The Free World Charter - Page 74

Haha now the scottish historians are liars because what was being said didnt fit your world view? Suprise suprise

Im not an expert on Adam smith or the scottish enlightment but it shocks me that my general knowledge trumps people who specialized in the subject. My advice is learn more about how the world works. And as far as i know basic litterature teach you to analyze the book by its author and the enviorment he was in.

On May 28 2012 05:39 DeliCiousVP wrote:
I will start talking about technology instead and the possible applications they have, I can see it being more useful for all of us and break this "opinion" cycle. will edit in a sec.

On May 28 2012 09:01 DeliCiousVP wrote:
For transportation we want Vac-trains which is a form of maglev technology, Puting the train in a vaccum filled tube allows for super-sonic travel and speed up to 8000km/h teoreticly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev

We have people developing and testing this stuff in switzerland aswel the chinese are also trying out forms of vac-train technology. Obviously it is very monetary expensive but not as resource expensive.

Maglev video

Concept video for vactrain

On May 28 2012 09:01 DeliCiousVP wrote:
For transportation we want Vac-trains which is a form of maglev technology, Puting the train in a vaccum filled tube allows for super-sonic travel and speed up to 8000km/h teoreticly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev

We have people developing and testing this stuff in switzerland aswel the chinese are also trying out forms of vac-train technology. Obviously it is very monetary expensive but not as resource expensive.

+ Show Spoiler +

Automated food production, and advanced hydroponics.

According to the Institute of Simplified Hydroponics, a group of impoverished children in India has developed a 20 square meter hydroponic garden that produces 730 kg/year(1). If these yields were scaled to a full acre, those yields could increase to ~147,000 kg/acre(2). Using orbitropism, increased CO2 concentrations in the air, and LED lighting, yields could theoretically increase to between ~800,000 to ~1,500,000 kg/acre(3). By adding fulvic acid and gibberellin, yields could increase further. Aeroponic variants have demonstrated an 80% increase in production on top of standard hydroponic yields. With these estimates, it is theoretically possible to produce between 1.8 to 3 million kg/acre(4) – between 180 to 300 times 2007 production, enough to feed a few thousand people every year – and with vertical farming, these yields could be increased linearly. If 4.2 billion acres(5) were required to produce 1.3 thousand kg of food for each living person in 2007, the amount of land used for agricultural means could be dramatically reduced to as little as 3.5 million acres without stacking crops(6), to 1.75 million acres using 2 stacks(6), to 700,000 acres using 5 stacks(6), to 350,000 acres using 10 stacks(6), etc. Using advanced aeroponic facilities and vertical farming, it is physically possible to feed an entire city of up to a million people using only 10 acres of land and 50 stacks(7) – if the population increases, simply add more vertical stacks.

Sources
+ Show Spoiler +


+ Show Spoiler +

So, why is it "monetary expensive" but not "resource expensive"? Give me a full breakdown here, I'm super curious.

On May 28 2012 09:24 DeliCiousVP wrote:
Could you guys not qoute it with all the pictures in it takes alot of space. just mark it copy it and add qoutation marks.


Because of the incentive to manipulate markets to gain a profit. Such as projected scarcity, Strategic patent blocking, Lack of monetary gain from solving a problem to name a few.

I will focus more on technology right now Ignoring monetary cost and only recognizing Resource cost which is not to be considered the same. If you have issues recognizing this fact do please play a "hypotheticall" experminent with me in which you are having a "psychosis" that assumes this.

On May 28 2012 09:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


So how do you calculate 'resource cost'? I think we've been asking for the math on that for 30+ pages now.

On May 28 2012 10:15 DeliCiousVP wrote:


The planets carrying capacity that is how much resources we can get per year using the most advanced and efficient technology available and the yearly revjuvination of the planet for example.

We demand X earth provides Y We recycle Z amount

If XZ is higher than Y we are okay. if XZ is higher than Y

We would even further prioritize Substitue, Investigate possible value shifts and technology regarding maximizing potential usage recycling and extraction methods(If in a emergancy we can deplete earths resources)

If this answer is not enough for you, And you want an even more advanced and further detailed answer i can ask the enginners. That being said if you do belive that the monetary system is calculating and managing resource cost efficently and practical you are not worth their time.

On May 28 2012 11:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:


Ok thanks. Clearly you have no answer. There is no such thing as the 'carrying capacity' of how much iron we can extract out of the earth. There is no 'carrying capacity' for an oil refinery's capacity... etc, etc, etc.

A resource based economy remains a mathematical impossibility.

FYI everyone, DeliCiousVP has created is own thread. I guess that means this thread can now be murdered and it's head placed on a spike, as a warning to future generations that there is nothing more destructive than stupid.

On May 29 2012 09:48 xeo1 wrote:


http://endofcapitalism.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/exponent.jpg

warning for future generations: avoid capitalism at all costs