You certainly seem to be proposing to create a Star Trek type economy using current technology.
If the jargon term "resource based economy" does not correspond to the type of economy popularised by Star Trek, that has a huge body of fans due to its popularisation by Star Trek, it would be nice to know how it differs.
How does/would "building a Star Trek type economy using current technology" differ from "building a 'resource based economy' using current technology"?
Everything I have discovered so far about "resource based economy" seems identical to "Star Trek type economy", as far as I can see the quibbling is merely about what level of technology might be achieved by a society operating on the basis of such an economy.
(Possibly also with some misapprehension by some as to what technology might be absolutely necessary to the implementation of such an economy, but Trekkers would hardly be Trekkers if they did not know that current physical engineering technology should suffice, the challenge being one of social engineering technology if technological at all.)
You seem to propose the implementation of an economy type popularised in movies and television and having a large fan base due to that. If your proposed economy type differs from the one those fans are so eager for, clarifying the differences should be useful, maybe they might not necessarily be "dealbreakers"?
-MarkM-
Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 119. (Read 288348 times)
The economy.
You propose a future in which such an economy is in effect.
The future is fiction until it happens.
It is well known to Trekkers that the technological feasibility of this that or the other plot-device is largely irrelevant, the question is not do we need to wait for replicators, transporters and faster than light travel before we can implement such an economy.
The more important question, getting more and more important as 2063 approaches, is whether it is in fact necessary that a period of world wide devastation / devastating world scale conflict occur in order to proceed to the proposed economic model?
Way back when, it presumably seemed to the authors that such an economy so soon in our future would not be at all possible barring such worldwide devastation or devastating conflict.
It is known that current technology should suffice as far as any physical engineering in concerned.
Portraying the proposed society as a far fetched fiction is a piece of social engineering.
Filling in the timespan between now and the actual world wide deployment of such an economy is going to take some figuring out of how utterly fictional the concept of actually accomplishing such a deployment is going to actually turn out to be.
Many people consider it very far-fetched, such that packaging it alongside ray guns and starships has historically served as a practical way "flying under the radar of such people" to get the ideas "out there" to a more receptive demographic.
As we come closer to whatever desired target date we wish to set as to when exactly we wish to complete the deployment it becomes more and more important / urgent to solve the social engineering problems to which the futuristic technology props serve as smokescreens.
The Venus Project seems to basically propose that we should by now or soon be able to cease pretending we are talking about an imaginary future economy but are in fact working toward actual deployment of such an economy.
The more the intent is perceived as real and realistic the more likely it might be that whatever kind of social upheaval / devastation that opponents of such ideas might find convenient to oppose such ideas with might also be deployed.
It would be nice to proceed without the kind of upheaval / devastation the original-series timeline suggested might turn out to be required.
Toward that end, this Venus thing does seem interesting and maybe, who knows, it could even turn out to be useful.
Admittedly a lot of fandom seems to just shrug at the proposed period of devastation, preferring to look forward to 2063 and beyond without seeming concern about preceding devastation. Likely that tends though to be the portions of fandom least likely to be regarded as actual Trekkers.
-MarkM- (Imagining fiction to be irrelevant to its topics seems weird/shortsighted, counterexamples are probably rife throughout literature.)
P.S. It seems ironic that you are dismissing so lightly the very dream/ideal you claim to espouse and one of possibly its largest and most dedicated groups of fans...
You propose a future in which such an economy is in effect.
The future is fiction until it happens.
It is well known to Trekkers that the technological feasibility of this that or the other plot-device is largely irrelevant, the question is not do we need to wait for replicators, transporters and faster than light travel before we can implement such an economy.
The more important question, getting more and more important as 2063 approaches, is whether it is in fact necessary that a period of world wide devastation / devastating world scale conflict occur in order to proceed to the proposed economic model?
Way back when, it presumably seemed to the authors that such an economy so soon in our future would not be at all possible barring such worldwide devastation or devastating conflict.
It is known that current technology should suffice as far as any physical engineering in concerned.
Portraying the proposed society as a far fetched fiction is a piece of social engineering.
Filling in the timespan between now and the actual world wide deployment of such an economy is going to take some figuring out of how utterly fictional the concept of actually accomplishing such a deployment is going to actually turn out to be.
Many people consider it very far-fetched, such that packaging it alongside ray guns and starships has historically served as a practical way "flying under the radar of such people" to get the ideas "out there" to a more receptive demographic.
As we come closer to whatever desired target date we wish to set as to when exactly we wish to complete the deployment it becomes more and more important / urgent to solve the social engineering problems to which the futuristic technology props serve as smokescreens.
The Venus Project seems to basically propose that we should by now or soon be able to cease pretending we are talking about an imaginary future economy but are in fact working toward actual deployment of such an economy.
The more the intent is perceived as real and realistic the more likely it might be that whatever kind of social upheaval / devastation that opponents of such ideas might find convenient to oppose such ideas with might also be deployed.
It would be nice to proceed without the kind of upheaval / devastation the original-series timeline suggested might turn out to be required.
Toward that end, this Venus thing does seem interesting and maybe, who knows, it could even turn out to be useful.
Admittedly a lot of fandom seems to just shrug at the proposed period of devastation, preferring to look forward to 2063 and beyond without seeming concern about preceding devastation. Likely that tends though to be the portions of fandom least likely to be regarded as actual Trekkers.
-MarkM- (Imagining fiction to be irrelevant to its topics seems weird/shortsighted, counterexamples are probably rife throughout literature.)
P.S. It seems ironic that you are dismissing so lightly the very dream/ideal you claim to espouse and one of possibly its largest and most dedicated groups of fans...
The resource based economy is desribed using stuff right out of Star Trek, like each individual being free to develop their potential. Star Trek seems to be a "resourcce based economy" and it is one that already has gone through a whole lot of the problems of trying to use movies to promote such a society, including such tactics as pretendig it is a far distant / purely imaginary future in order not to scare people who might object to a suggestion that it is just around the corner.
Supposedly the latest movie tried changing a lot in order to again find a way to get "normal people" instead of people who already bought into the idea of resource based societies to watch the shows/movies.
Also progressively attempts have been made to move the portrayals back in time closer to our current time, possibly because of a perception that one maybe need no longer pretend to be speaking about a time centuries away when speaking of a resource based economy.
This a a whole lot of investment and a huge body of trekkers some quite dedicated all aimed at the concept of a resource based economy.
Even putting it into a fiction surrounded by all kinds of "unbelievable" technology doesn't seem to go very far though in defusing people's ingrained / conditioned disbelief in such an economic model. It seems that to some people the proposed economy is maybe even harder to believe possible than faster than light transportation (which is afterall "merely a technical innovation or breakthrough").
The technical innovations / gadgets are mere metaphors and plot devices, one would hardly credit a person as actually being a Trekker if they were unaware that getting from "here" to "there" is not a matter of physical engineering but, rather, one of social engineering.
-MarkM-
Supposedly the latest movie tried changing a lot in order to again find a way to get "normal people" instead of people who already bought into the idea of resource based societies to watch the shows/movies.
Also progressively attempts have been made to move the portrayals back in time closer to our current time, possibly because of a perception that one maybe need no longer pretend to be speaking about a time centuries away when speaking of a resource based economy.
This a a whole lot of investment and a huge body of trekkers some quite dedicated all aimed at the concept of a resource based economy.
Even putting it into a fiction surrounded by all kinds of "unbelievable" technology doesn't seem to go very far though in defusing people's ingrained / conditioned disbelief in such an economic model. It seems that to some people the proposed economy is maybe even harder to believe possible than faster than light transportation (which is afterall "merely a technical innovation or breakthrough").
The technical innovations / gadgets are mere metaphors and plot devices, one would hardly credit a person as actually being a Trekker if they were unaware that getting from "here" to "there" is not a matter of physical engineering but, rather, one of social engineering.
-MarkM-
The Venus Project does not invoke technologies that are not yet realized or currently infeasible. I don't see what a work of fiction has to do with this discussion.
The resource based economy is desribed using stuff right out of Star Trek, like each individual being free to develop their potential. Star Trek seems to be a "resourcce based economy" and it is one that already has gone through a whole lot of the problems of trying to use movies to promote such a society, including such tactics as pretendig it is a far distant / purely imaginary future in order not to scare people who might object to a suggestion that it is just around the corner.
Supposedly the latest movie tried changing a lot in order to again find a way to get "normal people" instead of people who already bought into the idea of resource based societies to watch the shows/movies.
Also progressively attempts have been made to move the portrayals back in time closer to our current time, possibly because of a perception that one maybe need no longer pretend to be speaking about a time centuries away when speaking of a resource based economy.
This a a whole lot of investment and a huge body of trekkers some quite dedicated all aimed at the concept of a resource based economy.
Even putting it into a fiction surrounded by all kinds of "unbelievable" technology doesn't seem to go very far though in defusing people's ingrained / conditioned disbelief in such an economic model. It seems that to some people the proposed economy is maybe even harder to believe possible than faster than light transportation (which is afterall "merely a technical innovation or breakthrough").
The technical innovations / gadgets are mere metaphors and plot devices, one would hardly credit a person as actually being a Trekker if they were unaware that getting from "here" to "there" is not a matter of physical engineering but, rather, one of social engineering.
-MarkM-
Supposedly the latest movie tried changing a lot in order to again find a way to get "normal people" instead of people who already bought into the idea of resource based societies to watch the shows/movies.
Also progressively attempts have been made to move the portrayals back in time closer to our current time, possibly because of a perception that one maybe need no longer pretend to be speaking about a time centuries away when speaking of a resource based economy.
This a a whole lot of investment and a huge body of trekkers some quite dedicated all aimed at the concept of a resource based economy.
Even putting it into a fiction surrounded by all kinds of "unbelievable" technology doesn't seem to go very far though in defusing people's ingrained / conditioned disbelief in such an economic model. It seems that to some people the proposed economy is maybe even harder to believe possible than faster than light transportation (which is afterall "merely a technical innovation or breakthrough").
The technical innovations / gadgets are mere metaphors and plot devices, one would hardly credit a person as actually being a Trekker if they were unaware that getting from "here" to "there" is not a matter of physical engineering but, rather, one of social engineering.
-MarkM-
http://www.channelaustin.org/streaming/ch16
Zeitgeist LIVE is streaming right now, for those who are interested.
Zeitgeist LIVE is streaming right now, for those who are interested.
Okay, what resources are available that are not being utilized? What sources of renewable energy, and what technologies, can be used to power machines like cars and steel mills for example? How high of a standard of living can your ideal society produce given current technology? Is it something along the lines of India/China or more like Western Europe?
Zeitnews.org is a website dedicated to pointing out the incredible new technologies and scientific discoveries that are taking place. You might also find it interesting.
Must be the Jumpsuits. 
Dumpsuits if you will 
Thank you, I'm also available for children's parties
Ahahahhaha! Yes!
Must be the Jumpsuits.
Dumpsuits if you will Thank you, I'm also available for children's parties
Star Trek is a futuristic technocracy powered by magical crystals where everyone wears jumpsuits and follows the orders of a bald man with a French name.
Apparently no one goes to the bathroom in the future.
Anyone ever hear of a bathroom in Star Trek. Sonic Showers, but never a bathroom. Must be the Jumpsuits.
Star Trek is a futuristic technocracy powered by magical crystals where everyone wears jumpsuits and follows the orders of a bald man with a French name.
I've seen the show, I just don't see the connection to reality.
Who obeys Frenchmen? (Just kidding, Grondilu.)
Star Trek is a futuristic technocracy powered by magical crystals where everyone wears jumpsuits and follows the orders of a bald man with a French name.
Well lets try this scientific need determination of what to do, maybe?
How much bread and water (and some vitamins minerals etc in it presumably) do those people scientifically *need*?
If the latest Trek movie proves to have actually solved the problem it was apparently created to solve, to wit that of getting joe public to actually watch movies about resource based society, then is it scientifically necessary to have these folk produce one showing more precisely the now-to-2063 span during which the timetable as last I heard it apparently calls for a major world scale disaster or war or something to occur in order to set the stage, or would it be scientifically adequate to have Paramount produce it?
-MarkM- (more important, is the world scale destruction leading up to Zephram's flight scientifically necessary?)
How much bread and water (and some vitamins minerals etc in it presumably) do those people scientifically *need*?
If the latest Trek movie proves to have actually solved the problem it was apparently created to solve, to wit that of getting joe public to actually watch movies about resource based society, then is it scientifically necessary to have these folk produce one showing more precisely the now-to-2063 span during which the timetable as last I heard it apparently calls for a major world scale disaster or war or something to occur in order to set the stage, or would it be scientifically adequate to have Paramount produce it?
-MarkM- (more important, is the world scale destruction leading up to Zephram's flight scientifically necessary?)
What are you talking about?!? What does Star Trek have to do with this topic?
If we declared all of the earth's resources as common heritage for all the world's people, and used the methods of science to construct and provide all of life's necessities for all people, then there would be considerable reduction in hunger, crime, war and poverty, not to mention unnecessary suffering due to lack of access of medical care or inadequate educational opportunities.
Ah, good ole' Jacque Fresco. I watched a documentary on him years ago and I almost bought into it. His logic is the same logic that used to make me wonder why people go hungry while food sits on the shelves in grocery stores collecting dust. Then I learned economics. He's a great engineer which is why he thinks like one rather than an economist. All he sees is that we need X tons of resources to have futuristic cities and also that we have X tons of resources in the ground. It seems like all we need to do is get from A to B, problem solved. Getting from A to B is the hardest part though. Who's going to be in charge? Who's going to do the work, when and how much of it? Those are questions that simply cannot be centrally planned as long as we have scarcity of labor and people with bizarre notions of being individuals. When we have robot slaves, he's going to be all set. Until then, stick to the engineering Jacque.
That being said, I definitely want a house that's been extruded, has no crevices or seams, that's positively pressurized and can be hosed out when dirty.
No the system hates free. Taxes are based on profit. Profit is based on monopoly. Monopolies are thus encouraged and then regulated and taxed.
That is one of the best arguments that I have heard on the Government subverting Capitalism. And it will work, until the people start to speak up. Or worse, start creating their own products. The underground market, if you will.
The biggest problem I see with the system is it is now focused on maximizing profits and forgot about competing. As we will shortly find out, the businesses that got it right and the ones that got it wrong when the cards come collapsing down.
Anyone who buys an old pager system, can start a near free texting service for a town. That will compete with cell phones.
I am waiting for communities to kick into high gear in the face of the Big State. It always amazed me that every house in a development had a riding lawn mower, where if they all kicked in $5 dollars a month in a 100 house development, they could buy their own lawnmowers and a central shed for everyone to use. But we don't "Trust" each other "YET". A little scheduling and some trust and the
No the system hates free. Taxes are based on profit. Profit is based on monopoly. Monopolies are thus encouraged and then regulated and taxed.
That is one of the best arguments that I have heard on the Government subverting Capitalism. And it will work, until the people start to speak up. Or worse, start creating their own products. The underground market, if you will.
The biggest problem I see with the system is it is now focused on maximizing profits and forgot about competing. As we will shortly find out, the businesses that got it right and the ones that got it wrong when the cards come collapsing down.
Anyone who buys an old pager system, can start a near free texting service for a town. That will compete with cell phones.
I am waiting for communities to kick into high gear in the face of the Big State. It always amazed me that every house in a development had a riding lawn mower, where if they all kicked in $5 dollars a month in a 100 house development, they could buy their own lawnmowers and a central shed for everyone to use. But we don't "Trust" each other "YET". A little scheduling and some trust and the country will change.
Well lets try this scientific need determination of what to do, maybe?
How much bread and water (and some vitamins minerals etc in it presumably) do those people scientifically *need*?
If the latest Trek movie proves to have actually solved the problem it was apparently created to solve, to wit that of getting joe public to actually watch movies about resource based society, then is it scientifically necessary to have these folk produce one showing more precisely the now-to-2063 span during which the timetable as last I heard it apparently calls for a major world scale disaster or war or something to occur in order to set the stage, or would it be scientifically adequate to have Paramount produce it?
-MarkM- (more important, is the world scale destruction leading up to Zephram's flight scientifically necessary?)
How much bread and water (and some vitamins minerals etc in it presumably) do those people scientifically *need*?
If the latest Trek movie proves to have actually solved the problem it was apparently created to solve, to wit that of getting joe public to actually watch movies about resource based society, then is it scientifically necessary to have these folk produce one showing more precisely the now-to-2063 span during which the timetable as last I heard it apparently calls for a major world scale disaster or war or something to occur in order to set the stage, or would it be scientifically adequate to have Paramount produce it?
-MarkM- (more important, is the world scale destruction leading up to Zephram's flight scientifically necessary?)
No the system hates free. Taxes are based on profit. Profit is based on monopoly. Monopolies are thus encouraged and then regulated and taxed.
It seems LightRider is trying to break Woods's Law:
Whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone—in the name of helping the poor—will call for curbing or abolishing it.
Whenever the private sector introduces an innovation that makes the poor better off than they would have been without it, or that offers benefits or terms that no one else is prepared to offer them, someone—in the name of helping the poor—will call for curbing or abolishing it.
I was reading the other day that MicroSoft hardly patented anything and stayed out of Lobbying. The reached a point to give away software in the business model and still make money. The Government then started to sue them and take them to court.
They now lobby with the best of them and their products are far from free. The system doesn't seem to like free or even close to it.
Of course some will choose to live in 'Zeitgeist' communities, others will choose not to.
You forget that the whole idea behind a Zeitgeist society is complete Sure it does, just because the number of planets in the local area went down from 9 to 8 doesn't mean there isn't a planet handy that they could use. Even a tiny no longer a planet like Pluto is a whole heck of a lot of resources, plenty to base an economy on, surely? Or think of the "free" energy available if they pick Mercury for their economic utopia.
Its just a matter of getting out there and *doing* it. Nice thing about using some planet other than Earth is they might find they don't have nearly as many "conscientious objectors" hanging around hassling them too...
-MarkM-
Jump to: