I guess just show me your data (not a youtube video or philosophical essay) and I'll try to find something wrong with it. If I can't then I will also be about RBE. Worst case scenario is I give my critique and we are both better off for it.
I understand what you're getting at and I have to admit that as far as I know, there are no scientific papers on RBE. If you look at it this way, it's true that the model is not scientific. The only excuse I can offer is that the general idea of an RBE has only really been talked about for a few years.
It hasn't reached the stage yet where we have scientific papers or an actual computer model for such a system. There have been plans for this but this type of development is slow. The best I have to offer is lectures or essays on this, or information on the latest technology (
http://www.zeitnews.org/).
I have no doubt though that eventually the idea of an RBE will be put to the test, at least as a real computer model. And in real life as well, in form of a RBE village or city. It needs to be self-sufficient to not be reliant on trade, but even with some trading it can be done if there is funding for such a project. As long as we live in a world that uses money, we need it to create a RBE prototype.
So you have an hypothesis and would like to test it scientifically, but it costs a shitload (in money and mental activity) to actually do so. The majority of people with the money/power have no incentive in changing the status quo, so it is difficult to make happen. That is why it hasn't been done yet. Ok, so stop saying it is based on science then. Logic is also a good basis for making decisions. Just call it what it is. Hopefully, eventually someone with the ability to access the necessary resources will attempt to test the viability of a RBE.
My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.
Brain science is allowing us to understand how we think. Psychology is becoming well researched. Sociology and economics are less useful predictors of behavior.
I am not sure what this means... Please answer my earlier questions about why you believe human society is less complex than the human brain.
Human society is unpredictable. It's like asking why electrical theory is less complex than ToE. There is no sense on postulating theories with little more than correlative data. When we understand ourselves, we can begin to find a ToE for human behavior. That's a long way off. It's simpler to use accepted axioms. Society isn't really complex because it doesn't really even exist. Society is a reification. Religion makes society simple, even if the religion is science.
Even if we accept that people will act how their religion tells them to under normal circumstances, what about when something goes wrong?
What if your idea of sustainability, equality and freedom is wrong?
The whole idea is that the system is designed to improve itself automatically. The indicators we use today to see how an economy is doing are false, such as GDP. In RBE the indicators would be very different. We would of course have sustainability as one indicator and this includes a lot of things such as resource efficiency, energy efficiency, resource scarcity levels etc. But on top of this we would have population happiness, physical health, mental health, crime, education, innovation etc. These would be the guidelines we would use to improve the system. The things that really matter. If you don't agree that these things matter, then RBE is not for you.
Personally I 100% agree with this. I have just cannot think of a way to create an uncorruptable state, and have never heard/read a feasible idea by anyone else either. For that reason, I think any plan that relies upon centralized power will fail.
What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?
No one knows what is best for other people. But we can find out using science. Ask people, track their consumption and predict. It's not that different from the methods companies use today. They use science to create the products and distribution methods that best meet the demand of their customers. RBE is not all that different but one major difference is that in RBE there are no incentives to artificially create demand for products. Which will radically reduce consumption and improve both our lives and our sustainability as a species.
How will we test these methods without hurting people if something goes wrong? I.e if this were to be a funded experiment you would need an IRB to approve it. If you did it on your own it would piss people off and if you didn't have dudes with guns backing you up (IRB approval) you and your family could be harmed.
*edited grammar
