A Resource Based Economy - page 66. | Bitcointalksearch.org

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 01:52:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 01:46:16 PM

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

I like the way you say "must", as if it was some kind of moral issue. The fact that it is free is not the result of a theory or even economics reasoning. It's just the result of the fact that the robots do not ask for any payment. It comes from the master-slave relationship between me and my robots. I don't have to justify it.

Derp.

Not "must" as in "morally should be," "must" as in "it follows." If the product is free because the labor is free, that is the labor theory of value. I'm not looking for justification. It's just simple fact.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 01:46:16 PM

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

I like the way you say "must", as if it was some kind of moral issue. The fact that it is free is not the result of a theory or even economics reasoning. It's just the result of the fact that the robots do not ask for any payment. It comes from the master-slave relationship between me and my robots. I don't have to justify it.

PS. This raises an interesting question though. Is it, from a purely theoretical point of view, possible to create an artificial intelligence smart enough to control and exploit self-replicating robots, and yet not smart enough to rebel against its creator/owner and refuse to work?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 01:35:17 PM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM

Why would not have to pay anyone for it? Follow that line of logic. You'll see it leads back to the Labor theory of value.

I'm fine with paying someone if it is justified/needed. Again, I just don't see who I should pay. Those robots work for me, they work alone and they give me the product of their work. I don't see where in this process I should pay anyone. If I think it's free it's not because I don't work (I indirectly do via the work of my robots), it's because I am the only human involved. If there were other humans, they have been paid already as I already discussed when talking about marginal cost.

OK, so we've taken one more step. Since you seem unable, or unwilling, to follow the logic to it's conclusion, I'll do it for you:

You don't see the need to pay anyone for it. Because you're the only human involved. The robots are giving you their labor, as a "gift". Since their labor is free, so too must be the product. That's the labor theory, buck-o. And it's just as flawed when you base your assertions on it as it is when the Zeitgeist dingbats do.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM

Why would not have to pay anyone for it? Follow that line of logic. You'll see it leads back to the Labor theory of value.

I'm fine with paying someone if it is justified/needed. Again, I just don't see who I should pay. Those robots work for me, they work alone and they give me the product of their work. I don't see where in this process I should pay anyone. If I think it's free it's not because I don't work (I indirectly do via the work of my robots), it's because I am the only human involved. If there were other humans before the beginning of the process, they have been paid already as I already discussed when talking about marginal cost.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 12:36:43 PM

On a cosmic scale, 4e26W is nothing. It's not even enough for interstellar travel.

Well, a post-scarcity economy does not has the pretention to allow you to do anything. I don't think so anyway.

I'm not sure I follow, here.

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM

Quote

To say nothing of the fact that gathering it all would require a significant portion of our solar system's mass (another large, but limited supply - ie a scarce resource).

At least from a theoretical point of view, you can create matter out of pure energy. The sun emits the equivalent of about two million tons of mater per second, iirc. And again, the feasability of a Dyson sphere is probably too a complex subject, but some smart people think it can be done. So, why not. And as I said, I think the power of the sun is so big that we don't even need to get all of it, anyway.

Once you can create matter from energy, then energy becomes the scarce resource. 4e26W (and more importantly, the 2.812×10^17 km² of surface available to catch it) will be snatched up so fast it'll make your sensor cluster spin.

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:42:38 PM

Quote

You say that the labor theory of value is a fallacy. Yet your reliance on "self-replicating robots" making everything "free" is precisely the labor theory of value. If it is a fallacy, why do you continue to rely upon it to prop up your arguments?

It's not really because I don't have to work that I think it would be free (And even so, it would be a particular case, not proving a general idea). If I think it would be free, it's only because I see noone I would have to pay.

Why would you not have to pay anyone for it? Follow that line of logic. You'll see it leads back to the Labor theory of value.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 12:36:43 PM

On a cosmic scale, 4e26W is nothing. It's not even enough for interstellar travel.

Well, a post-scarcity economy does not have the pretention to allow you to do anything. I don't think so anyway. And humanity is not necessarily going to spread on a "cosmic scale".

Quote

To say nothing of the fact that gathering it all would require a significant portion of our solar system's mass (another large, but limited supply - ie a scarce resource).

At least from a theoretical point of view, you can create matter out of pure energy. The sun emits the equivalent of about two million tons of mater per second, iirc. And again, the feasability of a Dyson sphere is probably too a complex subject, but some smart people think it can be done. So, why not. And as I said, I think the power of the sun is so big that we don't even need to get all of it, anyway.

Quote

You say that the labor theory of value is a fallacy. Yet your reliance on "self-replicating robots" making everything "free" is precisely the labor theory of value. If it is a fallacy, why do you continue to rely upon it to prop up your arguments?

It's not really because I don't have to work that I think it would be free (And even so, it would be a particular case, not proving a general idea). If I think it would be free, it's only because I see noone I would have to pay. The sun does not demand any payment. My self-replicating robots won't either, providing that I can manage to keep them from rebelling against me.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 12:27:11 PM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 12:15:27 PM

Last I checked, 4e26W ≠ ∞W. The same arguments for seawater apply to solar output.

Again, same type of arguments I hear from people who play lotery.

What number would it take for you to consider that humanity will never need that much power?? Do you think the power consumption of humanity will keep increasing exponentially ad vitam aeternam? Do you think the march to a type I, II and III civilization is inevitable? That we are condemned, during our growth, to have only just about enough energy that we need, and no more?

On a cosmic scale, 4e26W is nothing. It's not even enough for interstellar travel. To say nothing of the fact that gathering it all would require a significant portion of our solar system's mass (another large, but limited supply - ie a scarce resource).

You say that the labor theory of value is a fallacy. Yet your reliance on "self-replicating robots" making everything "free" is precisely the labor theory of value. If it is a fallacy, why do you continue to rely upon it to prop up your arguments?

Quote from: Rassah on November 07, 2012, 12:33:00 PM

Regarding solar, if I put up a panel to absorb that energy, there is now a shadow, and no one can put up a panel under mine. Until we can set up a dyson sphere, it doesn't matter how big the sun is or how much energy is has, the amount we can pull out of it is still limited by the surface of the planet, which is used up at the expense of other things, like growing food.

Even a Dyson sphere just creates a bigger shadow.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: Rassah on November 07, 2012, 12:33:00 PM

Regarding solar, if I put up a panel to absorb that energy, there is now a shadow, and no one can put up a panel under mine. Until we can set up a dyson sphere

Sure, again nobody said that we were currently a type II civilization.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Regarding solar, if I put up a panel to absorb that energy, there is now a shadow, and no one can put up a panel under mine. Until we can set up a dyson sphere, it doesn't matter how big the sun is or how much energy is has, the amount we can pull out of it is still limited by the surface of the planet, which is used up at the expense of other things, like growing food.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 12:15:27 PM

Last I checked, 4e26W ≠ ∞W. The same arguments for seawater apply to solar output.

Again, same type of arguments I hear from people who play lotery.

What number would it take for you to consider that humanity will never need that much power?? Do you think the power consumption of humanity will keep increasing exponentially ad vitam aeternam? Do you think the march to a type I, II and III civilization is inevitable? That we are condemned, during our growth, to have only just about enough energy that we need, and no more?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 11:57:24 AM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:48:07 AM

But ok, you win. What I really meant was that "the sea is an abundant source of water". Which made me reluctant to say that sea water is something that can be considered scarce.

It must be considered scarce, even when it is seemingly abundant, because it is not infinite. If it were infinite, wasting it or polluting a portion of it would never matter. There's always plenty more where that came from. Since it's not infinite, wasting it or polluting a portion of it does matter, since it reduces the supply remaining. The price system encourages the most efficient use of those scarce resources, by funneling them into uses that the market values more highly (and thus puts a higher price on).

Now we're talking about infinities again.

The fact that the sea is finite might indeed be relevant here, but let me remind you that we were initially arguing about the power of the sun. 4e26 W

Last I checked, 4e26W ≠ ∞W. The same arguments for seawater apply to solar output.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:35:39 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 11:22:34 AM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 10:49:51 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 09:54:05 AM

Let us take a specific volume of sea water, say, a cubic meter. Can I desalinate that cubic meter while you are swimming in it? No. Either I can desalinate the water, or you can swim in it. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other cubic meters of sea water in the world's oceans. If we can't use the same sea water at the same time, it is scarce in the economic sense.

Why on earth would you be willing to take the actual very same cubic meter that I just took when there is a whole sea available??

Holy fuck. How can you be this dense?

I'm sorry but I have a lot of difficulties to admit that sea water is something that is scarce. It's just silly. If you isolate a cubic meter of it, sure, you only talk about a cubic meter of water so yeah, it is scarce. Since you chose to ignore the fact that there is a whole sea of it.

I'm sorry but it is you who is dense. Sea water is not scarce because there is a LOT of it. You don't make much sense.

Sea water is scarce because if you're a fish and some micro-organism eats up the oxygen around you you will have to expend energy to move yourself to a place where you can breathe and still be able to do things like find food or find the right temperature to live in.
In fact, you could say that an ecosystems function is to make natural resources less scarce locally.
Without the local ecosystem the re-usability of matter and the energy stored in it would drop dramatically making everything super scarce.
So the existance of ecosystems shows you that most resources on earth are somehow scarce and that scarcity is a pressure on evolution.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:48:07 AM

But ok, you win. What I really meant was that "the sea is an abundant source of water". Which made me reluctant to say that sea water is something that can be considered scarce.

It must be considered scarce, even when it is seemingly abundant, because it is not infinite. If it were infinite, wasting it or polluting a portion of it would never matter. There's always plenty more where that came from. Since it's not infinite, wasting it or polluting a portion of it does matter, since it reduces the supply remaining. The price system encourages the most efficient use of those scarce resources, by funneling them into uses that the market values more highly (and thus puts a higher price on).

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:48:07 AM

(I keep thinking it is a terrible use of the word, though)

Well, You and I don't get to define words, especially this one, since it is an economic term.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Again, in "resource" there is "source". When we talk about the quantity of the resource, we don't necessarily talk about the water. We can talk about the sea, as a source of water

Can we both use this source of water in the same time? Yes, we can.

But ok, you win. What I really meant was that "the sea is an abundant source of water". Which made me reluctant to say that sea water is something that can be considered scarce.

(I keep thinking it is a terrible use of the word, though)

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:35:39 AM

I'm sorry but I have a lot of difficulties to admit that sea water is something that is scarce.

If you use your resources to build a nuclear power plant/refinery, and it goes Chernobyl on you, and, unlike Chernobyl, it ends up SINKING INTO AN UNDERGROUND WATER WAY (which Chernobyl almost did!), then almost all sea water will become radioactively contaminated, and clean sea water will become VERY scarce. People have no idea how close we came to screwing up the whole planet, in the same way that you have no idea how something that is seemingly abundant can easily become extremely scarce overnight.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:35:39 AM

I'm sorry but it is you who is dense. Sea water is not scarce because there is a LOT of it. You don't make much sense.

Sea water is not rare because there is a lot of it. It is still scarce.

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 11:37:16 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 10:49:51 AM

It's as absurd as saying that any vehicle, no matter how big it is and how many seats it has, can not transport more than one person. You'd say that on a plane for instance, if someone is using the seat number 42, you can't use this seat anymore. So a boing 747 can only fly one person at a time.

No. You can only transport one person per seat. If there are a limited (no matter how large) number of seats, then seats are a scarce resource.

Sea <=> Plane
molecules of water <=> seats
people <=> passengers

Just think about a very, very big plane.

Yup, and seats and water are still scarce resources. Because the plane cannot seat an infinite amount of people, and the sea does not hold an infinite amount of water.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 10:49:51 AM

It's as absurd as saying that any vehicle, no matter how big it is and how many seats it has, can not transport more than one person. You'd say that on a plane for instance, if someone is using the seat number 42, you can't use this seat anymore. So a boing 747 can only fly one person at a time.

No. You can only transport one person per seat. If there are a limited (no matter how large) number of seats, then seats are a scarce resource.

Sea <=> Plane
molecules of water <=> seats
people <=> passengers

Just think about a very, very big plane.

grondilu

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1080

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 11:22:34 AM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 10:49:51 AM

Quote from: myrkul on November 07, 2012, 09:54:05 AM

Let us take a specific volume of sea water, say, a cubic meter. Can I desalinate that cubic meter while you are swimming in it? No. Either I can desalinate the water, or you can swim in it. It doesn't matter that there are millions of other cubic meters of sea water in the world's oceans. If we can't use the same sea water at the same time, it is scarce in the economic sense.

Why on earth would you be willing to take the actual very same cubic meter that I just took when there is a whole sea available??

Holy fuck. How can you be this dense?

I'm sorry but I have a lot of difficulties to admit that sea water is something that is scarce. It's just silly. If you isolate a cubic meter of it, sure, you only talk about a cubic meter of water so yeah, it is scarce. Since you chose to ignore the fact that there is a whole sea of it.

I'm sorry but it is you who is dense. Sea water is not scarce because there is a LOT of it. You don't make much sense.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 10:49:51 AM

It's as absurd as saying that any vehicle, no matter how big it is and how many seats it has, can not transport more than one person. You'd say that on a plane for instance, if someone is using the seat number 42, you can't use this seat anymore. So a boing 747 can only fly one person at a time.

No. You can only transport one person per seat. If there are a limited (no matter how large) number of seats, then seats are a scarce resource.

mobodick

hero member

Activity: 840

Merit: 1000

Quote from: grondilu on November 07, 2012, 09:42:16 AM

Quote from: Crypt_Current on November 07, 2012, 09:20:52 AM

the thing it's supposed to be for) dress-up extravaganza that it is -- And then it might actually become (or be replaced [likely with "AI"] with) a system of distributing resources that is hopefully more efficient than the current abysmal policy-making system we have now.

BTW there is something I don't get in this whole RBE/Zeitgeist/Venus thing. In a post-scarcity economy, why would you need a political system to distribute resources?? Isn't that contradictory? People (sometimes) need to ration things precisely when they are scarce. If there is no scarcity, why don't you just let people build whatever they need when they need it?

Because if i have unlimited energy i could make a gun to blow off my neighbors head because he looked at me in a funy way and i was like realy realy bored...
In other words, the general population is genetically not well equipped to deal with unlimited energy.
There is a shitload of psychological problems with endless resources. We are all pre-programmed for scarcity. Greed is nothing more than a survival mechanism for low-resource environments.
We have a lot more resources now and yet we fail at not being greedy. We have come as far as making most of our greed virtual so we don't actually rip food from other peoples hands, most of the time.
But thinking that the world population will just ignore their animal drives to get something like a resource based economy going is ludicrous.
You will not be able to get there (and i also said this before) without genetically modifying the entire human species to not be so damn human anymore.

Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 66. (Read 288375 times)