Why infinite growth is a ridiculous concept born out of ignorance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 84. (Read 288348 times)
A recent interview with Venus Project founder Jacque Fresco.
Quote from: The Venus Project link='https://www.facebook.com/notes/the-venus-project-global/a-personal-interview-with-jacque-fresco/207583252638667'
Interview
Was there something specific you experienced that made you first begin thinking about alternate forms of living, or was it more of a compilation of experiences?
Living through the 1929 Great Depression helped shape my social conscience. During this time, I realized the earth was still the same place, manufacturing plants were still intact, and resources were still there, but people didn’t have money to buy the products. I felt the rules of the game we play by were outmoded and damaging. This began a life-long quest resulting in the conclusions and designs presented in The Venus Project.
Conditions of misery, suffering, war, and war profiteering were the incentive and inspiration for my work. I was also motivated by the seeming incompetence of governments, the academic world, and a lack of solutions from scientists. Many fail as generalists because of their over-specialization on limited aspects of social problems. Scientists, politicians, and academicians see problems from inside the system they’re in, which is what’s responsible for the problems in the first place. I am disappointed with those who worry about terra-forming other planets while our own is still full of war, poverty, hunger, and environmental neglect.
Working with drug addicts, alcoholics, and so-called juvenile delinquents in New York City convinced me that instead of working with individuals, more effective methods would deal with the societal conditions that create dysfunctional behaviors in the first place.
Can you remember your very first design moment?
Yes. When I was about 13, one of my relatives stuck his hand into a metal fan while it was on. This led me to design a fan with rubber or fabric blades. I submitted the design to some companies, but they showed no interest. Shortly after that, the product came out on the market. This was my introduction to the market place.
Once when I was 10, I designed a special candle for a religious sect in New York City. They weren’t permitted to put out a candle on their holy days, so I designed one that would self extinguish at any hour they desired. I timed the burning of the candle for whatever amount of time was needed. Then I cut the wick at different points in the candle that correlated with different times and pulled the remaining wick out from the bottom of the candle.
Then, Mr. Fresco, in noticing in your work a great faith on changes and a great positiveness towards things that seem impossible or, at least, possible in a distant future (like the sea colonisation forecast), what I’m asking myself is : where do you take this great trust in challenges from?
Working in the aircraft industry I learned a lot about planes that move in three dimensions and undergo a wide range of stresses. It was essential to consider many things that differ from static structures on the ground. There were challenges like simplifying design, eliminating conspicuous waste, and obtaining the greatest performance with a minimum expenditure of energy.
Another factor encouraging my positive attitude about problem solving was World War II when the U.S. spent billions of dollars for weapons of mass destruction in the Manhattan Project. Cost was no object and it was one of the largest and best-financed projects undertaken to that date. I realized the same energies that went into the Manhattan Project could be channeled to improve and update our way of life, and to achieve and maintain the optimal symbiotic relationship between nature and humankind. If we are willing to spend that amount of money, resources, and human lives in times of war, we must ask why we don’t commit equal resources to improving the lives of everyone and anticipating humane needs for the future in times of peace.
When scientists were called upon to solve problems of a military nature, the answers were immediately forthcoming. This demonstrated to me the ability of science and technology to solve problems when properly organized and funded, but it is shameful that these methods are not applied to solving social problems on a global scale.
It is also shameful when billions are spent on space projects for terra-forming uninhabited planets to make them habitable while our own planet is neglected, and the land, sea, and air are polluted.
In my work I am not attempting to predict the future. I am only pointing out what is possible with the intelligent application and humane use of science and technology. This does not call for scientists to manage society. What I suggest is applying the methods of science to the social system for the benefit of human kind and the environment.
A quick look at your resume shows that you are by far an ingenious person, having worked at various and different fields. When did you start engaging with Human Factors Engineering and elaborating on the perspectives of human capability?
I did it before it was a recognized profession. It began as an approach for making human procedures in technology more efficient. Soon, they started getting more production out of people in shorter times, and I realized the advantages served industry rather than people which made me uncomfortable.
What do you think the major changes will be in near or far future of the world?
We have the technology to build a global paradise on earth, and at the same time we have the power to end life as we know it. I am a futurist. I cannot predict the actual future--only what it can be if we manage the earth and its resources intelligently. Where I may differ from other futurists is that I work on actual blueprints and methodologies which can achieve a sustainable global society in which all will have a higher standard of living with greater freedom and opportunity. If we work toward this new global society, we can free the world from hunger, war, and poverty--a world humanity has failed to achieve throughout history. If civilization continues on its present course, we will simply repeat the same mistakes all over again.
You claim that we can overcome the world’s constant issues such as war, poverty and hunger. How is this possible? Are you working on any kind of solutions about these?
My entire life’s work and alternative social design are all about solutions to these problems. It is not just patch work to paper over the problems we face, but I have always worked on proposals to eliminate the conditions responsible for these problems in the first place. To properly answer this question would take volumes. I can only recommend my book The Best That Money Can’t Buy. Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
You've been compared with DaVinci. How does it feel? Does this make you feel pressured to meet these expectations?
I don’t think about this comparison at all. I am not pressured to meet any expectation except that which is available to me. If people support the project, then it will occur. If they fail to do so, we will continue with our current problems. It is not up to me. All I am able to do at this time is to present a possible alternative. The future of sustaining our species depends on the actions we take today.
I feel that I have advantages greater than Da Vinci’s such as access to more information, materials, and methods.
Are you optimist or pessimist about the future?
I am neither. It does not depend on me alone. I do all I can to help bring about a positive future which could overcome many of the problems the world faces today.
Anyone you’re dying to meet?
Any person, group, or nation that will help promote or sponsor The Venus Project.
Why self taught?
Instruction in academia did not emphasize what I thought of as essential points. I was interested in the broad range of interrelated connections within the physical sciences, but formal studies isolated each branch of science. I therefore took it upon myself to integrate the separate disciplines into a synergistic whole so as to apply science and technology to the solving of global problems.
Do you have any personal hero's?
I owe a great deal to people from many disciplines who contributed to this vision. People like Jules Verne, Edward Bellamy, Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, H. G. Wells, Sir Jagardis Chunder Bose, Alfred Korzybski, Walter B. Cannon, Stewart Chase, Clarence Darrow, Arthur C. Clarke, Mark Twain, Jacque Loeb, Carl Sagan and others too numerous to mention.
What´s been the highlights in your life so far?
The highlight is the interest shown to The Venus Project by people throughout the world through the Internet, magazines, books, documentaries, and more.
"Foresight" is not enough for the future, we need "vision". What’s the difference between them?
Foresight to me is based on the hopes, desires, and aims of individuals, but without a practical blueprint, it is no more than science fiction. A constructive "vision" requires a methodology for achieving the desired goal of a sustainable future. The blueprint must include plans for education, health care, housing, city planning, transportation, clean sources of energy, etc.
Which projects get you excited or scare you about the future?
What gets me excited about the future are the fantastic achievements yet undreamed of, and the possibility of global unification. What scares me about the future is our inability to use our technology constructively and intelligently.
How does your design process look? How do you start working on something?
I first ask what do I hope to accomplish and what is the simplest approach to a given problem. By simplest approach, I mean given the tools and information available. If I were to design the least expensive airplane, using minimum materials with maximum strength, and a wide margin of safety, I would select a flying wing. The flying wing eliminates fuselage, tail, rudder, and stabilizer. The passengers are seated in the wing. I designed many variations on flying wings in the early 1930’s.
Social designs must be based on the carrying capacity of Earth’s resources, and not on the philosophy, desires, aesthetics, or advantages of particular people. For example, the circular design of cities is based upon a minimum expenditure of energy for maximum social gain. Architecture, when intelligently designed, will use the least amount of material for the safest and most efficient structure possible. As materials improve and change, so Will architecture and the designs of cities. This will not limit advantages, but will expand amenities and the goods and services available to everyone.
Is there any one field of discipline you find most promising right now, as far as technological advancement? Architecture? Material science, perhaps?
The viewpoint of the generalist which incorporates all of the factors necessary to sustain a highly technical, advanced civilization.
How much did technology give you the opportunity to believe in the objectification of your visions and how, over your career, did you live (and continue living) the frenetic conceptual and formal evolution of this technology?
Technology provided the formulas and methods for solving problems in various areas of the social spectrum. I was always confronted with many different problems in industries like aircraft, medical, plastic, housing, energy development, motion picture, future studies, etc.
Your work is really wide-ranging and covers many fields like drawing, small-scale models, 3D graphic art, architecture, writing, cinematography, and engineering; I’d like to know, how do you live the properties of these instruments?
I apply all of these different disciplines to environmental design using the present means available for global social arrangements, but I don’t see my solutions and designs as final frontiers.
First of all, how can we describe the future and the designing of it?
We develop the probable direction that the future will take by extrapolating from present day developments, technology, and trends. We also include a new and humane approach to our proposed environmental and social arrangements.
Is imagining the most important "starting point" and enough for designing?
No, imagining is not the most important starting point. The most important thing is to be specific, and not just imagine, but instead, to base our design on today’s science and technology, and apply it to the well-being of all people and the protection of the environment. This is in contrast to mere wishes, aspirations, or philosophical notions.
How do you evaluate the robot conception in the future? As in the science fiction movies, everything is going to be done by robots. Is everything going to be different or will humans be the most effective factor?
SiFi movies are written by artists and writers who are seldom qualified to describe technological developments, particularly as applied to the social system. Many express a fear of technology, and lack a deeper understanding of the humane potential of technological development. Technologies are simply extensions of human attributes.
In technologically developed countries, industry and the military are assigning more and more decision-making to machine technology. Machines will not take over, but they will eventually be assigned the tasks. Today’s machines can handle one thousand trillion bits of information per second. No humans have this capability. In the near future, the operation of a global society will be far too complex for any sophisticated group of humans to manage.
That is why I urgently advocate that society utilize cybernetics not merely for tabulation and measurement, but also to process vital information and channel it for the benefit of all humankind. Only our most capable computers can store and sort through the data necessary to arrive at equitable and sustainable analyses and decisions about the development and distribution of resources on a global scale.
The most visionary writers and futurists of the twentieth century would have had difficulty accepting the possibility of robots replacing surgeons, engineers, top management, airline pilots, and other professionals. It is no longer unthinkable that machines may one day write novels or poems, compose music, and eventually surpass humans in government and in the management of world affairs.
This is not about the morality and ethics of human participation, but a straightforward description of future technological trends.
Do we use this information effectively?
No we are not yet wise enough to use our information intelligently. Unfortunately, today we misuse and abuse science and technology. We waste our most advanced minds and resources on weapons and other destructive devices.
Watching you giving an interview at 1974 (to Larry King back then), surely comes as a surprise in terms of predicting society’ s future and suggesting alternative ways of thinking. What was the feedback you got back in the ‘70’s and what is today’s feedback?
There was very little feedback at that time because the conditions were fairly stable. It was only when society became less prosperous for the majority of people that the interest increased. If the film Zeitgeist Addendum had been made 10 years ago, it would not have gotten as much interest. Social conditions, rather than the wishes of individuals, are mainly responsible for social change.
Have your ever pondered "why are we here?"
The question "why are we here?" is a philosophical question which has no reference. Attempts have been made by theologians to answer this. Our answer is that we are here as a by-product of evolution. The scientific response is not a question of "why are we here," it is "what are the processes that generate different life forms." We also go into this in the book The Best That Money Can’t Buy, by Jacque Fresco, above on page 19 in the chapter "From Superstition To Science."
And then the last question Mr Fresco: In your opinion, what is the biggest revolution which can be realized today?
The Venus Project is a concept that could happen today but it is not up to me, it depends on what others do to help bring it about.
Jacque Fresco
Was there something specific you experienced that made you first begin thinking about alternate forms of living, or was it more of a compilation of experiences?
Living through the 1929 Great Depression helped shape my social conscience. During this time, I realized the earth was still the same place, manufacturing plants were still intact, and resources were still there, but people didn’t have money to buy the products. I felt the rules of the game we play by were outmoded and damaging. This began a life-long quest resulting in the conclusions and designs presented in The Venus Project.
Conditions of misery, suffering, war, and war profiteering were the incentive and inspiration for my work. I was also motivated by the seeming incompetence of governments, the academic world, and a lack of solutions from scientists. Many fail as generalists because of their over-specialization on limited aspects of social problems. Scientists, politicians, and academicians see problems from inside the system they’re in, which is what’s responsible for the problems in the first place. I am disappointed with those who worry about terra-forming other planets while our own is still full of war, poverty, hunger, and environmental neglect.
Working with drug addicts, alcoholics, and so-called juvenile delinquents in New York City convinced me that instead of working with individuals, more effective methods would deal with the societal conditions that create dysfunctional behaviors in the first place.
Can you remember your very first design moment?
Yes. When I was about 13, one of my relatives stuck his hand into a metal fan while it was on. This led me to design a fan with rubber or fabric blades. I submitted the design to some companies, but they showed no interest. Shortly after that, the product came out on the market. This was my introduction to the market place.
Once when I was 10, I designed a special candle for a religious sect in New York City. They weren’t permitted to put out a candle on their holy days, so I designed one that would self extinguish at any hour they desired. I timed the burning of the candle for whatever amount of time was needed. Then I cut the wick at different points in the candle that correlated with different times and pulled the remaining wick out from the bottom of the candle.
Then, Mr. Fresco, in noticing in your work a great faith on changes and a great positiveness towards things that seem impossible or, at least, possible in a distant future (like the sea colonisation forecast), what I’m asking myself is : where do you take this great trust in challenges from?
Working in the aircraft industry I learned a lot about planes that move in three dimensions and undergo a wide range of stresses. It was essential to consider many things that differ from static structures on the ground. There were challenges like simplifying design, eliminating conspicuous waste, and obtaining the greatest performance with a minimum expenditure of energy.
Another factor encouraging my positive attitude about problem solving was World War II when the U.S. spent billions of dollars for weapons of mass destruction in the Manhattan Project. Cost was no object and it was one of the largest and best-financed projects undertaken to that date. I realized the same energies that went into the Manhattan Project could be channeled to improve and update our way of life, and to achieve and maintain the optimal symbiotic relationship between nature and humankind. If we are willing to spend that amount of money, resources, and human lives in times of war, we must ask why we don’t commit equal resources to improving the lives of everyone and anticipating humane needs for the future in times of peace.
When scientists were called upon to solve problems of a military nature, the answers were immediately forthcoming. This demonstrated to me the ability of science and technology to solve problems when properly organized and funded, but it is shameful that these methods are not applied to solving social problems on a global scale.
It is also shameful when billions are spent on space projects for terra-forming uninhabited planets to make them habitable while our own planet is neglected, and the land, sea, and air are polluted.
In my work I am not attempting to predict the future. I am only pointing out what is possible with the intelligent application and humane use of science and technology. This does not call for scientists to manage society. What I suggest is applying the methods of science to the social system for the benefit of human kind and the environment.
A quick look at your resume shows that you are by far an ingenious person, having worked at various and different fields. When did you start engaging with Human Factors Engineering and elaborating on the perspectives of human capability?
I did it before it was a recognized profession. It began as an approach for making human procedures in technology more efficient. Soon, they started getting more production out of people in shorter times, and I realized the advantages served industry rather than people which made me uncomfortable.
What do you think the major changes will be in near or far future of the world?
We have the technology to build a global paradise on earth, and at the same time we have the power to end life as we know it. I am a futurist. I cannot predict the actual future--only what it can be if we manage the earth and its resources intelligently. Where I may differ from other futurists is that I work on actual blueprints and methodologies which can achieve a sustainable global society in which all will have a higher standard of living with greater freedom and opportunity. If we work toward this new global society, we can free the world from hunger, war, and poverty--a world humanity has failed to achieve throughout history. If civilization continues on its present course, we will simply repeat the same mistakes all over again.
You claim that we can overcome the world’s constant issues such as war, poverty and hunger. How is this possible? Are you working on any kind of solutions about these?
My entire life’s work and alternative social design are all about solutions to these problems. It is not just patch work to paper over the problems we face, but I have always worked on proposals to eliminate the conditions responsible for these problems in the first place. To properly answer this question would take volumes. I can only recommend my book The Best That Money Can’t Buy. Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
You've been compared with DaVinci. How does it feel? Does this make you feel pressured to meet these expectations?
I don’t think about this comparison at all. I am not pressured to meet any expectation except that which is available to me. If people support the project, then it will occur. If they fail to do so, we will continue with our current problems. It is not up to me. All I am able to do at this time is to present a possible alternative. The future of sustaining our species depends on the actions we take today.
I feel that I have advantages greater than Da Vinci’s such as access to more information, materials, and methods.
Are you optimist or pessimist about the future?
I am neither. It does not depend on me alone. I do all I can to help bring about a positive future which could overcome many of the problems the world faces today.
Anyone you’re dying to meet?
Any person, group, or nation that will help promote or sponsor The Venus Project.
Why self taught?
Instruction in academia did not emphasize what I thought of as essential points. I was interested in the broad range of interrelated connections within the physical sciences, but formal studies isolated each branch of science. I therefore took it upon myself to integrate the separate disciplines into a synergistic whole so as to apply science and technology to the solving of global problems.
Do you have any personal hero's?
I owe a great deal to people from many disciplines who contributed to this vision. People like Jules Verne, Edward Bellamy, Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, H. G. Wells, Sir Jagardis Chunder Bose, Alfred Korzybski, Walter B. Cannon, Stewart Chase, Clarence Darrow, Arthur C. Clarke, Mark Twain, Jacque Loeb, Carl Sagan and others too numerous to mention.
What´s been the highlights in your life so far?
The highlight is the interest shown to The Venus Project by people throughout the world through the Internet, magazines, books, documentaries, and more.
"Foresight" is not enough for the future, we need "vision". What’s the difference between them?
Foresight to me is based on the hopes, desires, and aims of individuals, but without a practical blueprint, it is no more than science fiction. A constructive "vision" requires a methodology for achieving the desired goal of a sustainable future. The blueprint must include plans for education, health care, housing, city planning, transportation, clean sources of energy, etc.
Which projects get you excited or scare you about the future?
What gets me excited about the future are the fantastic achievements yet undreamed of, and the possibility of global unification. What scares me about the future is our inability to use our technology constructively and intelligently.
How does your design process look? How do you start working on something?
I first ask what do I hope to accomplish and what is the simplest approach to a given problem. By simplest approach, I mean given the tools and information available. If I were to design the least expensive airplane, using minimum materials with maximum strength, and a wide margin of safety, I would select a flying wing. The flying wing eliminates fuselage, tail, rudder, and stabilizer. The passengers are seated in the wing. I designed many variations on flying wings in the early 1930’s.
Social designs must be based on the carrying capacity of Earth’s resources, and not on the philosophy, desires, aesthetics, or advantages of particular people. For example, the circular design of cities is based upon a minimum expenditure of energy for maximum social gain. Architecture, when intelligently designed, will use the least amount of material for the safest and most efficient structure possible. As materials improve and change, so Will architecture and the designs of cities. This will not limit advantages, but will expand amenities and the goods and services available to everyone.
Is there any one field of discipline you find most promising right now, as far as technological advancement? Architecture? Material science, perhaps?
The viewpoint of the generalist which incorporates all of the factors necessary to sustain a highly technical, advanced civilization.
How much did technology give you the opportunity to believe in the objectification of your visions and how, over your career, did you live (and continue living) the frenetic conceptual and formal evolution of this technology?
Technology provided the formulas and methods for solving problems in various areas of the social spectrum. I was always confronted with many different problems in industries like aircraft, medical, plastic, housing, energy development, motion picture, future studies, etc.
Your work is really wide-ranging and covers many fields like drawing, small-scale models, 3D graphic art, architecture, writing, cinematography, and engineering; I’d like to know, how do you live the properties of these instruments?
I apply all of these different disciplines to environmental design using the present means available for global social arrangements, but I don’t see my solutions and designs as final frontiers.
First of all, how can we describe the future and the designing of it?
We develop the probable direction that the future will take by extrapolating from present day developments, technology, and trends. We also include a new and humane approach to our proposed environmental and social arrangements.
Is imagining the most important "starting point" and enough for designing?
No, imagining is not the most important starting point. The most important thing is to be specific, and not just imagine, but instead, to base our design on today’s science and technology, and apply it to the well-being of all people and the protection of the environment. This is in contrast to mere wishes, aspirations, or philosophical notions.
How do you evaluate the robot conception in the future? As in the science fiction movies, everything is going to be done by robots. Is everything going to be different or will humans be the most effective factor?
SiFi movies are written by artists and writers who are seldom qualified to describe technological developments, particularly as applied to the social system. Many express a fear of technology, and lack a deeper understanding of the humane potential of technological development. Technologies are simply extensions of human attributes.
In technologically developed countries, industry and the military are assigning more and more decision-making to machine technology. Machines will not take over, but they will eventually be assigned the tasks. Today’s machines can handle one thousand trillion bits of information per second. No humans have this capability. In the near future, the operation of a global society will be far too complex for any sophisticated group of humans to manage.
That is why I urgently advocate that society utilize cybernetics not merely for tabulation and measurement, but also to process vital information and channel it for the benefit of all humankind. Only our most capable computers can store and sort through the data necessary to arrive at equitable and sustainable analyses and decisions about the development and distribution of resources on a global scale.
The most visionary writers and futurists of the twentieth century would have had difficulty accepting the possibility of robots replacing surgeons, engineers, top management, airline pilots, and other professionals. It is no longer unthinkable that machines may one day write novels or poems, compose music, and eventually surpass humans in government and in the management of world affairs.
This is not about the morality and ethics of human participation, but a straightforward description of future technological trends.
Do we use this information effectively?
No we are not yet wise enough to use our information intelligently. Unfortunately, today we misuse and abuse science and technology. We waste our most advanced minds and resources on weapons and other destructive devices.
Watching you giving an interview at 1974 (to Larry King back then), surely comes as a surprise in terms of predicting society’ s future and suggesting alternative ways of thinking. What was the feedback you got back in the ‘70’s and what is today’s feedback?
There was very little feedback at that time because the conditions were fairly stable. It was only when society became less prosperous for the majority of people that the interest increased. If the film Zeitgeist Addendum had been made 10 years ago, it would not have gotten as much interest. Social conditions, rather than the wishes of individuals, are mainly responsible for social change.
Have your ever pondered "why are we here?"
The question "why are we here?" is a philosophical question which has no reference. Attempts have been made by theologians to answer this. Our answer is that we are here as a by-product of evolution. The scientific response is not a question of "why are we here," it is "what are the processes that generate different life forms." We also go into this in the book The Best That Money Can’t Buy, by Jacque Fresco, above on page 19 in the chapter "From Superstition To Science."
And then the last question Mr Fresco: In your opinion, what is the biggest revolution which can be realized today?
The Venus Project is a concept that could happen today but it is not up to me, it depends on what others do to help bring it about.
Jacque Fresco
Anyone interested in supporting an RBE would be interested to know that an open source movie project is being developed to help show the world what life would be like in such society. The project is now accepting bitcoin donations.
http://www.wakingupmovie.com/2011/12/bitcoin-donations/
http://www.wakingupmovie.com/2011/12/bitcoin-donations/
I just read the beginning of this thread back from April. I think it very well illustrates an example of the phase of "unrealistic expectations" we've been hearing about lately.
It's all based on science. No belief necessary. The problem with science though, is that it takes hard work to achieve.
I just read the beginning of this thread back from April. I think it very well illustrates an example of the phase of "unrealistic expectations" we've been hearing about lately.
I know what...
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.
Well we have to be realistic since global movement would pretty much impossible right now which i tend to agree, we would just to have to manage things locally.
Global system would be just the most efficient from the scientific point of view, but it doesn't mean any part of RBE or some sort of hybrid economy cant happen anywhere until someone conquers entire world.
But locally you will hardly have the resources to make such a technologically advanced society a reality.
You would rely almost entirely on current society.
I know what...
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.
Well we have to be realistic since global movement would pretty much impossible right now which i tend to agree, we would just to have to manage things locally.
Global system would be just the most efficient from the scientific point of view, but it doesn't mean any part of RBE or some sort of hybrid economy cant happen anywhere until someone conquers entire world.
Its an old topic but i will try to answer.
I don't, where did i ?
History is written by the victors.
I don't know which utopia you are referring to. Resource based economy is just it. Economic model , it is not like we can create matter out of thin air. It is not like everyone will be happy like on drugs. Where did you imagine such a concept i don't know.
Yeah i agree i can see how people are in letarg to even such a basic concept like money out of debt it its effect on their lives. But it is a matter of environment they were condition form the day they were born not to question, get a job and someday get rich.
And i already pointed out that it is not about setting up goals for people but about creating a framework where they are free to pursuit their interests.
I dont understand how concept of abundance fit into those goals.
Is it your opinion that there should be limited unmount of food on earth when we could creates abundance, just because some people have a goal of controlling all farming on the world ( monsanto )
??
Are you saying we should maintain artificial scarcity ??
I dont understand your train of thoughts at all.
Abundance state is in self interest of all people involved. Do you want to live your live in uncertainty about fulfilling your basic needs or would you rather spend your energy on something better ?
No amount of genes can tell you that option 1 is better no matter what genes makes you.
I seriously doubt that that is in human nature not to create of abundance of food around the world if we could. Abundance state in best self interest of all it not out of air concept.
There is only thing stopping us right now it is wrong incentive and corporations like Monsanto that actually would like to control all farming.
Would you deny that most people are driven by emotions and desires?
I don't, where did i ?
What do you mean propaganda?
It's all over history.
It's all over history.
History is written by the victors.
People have feelings and this plan would only work if everyone suddenly decided to ignore them.
Or someone was capable of manipulating the feelings of others to suit the grand purpose.
The idea is based in an utopia and that makes it unachievable.
History tells us that any move towards utopia ends with tyranny
Or someone was capable of manipulating the feelings of others to suit the grand purpose.
The idea is based in an utopia and that makes it unachievable.
History tells us that any move towards utopia ends with tyranny
I don't know which utopia you are referring to. Resource based economy is just it. Economic model , it is not like we can create matter out of thin air. It is not like everyone will be happy like on drugs. Where did you imagine such a concept i don't know.
It is not something that can easily be fixed by education.
Education will help people help themselfs but change is not taught in schools, it needs an incentive, a soil to carry it.
People need to have some sort of bad experience to commit to change.
And i think at the moment most people would not want such a change simply because they have it too good.
That's the reality of things.
Education will help people help themselfs but change is not taught in schools, it needs an incentive, a soil to carry it.
People need to have some sort of bad experience to commit to change.
And i think at the moment most people would not want such a change simply because they have it too good.
That's the reality of things.
Yeah i agree i can see how people are in letarg to even such a basic concept like money out of debt it its effect on their lives. But it is a matter of environment they were condition form the day they were born not to question, get a job and someday get rich.
The problem is that parents thinking of their children are egoistical (dictated by their biology).
Their deepest drive is not to have a good earth for all children. They want their child to be better than all other children.
Of course i'm generalizing, but that only shows that there are different people on earth with different sets of goals, short and long term.
Their deepest drive is not to have a good earth for all children. They want their child to be better than all other children.
Of course i'm generalizing, but that only shows that there are different people on earth with different sets of goals, short and long term.
And i already pointed out that it is not about setting up goals for people but about creating a framework where they are free to pursuit their interests.
I dont understand how concept of abundance fit into those goals.
Is it your opinion that there should be limited unmount of food on earth when we could creates abundance, just because some people have a goal of controlling all farming on the world ( monsanto )
??Are you saying we should maintain artificial scarcity ??
I dont understand your train of thoughts at all.
Abundance state is in self interest of all people involved. Do you want to live your live in uncertainty about fulfilling your basic needs or would you rather spend your energy on something better ?
No amount of genes can tell you that option 1 is better no matter what genes makes you.
You give the example of someone in the middle east hating yankees.
But how is that different from a yankee hating an arab?
Or your neighbour hating you?
Is the capacity for hatered not dictated by genes?
Yes it is. But as you can see the environment triggers them. You don't hate your neighbor out of the blue.But how is that different from a yankee hating an arab?
Or your neighbour hating you?
Is the capacity for hatered not dictated by genes?
And maybe i should state again that i am not against the idea of a RBE but i just think that it is not feasible given human nature.
I seriously doubt that that is in human nature not to create of abundance of food around the world if we could. Abundance state in best self interest of all it not out of air concept.
There is only thing stopping us right now it is wrong incentive and corporations like Monsanto that actually would like to control all farming.
it's interesting to ponder if a free market would still hold up in such a society
individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them
individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them
So, everyone will be a capitalist, it's not a danger to the free market. "Socially necessary labour time" will become a meaningless term. But the thing is, IMO, it was meaningless all along anyway. Resource management is an occupation by itself and the more decentralized it is the better, for all humanity.
The Relationship of automation to unemployment article is quite thorough on wikipedia.
Even Keynes saw Technological Unemployment as an upcoming problem, but the prevailing opinion of economists on this today is that despite the concerns throughout the industrial and modern era it has always proven to be a myth, as new areas with new jobs kept opening up that had not been seen before.
However, among those wise academics it seems that Nobody expects the Technological Singularity.
Assuming there comes a time when there really can't be created any new jobs for humans, it's interesting to ponder if a free market would still hold up in such a society. It's possible that it will find its balance with working hours becoming less while income growing. Alternatively/additionally there could be stronger decentralization in any aspect of life, so that individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them (bitcoin mining anyone? Also for example instead of hosting internet clouds in vast data centers of a few large corporations, how about hosting clouds decentralized in encrypted containers on people's hard drives that are accessed through a failsafe, RAID-like functionality of redundancy across the networks?).
Even Keynes saw Technological Unemployment as an upcoming problem, but the prevailing opinion of economists on this today is that despite the concerns throughout the industrial and modern era it has always proven to be a myth, as new areas with new jobs kept opening up that had not been seen before.
However, among those wise academics it seems that Nobody expects the Technological Singularity.
Assuming there comes a time when there really can't be created any new jobs for humans, it's interesting to ponder if a free market would still hold up in such a society. It's possible that it will find its balance with working hours becoming less while income growing. Alternatively/additionally there could be stronger decentralization in any aspect of life, so that individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them (bitcoin mining anyone? Also for example instead of hosting internet clouds in vast data centers of a few large corporations, how about hosting clouds decentralized in encrypted containers on people's hard drives that are accessed through a failsafe, RAID-like functionality of redundancy across the networks?).
it's impossible to be ineficent
As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.
And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.
As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.
lol
it's impossible to be ineficent
As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.
And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.
As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.
Computer sais no.
it's impossible to be ineficent
As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.
And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.
As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.
it's impossible to be ineficent
As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.
And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.
it's impossible to be ineficent
As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.
What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
Well, FWIW, abundance would spark creativity. Most people who have personal yachts are probably longing for things at the emotional level and don't need the yacht in the first place. There will always be infinitely many things to accomplish. But what does this mean regarding the topic, I have no idea. I agree with your other points, so essentially, more creativity means more destruction.
Well, the thing is most humans don't have noble goals.
In fact, most people have pretty selfish goals.
And that, again, is human nature.
Most people on this planet are preoccupied with chasing their selfish goals (family, money) most of the time.
Have you ever thought about what people would direct that selfish drive towards once there is no need for money and everything for the family is provided for?
Not everyone is an artist, or a doctor, or a scientist.
Most people would have no purpose in life besides getting drunk all the time.
I'm willing to bet that nintendo will have it's golden century once this system is in place.
One of the main things in our society is that everyone is kept busy.
Most people go to work, stay there for 8 hours and then go back home tired and watch tv.
That's most people in the western world.
What would happen if most people would suddenly have all the time in the world?
How would you prevent such an abundance of time from escalating in boredom induced agression?
Have you ever seen what animals do when they are realy realy bored?
If you think humanity is above that then think again.
The more intelligent you are, the more you are affected by boredom.
Humans get bored super quickly.
And when we get bored we start to fsck around.
It's only a matter of time.
So, realy, this whole idea is pretty idealistic, technocratic and elitist.
You'd create a highly skilled and motivated upper class and they would become increasingly separated from the masses that just generally mock about.
And this is nothing new.
People have been struggling with these issues for, say, a couple of thousands of years, if not more.
What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
Well, FWIW, abundance would spark creativity. Most people who have personal yachts are probably longing for things at the emotional level and don't need the yacht in the first place. There will always be infinitely many things to accomplish. But what does this mean regarding the topic, I have no idea. I agree with your other points, so essentially, more creativity means more destruction.
Sorry but it got too frustrating to watch after he claims it's not a political movement in the very first sentence. At this point it can only appeal to people who are not familiar with the millenia old contemplations about a RBE.
it's impossible to be ineficent
What is the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem by this particular movement? Any published papers you can recommend?
Don't even try... :/
There is no place for light in the land of the blind.
If the ideas in this video something like the internet could not have been invented (it's the fastest changing technology thus far, lots and lots of obsolecense. Moreover, it's basicly military tech.).
Because of this, i ask anyone supporting these ideas to switch off their computers, bring it back to the store they bought it and go invent their own computing and communication devices according to these ideas. See how long it will take.
About the video, it's pretty stuid.
Make only the stuff people want, almost no people needed to operate the system.
What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
And why the hell is everything in this video based on products of the society that the video critisizes?
Ordering your stuff on the net? If this system was in place there woud be no internet.
At best we would still be in terminal land.
It's hurting my brain to hear the speaker explain a complete society based on high tech systems (optical illness diagnose systems to replace doctors and chirurgs) but at the same time everything should last a livetime? Come on.
Without change there cannot be change for the better.
I still can remember the communist machines that drove that society.
They did their work, but no chance for doing it better.
This guy has a very romantic, but ultimately naive look on technology.
He combines his simplistic look of humanity with high tech computer systems, some of which are more than a lifetime away.
And that is in our wastefull competitive new is better society.
He clings on to the holy computer that we all belief in it giving us the right answers.
It knows the freaking periodic table, that must be enough to save humanity.
I don't have a face and palm large enough to make the correct statement.
Even the picard-riker double-facepalm is not enough, not by a long shot.
Remember, if someone can explain an idea clearly that doesn't make the idea great.
I mean, i know that it works in Star Trek, but that is also an idealized picture of someones view of how society COULD be.
He waives the most difficult sociological problems with oneliners like : "Well, the pentagon propably has such systems and they use it for war."
Que?
Yeah, democracy is an illusion, but at least it is working. What he proposes is ideas built on clouds supported by assumptions.
Notice how he fails to change our society.
No bridge to get it going, to form a way that we can go to make it possible.
His bottom line is "reality sux, so let's throw that out. Then let's use some fantasies about sociology, technology and science in general and use that to think up some structure that would much better be populated by robots than people. But hey, reality is out the door so i don't care if it is even remotely possible to execute."
I'm sory to say, this idea sux on so many levels i'm not sure i should laugh or puke.
You Zeitgeist movement / Futuristic RBE technology devotees can stop advocating now, seems you have already won: Timetravel to 2749 ( Montauk Project & Philadelphia Experiment )
Jump to: