computers for example.
So this system absolutely relies on machines being able to provide for every one of the 6 billion people on earth. Also, how will the human nature to seek for better living be removed? Brainwash people?
Automation is desired to free people from meaninless jobs, You confuse human nature with human behaviour and behaviour is mainly enviromentaly determined. People need updated values to understand this direction co-operation instead of competetion social concern needs to become personal concern.
By what you're telling me, everyone will have to live in the same houses, eat the same quality of meals, sleep in the same quality of beds, and pretty much the same quality of everything. So the person who discovered the technology to send a man to the end of the galaxy and back, discovered a practical and infinite source of energy will receive the same treatment as the man who does nothing sitting in his home? Does that sound fair to you?
You will have the option to fully customize your house and you dont have to own it so you can live anywhere at any time, There will most likely be people that have an intrest in designing beds and if you do aswel maybe thats an intrest worth pursuing for you. If by same quaility you mean the highest quaility then yes.
A person will be recognized and inheritely treated better. if it was me tho i couldent care less what i get i would be happy with being written into the history e-books.
Who is your friend in NASA that there can be 6 billion people working on astronomy and less than a thousand people working on agricultural technology will lead to efficient human innovation?
With your newly updated values i doubt you will be concerned with this. But in the extreme of it society would be adapted to fit the need of humanity.
The entire premise of the RBE is built on a fallacy - that money does not equal resources and therefore eliminating money will unlock new resources for humanity.
Money is a tool used to set a price on scarcity to make trading more efficient. When we create abundance however like food for 10 billion people with a 7 billion population and still have 1 billion people starving and over 1 billion people obese something is wrong with society and we need to restructure and this is it.
We have the ability the create abundance in food/water/shelter/energy all nessceities of life that is what makes our system of "trading and scracity driven economics" obsolete and even corrupt as it holds back technologies that it cannot abosrb into the market..
I cant argue with you all day you do not posses the nesscery knowledge of the world or how the real world economy operates. When the times comes dont fight it violently accept that you can be wrong everyone that understands this direction needs that as a base premise.
Anyway, if people were still required to look over robots, that is a job likely to be critical in function of civilization with a lack of volunteers. This is exactly what I'm talking about. What happens when there is a necessary job to be done that can NOT be done with robots, and there are not enough volunteers to do the job? People are VERY unlikely to volunteer for a job unless it directly correlates to their own survival, which is unlikely in large populations such as in cities (most of the people will hope that some other person does the job).
Just because a job is menial and unwanted does not mean it can be replaced by robots- robots usually only replace jobs that are repetitive
So my question is, what happens when there isn't enough people for a needed job, such as, watching over robots?
To expand on my question about how people will live in the same quality of things, not everyone will be able to live off the "highest quality" of goods. Resources will always be limited, and people will want more. I've talked about a castle analogy- if a person can get a castle for themselves for free, what will stop others from getting a castle for themselves?
We will not have enough resources to build a castle for everyone, meaning that there will be a limit to what each person can get. And people will get to used to this standard- for example, a mid-class family today will always expect to have a car as a mode of transportation, a luxury for those in third-world countries. What happens if someone wants more than a house and a standardized quality of food?
(By standardized, I'm talking about the same value of goods, not how unique they are. For example, you can choose to get A cushioned wooden chair or a plastic chair with wheels, but you cannot get a golden chair with diamond studs or the extra cushioned chair with padded armpads and headrests.)
Can you tell me who your friend in NASA was that told you it was possible? If you don't want to disclose his name, just tell us details so we know you didn't make it up.
To my response at your answer in the first point, it is definitely human nature to want something better for themselves. It is not learned- if babies try out a better-tasting milk, they will always desire for the better-tasting milk, even if they know that other babies want the milk too. People won't share with others out of pure goodwill every time, especially because they don't have to.
Finally, my big question is this: How will the elimination of money lead to: more efficient food production, better distribution of resources, and automatization of most of the work done?
How do you think people will respond to having absolutely no direct way of improving their life? No matter how hard one would strive for something better than one gets in everyday life, you'll never have more than your neighbor.
What is the best possible product though? Certain cars take similar amounts of materials to make, but a lot of people prefer Toyotas to Fords, or vice versa. And how would you measure resources? Would you make someone a car made out of gold if they wanted it? Does 1 bar of steel=1 bar of gold now?
There will no doubt be seval thousand designs of cars that you can request built and driven out, We will use less cars because we will live in an access instead of ownership society. People will have the option to own one but most wouldent want to.
If someone comes in and wants a car of gold they would be treated like they have a value disorder and would most likely enter a second phase where they would have to discuss what their reasoning is for wanting a car of gold.
They want it because they think it looks nice. Why would that be a value disorder? I thought this society was based around things not having a value. A gold car should hold no more weight then one of metal or plastic.
Also, why wouldn't people want cars? In this society people would probably be traveling a lot more as they'd want to do things/visit places, and would supposedly have the capacity to do so now?
What is the best possible product though? Certain cars take similar amounts of materials to make, but a lot of people prefer Toyotas to Fords, or vice versa. And how would you measure resources? Would you make someone a car made out of gold if they wanted it? Does 1 bar of steel=1 bar of gold now?
There will no doubt be seval thousand designs of cars that you can request built and driven out, We will use less cars because we will live in an access instead of ownership society. People will have the option to own one but most wouldent want to.
If someone comes in and wants a car of gold they would be treated like they have a value disorder and would most likely enter a second phase where they would have to discuss what their reasoning is for wanting a car of gold.
Designing a product to last longer and be recyclable isn't free. It requires more resources... you clearly haven't thought anything through. You are just speculating that it would be more efficient.
Designing a product to last longer and be recyclable isn't free. It requires more resources... you clearly haven't thought anything through. You are just speculating that it would be more efficient.
Furthermore how do you design a computer or car that will not become obsolete? As long as technology advances things will become obsolete!
You dont design a car or a computer that wont become obsolete that would be silly, You design a product that has the inherit notion that it will be obsolete and thus made recyclable,nterchangable that allows it to be changed updated and recycled with the minimum waste possible.
These are just adjectives. How do you measure that? The lowest cost = most efficient use of resources. You say otherwise but offer no way to measure it
Not to mention that slavery was a fact of life across the entire African continent any time before the imperialist era and was still widespread in 1900, there are still millions of slaves in Africa but nowhere near as many as were living in bondage in previous times.
I wanna clear something up the standard of living has been going up worldwide basicly for thousands of year this of course have to do with social and technological progress not "wealth"
I would not compare 19th-20th centuary Africa with 21th centuary Africa. But that being said comparing the suffering beiing brought while glancing at the technology we have today it is much worse. Take new factors into consideration aswel Pollution,diseases(New ones like AIDS),famine,More destructive weapons and more people.
The western world is exploiting the third world instead of elevating them and giving them the technology they need.
Why not make a car of gold? Nothing's going to stop you from doing so.
Making a product more recyclable does take more resources. Rechargable AA batteries, for example, cost more to make than single-use batteries, and single use batteries are definitely more convenient as the user typically does not have the time recharge their AA batteries.
Companies do explore and use recyclable goods when IT IS EFFICIENT TO DO SO. Printing catridges, for example, can be refilled and used again for a cheaper cost. If capitalism depended upon cyclical consumption, why hasn't companies created unrefillable catridges to force buyers to buy more catridges and create more "profit"? Rather than creating unrefillable catridges, they've invested on making catridges refills more available, because consumers prefer to get goods for cheaper.
If printing company A created refillable cartridges and allowed their users to refill their catridges at a lower cost than printing company B, which forces their buyers to buy unrefillable catridges and therefore forces users to spend more money, which conpany do you think will get the more customers and profit?
But if a refillable catridge cost drastically more to create than an unrefillabe catridges and could only hold 2 refills each, making them inefficient, do you think printing companies would have invested in them?
You're mainly talking about how reducing world hunger and it's all capitalism's fault, yet fails to give us a concrete explanation of how this plan would solve all these incredibly complex problems.
EPT![[image loading]](http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/579355_466192126740390_100000488215442_1842891_158056605_n.jpg)
