Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 92. (Read 288375 times)

Hm, that's not the meaning i usually associate with the term "social engineering"...

When i hear that the first thing that comes to my mind is this

Ey, watch out this video. She explains very well what's wrong with social engineering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_i3WOeqqzQ

But wait, wasn't hydroponics the best (scientifically proved) way to grow food?

I thinks this video is very relevant to this conversation

Yes, and this is the biggest problem i see with the plan for a resource based economy.
Peoples dreams and wishes do not match the needs of a society.

This is already a problem, despite there being control mechanisms in place to direct people towards certain functions.
I mean, what is the societal benifit of researching the mating behaviour of some ecologicly unimportant insect?
And yet there are many biologists doing exactly that.
And not only biologists, but scientists in general do a lot of work that has no direct benefit to society.

Now imagine everyone doing only what they want to do.
How would societies needs get fullfilled then?

What would propably happen is that an elite of worried and responsible people would rise to control the circus.
They will become more and more separated, maybe even becoming a slightly different species due to different evolutionary constraints.
Humanity would effectively be creating an overlord class which we will have no control over.
And we all know what the chances of an overlord class being benign are...

The most important thing to realise in this part of the discussion is that humanity is in a process of separating itself from nature. We are constantly looking for protheses that allow us to control the needs we have for natural resources.
Farming is a good example.
We have a need for food, so we put a fence around our food and grow it in a controlled way.

Of course we are not completely separated yet, but this is the road that we have walked on since we got these bigger brains.

Eventually this will lead to us being able to survive without an actual earth, which will make indefinite space flight possible.
That will also make it possible for us to restore balance on earth by not being a factor anymore.

But untill then we will need to interact with the earth and are dependant on it.

Humans are just another cog in the machine, we aren't as important as lots of people wanna think we are.

Though long term, it might be beneficial for Earth's life if humans are still around, currently we seem to the best hope for assuring continuance after somthing major happens (like when the Sun goes red giant).

On the other hand i imagine microbial life will go on regardless (people keep finding them in the least expected places)

"A lot" and "plenty" is not very specific. Do you have any estimates on how many computer/network systems out there run open source software/hardware versus paid for (like Microsoft or paid-for Linux systems)? Or how many engineers have invented things and provided their inventions for everyone for free instead of going through the trouble of patenting and selling their invention? Inwould guess that despite there being "plenty" of those, the percentage compared to the overall number is really small. I know my grandfather did not use his few post-doctorate and doctorate degrees, and spend ten years of his life working hard to invent something, just to give his invention away, no matter how much he enjoyed working on his project (part of it was him enjoying it, part of it was to leave a legacy, and a big part was to help make our whole family financially wealthy).

Also, you are only mentioning services here. How many examples of free products do you know of? Are there any free cars, free phones, free computers, free furniture, or something similar out there, provided by generous labor of workers who made them without asking for any compensation for their work or materials?

Partially you are correct.

The problem with humans we outgrow our environment . Every species that expands to fast eventually experience sudden drop of population with possible extinction event. That what science tells us .

Nature is a dictatorship , extermination of humans is much more likely to happen by not abiding to natural laws. Money systems doesn't care about nature at all.

If we are gonna to survive long-term , some sort of RBE will happen eventually whatever you like it or me.

Why a lot of engineers and computer programmers is involved in plenty of open source project if there is no benefit from it.

Why there is plenty of people around the globe that works for free by for example helping poor people in 3rd world countries.

Would you like to spend your life just lying around and doing nothing instead of doing something meaningful. Me defiantly not.

Right, because the only way is down in our society?
And these people cannot find other jobs that are productive or fullfilling?
And farming by hand has not always been menial, repetitive, unproductive (in the larger context), demeaning or slavish?

My grandparents were actually small farmers and lived in a more or less self-sustaining village.
Farming without machines is realy realy hard work.
You get up at 5 or 6 in the morning and continue laboring untill the sun goes down.
They are GLAD that there are machines to do the hard work for them, but sadly noone could afford a combine.
But luckily the vilage pooled money and got one for everyone, that is how much they needed it.
So these combines atually helped these people do less menial, repetitive, unproductive, demeaning or otherwise slavish work.

You seem to have a completely twisted views on humanity AND reality.

The science sais that humans are the biggest pest on earth.
The ONLY proper thing to do is to exterminate the human species.
Just don't tell the humans.

hi..


Care to explain how this type of society will motivate it's people to expend energy and time to benifit it?
I mean, why would anyone want to be an advanced engineer if there is no benefit for them?
And if there IS a benefit, is it not just another way of paying them extra?

I think, unless ALL work is done by robots built by some previous money-slave generation, such a society cannot take place.
And that does not account for the upkeep of such a society, which will require quite some skilled workers that do it all out of job satisfaction, i presume?

There will be way too little motivation for people to get an education and become productive in their work.
The traditional motivation, like hunger and housing drive people to get a better life.
Concepts like money allow for further compensation for investment of time and effort.
But who will do their work once they all have their bellys filled?
And how will you ever get enough people of a particular skill to fulfill the societies need?
In other words, WHO will be skilled enough and motivated enough to create this beautifull world?

It's a Utopia (and these CANNOT exist by definition) and the pictures you show on your website speak volumes about how grossly your organisation misunderstands the human condition (or tries to misrepresent reality for whatever reason).
It's pretty sad actually that something this important (thinking about new ways to organise society) is overshadowed by pretty pictures of yachts and resorts as if it will all magically appear out of thin air once we give up money.

It really reminds me of laymen talking trivially about programming.
It's all so easy, right, you just have to program it. :/


ps. i LOVE this section from the faq on your site:

O, Realy? Using propaganda to sell pretty pictures from Phase 1?
I lold.

Make the OP work instead of posting useless drivel?

You can unsubscribe by hitting the unsubscribe link in the email notifications.

Thirty five pages on this subject.    How the eff do I unsubscribe from this thread?

Murwa, your lck of English skills is causing you to misunderstand what jtimon is writing, and to assume he is either insulting you, or talking about something else. Don't take offense to his post. The islands comment was not about you. Also, I have a feeling that due to the communication barrier, this discussion will go nowhere fast.

No, a demonstration can be just a counter-example or can be just based on logic using zero data. Just take an algebra book.


I'm happy that you finally agree with me.

Yes and no. Truth mixed with lies that how current propaganda feeds us. Let me explain it to you.

We are different yet we are all the same.

Examples that are of individual influence.
- We all need food.
    * Some likes chicken some likes fruits.
- We all need a feeling of belonging to some groups.
    * Some become religious , some become football hooligans
- We all need to mate
    * Some likes skinny chicks some likes fat chicks.
- We all want to grow/advance ourselves or achieve some individual dreams ( this is actually very late need , much more basic needs have a priority )
    * Some people become sportsmens some become astronauts

Examples that are common to us all in everyway.
* we all have a need to have a feeling of being love by our parents while we are still children
* we all need to breath clean air.

As you can see, every need/want have a common denominator. TZM is not about choosing people individual path only about providing an economical and social framework so people are free to fulfill their needs/wants and have a happier lifes.

Well no it is you who is living in imaginer island i live in real world. Automated hydroponic hydroponic farms will happen whatever you like it or not. Above is an example how efficient machines could already be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igMwGOQREYQ&feature=related

What happens to farmer then , you say he becomes massagist, its ok , but it increases production of oils.


Of course it is because that is rarely the case if you wanna get rid of technological unemployment( but can happen ).
Also what if the new flavor actually consumed more carrots , what then ?


Ok perhaps it dont need it but it is going to happen.
And also what would it be the world without innovation we would never leave this planet at that means we are all dead eventually or run out of resources much sooner.


If you gave me the proof then there would be no discussion. Proof can be hard data and facts , not your opinions or your hypothetical situations that are out of touch with reality.

You flavor example is really flowed because it go both way , new flavor can use more carrots ( it has better taste ) , it is out of touch with reality , not to mention you ignore the fact that there is high probability that it will be the machines doing the food harvesting in the future as illustrated above.

Still i would like to be proven wrong ( because that means i will become wiser ) and i appreciate you input but please do it with something tangible.

Summing up .
1 Free market doest need grow but growth happens as an emergent effect of human ingenuity.
2 Innovation generally means increase of production if we wanna get the amount of jobs fixed. The jobs lost are mostly dues to automation increase , organizational knowledge, or advanced frameworks. To offset this we need new jobs that will consume something more or less if they are gonna be useful ( bankers or marketers not included
3 We either choose technological unemployment or we are forcing ourselves into infinite growth in order to keep everyone in jobs.

Individual are all different, especially today, there is no system that can represent majority of the people's interest.

In this sense, current monetary system at least presented one common sense through all the people: Money=Value. If it is removed, then there is really no nothing that people can agreed upon when they exchange services/products, an auktion will be needed for almost everything