Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 112. (Read 288348 times)

I've watched the video. Is there a shorter definition?
Anyway, it says that social balance is impossible because of the free market. I don't think so. Removing the free market would be removing freedom, it doesn't matter if people give it to politicians, "experts" or machines.
I agree with the video when it says that the monetary system is highly corrupted. Bitcoin partially solves that. But I also think that interest (thus capitalism) is incompatible with social justice. That's why I proposed freicoin inspired by Gesell's ideas.

First: If the venus project is different from the Zeitgeist movement, you should distance yourself from people like LightRider every time you can, because elsehow it will damage TZM. I haven't seen any distance keeping action from TZM.

About democracy: So you want wise men (scientists, supposedly) to rule your society. I repeat it: that's an aristocracy/meritocracy. According to Wikipedia "Aristocracy is a form of government in which the best qualified citizens rule". So I still see no difference in essence between what you advocate and what The Venus Project advocates.

I can see why your movement would be going to great lengths to distance itself from Fresco and The Venus Project despite the films glorifying them. Fresco seems to be very bad at keeping the "less pleasant" details of his Malthusian plan to himself (2:10 mark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4F90DeJJpA).

Question: "So how do you make sure [population] won't exceed the limits of resources?"

Fresco: "Well, the survey committee tells us what kind.. (colleague interjects) ...They would have to be educated

Question: What if you can't get people to stop reproducing?

Fresco: We show them a film called dynamic equilibrium in nature.. If you produce more people than the land can support, these are the problems you're gonna have. Now if they don't seem to understand that...That's another problem.

Loosely. That is only concerned with resource abundance, it tells little or nothing about sustainability and intelligent resource management.

This is a bit more comprehensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI

And the transcript, if you don't want to watch the video:
http://dotsub.com/view/9c2f8c32-f350-45fe-b053-7ad8dd526eec/viewTranscript/eng

Ehmmm, no, no, and no. I don't know what you have read or who did you talk to, but that is not what TZM advocates.

If you want to believe that other people believe weird shit and then try to make fun of those imaginary people you are free to do so, but it doesn't make it real.


LOL.


In the way you think, but it can certainly think in other ways. In some respect, much better than you can. But I'm guessing what you really mean is that machines don't pass the turing test, which I already explained how that is irrelevant for the sake of the argument.


Yes, and no. Do you have any idea how, say, Firefox or Drupal are developed?


For the third time:

TVP != TZM. So, stop associating the two. Venus Project bla bla bla, therefore TZM... is a non sequitur.


In fact, nowhere it's said the process should be democratic. It should a rational consensus based on scientific evidence, which is a completely different thing.

Look, it's really simple. If you needed to get you appendix taken out, would you hold a democratic vote, or would you ask various specialists and see if they agree or not?

Again, the problem is culture. As free, relevant education is given access to, more and more people will become knowledgeable and capable of understanding what's going on. As I already said, TZM promotes culture, not ignorance.


You propose nonsense, and then you say it's nonsense. Brilliant.


For the fourth time:

TVP != TZM. So, stop associating the two. Venus Project bla bla bla, therefore TZM... is a non sequitur.

None. They believe it will become useless in a post scarce economy.


Not sure. I guess a direct democracy assisted by computers and with internet voting or something similar.

Ok:

1) What kind ofcurrency do they advocate?
2) What kind of democracy do they advocate?

I'll explain it for normal people first:

- This sect advocates programmers to rule their society, because they'll write the software that would rule everything (even the political process). Of course, that is insane.

Now I'll explain it for cult followers:

- No software can THINK.
- Those who write the software control the software.
- The Venus Project advocates replacing every political process (and engineers, doctors etc) with AI software.
- Open/Free Software does not mean that the process in creating new software versions is democratic. At all. Not even close.
- Even creating some kind of "parliament" to control the software development would make no sense.
- Therefore the Venus Project's advocating a meritocracy, a dictatorship, an aristocracy or a mix of those terms.

What 4v4l0n42 says is not very scary. He has said that TZM:

1) Doesn't want to abolish money.
2) Doesn't want an AI dictator to rule.

I thought they were communist but it seems that at least not all of them are. If the cornucopia finally arrives I will be happy to drink from it. I just don't think that money will become obsolete, it will just change. I have to admit that I don't believe bitcoin solves all the money problems, but it's a big step forward taking the power back. I won't join TZM nor read the material. I've seen three documentaries and I had enough. But I like this talk with 4v4l0n42 because it serves me to later argue with a friend of mine who is likes this idea of resource based economy, although his definition is closer to communism (and at the same time more concrete) than 4v4l0n42's.

By the way, 4v4l0n42, does your definition of RBE fit with this one?

Findeton, it seems that you much confusion in your head.

Let's approach this scientifically. List all the things that you think are wrong in a concise, coherent manner, point by point. Please refrain form ad hominem attacks and stick to the facts. And please, don't bring back redundant arguments that I've already addressed extensively.

If you can do that, we can have a discussion. If you don't, you are just shouting at the wind, with no sense nor purpose.

If that's your main concern for the ideology of the zeitgeist sect, I think you should join them...

+1


I didn't read the scientific articles but here's my point.
I think the main cause of the smaller birth rates in developed countries are the higher costs of rising a child. Of course, education increases those costs and increases the ability of people to calculate those costs and the consequences of having a son for their own lives and for the child without having enough resources. Less educated people are more likely to have a child they can't educate.
But if having babies becomes free (as in free beer) because of the cornucopia that allow us to stop using money, I don't see another way to control population growth than to plan births, which scares me.

If money is such a terrible idea, why did it emerge in the first place? What purpose did it serve?

Population decline can be linked to education somehow. That statement is of no concern to me.

Are you a engineer or a computer science guy? Do you even know how this things work?

A lot of emotionality and baseless personal attacks. They don't bring anywhere, so I will address the very few points that some of you have actually raised, and ignore the meaningless insults.


You obviously know nothing about the subject.

A quick search on google scholar will reveal hundres of published papers in the scientific literature that prove my point. But I'm guessing you were too busy with the insults and accusing me of being "unscientific" than to actually go and read the scientific literature.

I understand it may be difficult, but hey, science is not urban myths or common sense: science is what is real. You guys keep accusing us of pseudoscience, yet we produce scientific published papers and research to support our claims, whereas all you can say is: "you are a cult! this is crap." Really fucking scientific.

If you want to read a watered down version, because scientific publications are too difficult for you to read at the moment, you can consult the United nations Concise Report on "Population, Education and Development", which supports exactly what I say.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/concise2003/Concisereport2003.pdf

Yeah, I'm a university student who's being paid by CIA, so I have an agenda. (btw: I'm just kidding, I'm not being paid by no one).


First of all: now you've recognised what you NEGELECTED just two post before: you want to replace the political process with AI.

So now you acknowledge that those who wirte the software are the ones in control of the dictatorship. Do you actually know how a Free/Open Source project works? I'll give you one hint: it's not a democracy, there are some people who rule and control the code and they are not voted (normally, it will be either a "dictatorship" or a meritocracy).

Your ideas (meritocracy/aristocracy/dictatorship) are not new, but you try to conceal them to convince others.

Bitcoin is free software. And who controls the code? Some moderators, appointed by Satoshi (because of their merits as programmers, as judged by Satoshi). It's not a democracy at all, only (supposedly) "experts" will be able to control the software. Yeah that would be a dictatorship of those supposed expert programmers. It's an aristocracy/meritocracy.

Engineers, doctors and architects engage in technical processes that deal with pattern recognition and a database of knowledge. These are things that computers and machines are very good at. Machines and associated expert systems are now able to do many if not all of the things that these professionals do. Government is obsolete in my view, and I don't believe machines are well suited to that task. But they can be employed very successfully at resource management, tracking, monitoring and distribution. The emergence of open source software will also help ensure that whoever the programmers are, their code will be available for review. If you actually think about these ideas, you would understand how it makes sense. But you seem to choose fear and cynicism instead, and that makes me feel very sorry for you.

You have not once used logic in any of your posts that I have noticed, merely fallacious and baseless assertions. In fact, your continued assertions that I am in a cult prove that you merely have an agenda, not an argument. Your admission that you are not trying to have an argument or discussion, but instead trying to influence others also bears this out. You can call me all the names you want, but that just reflects poorly on you and your positions.