 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
|
Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane thngs on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.i
And now you have to form an opinion about what you consider good or evil.
There is no need to. As all empirical data shows us population in developed countries tends to stabilize by its-self. The best course of action is self-evident. We raise the standard of living of poor countries , the population stops exploding due to increase of education and awareness of people. |
|
|
|
Question: should we give people access to those necessities?
My thesis is that we must.
If that is agreed, we can build from there.
Of course. If I understand correctly, the question is: what if someone doesn't want to give? (Sorry if this was already answered.) The natural resources of earth should be declared as common heritage of all people , since they weren't made by you or me they were made by nature , and we both were born on the same planet. We have the exacts same rights. Now the question is do we behave like retards and fight over them until they are depleted or we die fighting , or do we use our brains to manage shit intelligently , the choice is yours. I am not sure if that answer your question because it is not precised. |
|
|
|
You can't give what you don't have.
Thats the whole point , to make shit in abundant quantities if possible. |
|
|
|
Aah, but in all that you wrote here you didn't use the word 'better', which was what i was talking about.
Better is an opinion and is not based on hard data.
Better is always from some(ones) point of view.
And i agree with most of the rest of your post, hard facts are hard facts.
So hards fact are telling us it is better to take care on our offspring then to abuse it. They are also telling us it is better to have energy then dont have it. I dont see any opinions attached. It is just semantics. |
|
|
|
The word BETTER is subjective by definition as it is a human judgement.
That is why we have law and the stuff.
Because what one person finds 'better' is seen by another as 'worse', so completely the opposite.
And then most peoples opinions will fall in between these two extremes.
How relevant is the opinion in cases where we have hard data ? I have an opinion that world is flat , does it make it so ? Not really. Should i build my world around that opinion ? i font thinks so. Living in ignorance is bad. Should i promote this opinion on others and propose to build society based on that ? hmm probably not a good idea for everyone else involved. Some example of hard data. * Our society need energy to sustain it self. * we all need food and water. * we all need a feeling of being loved by parents when we are still children. Your or mine opinion means nothing. In fact it they are opposite to fact they are actually harmful to society. For example i could have opinion that children should be beaten and abused . What the point of keeping that around if all the data we have tells us how harmful to children that actually is. I think the reasoning "if you don't know everything, then you can't talk about anything!" apply to you as well. |
|
|
|
I repeat the question.
What's wrong with you buying bread to your baker (for money or directly for a service you can provide)?
What is wrong with automatic production of bread * with all the customization possible, where you can just set up all the ingredients by yourself ( with all the best cutting age techs , you would actually have much bigger choice than on your so called "free market" ) * with no cutting costs mechanism ( the best nourishing ingredients available ) * without any pesticides or other shit that is pumped into it without you knowing. * with a quantity enough for you to eat the shit out of your self . * All produced in a sustainable for environment way . * No need to pay , and being stressed if you will ever have enough food you you and your family. Please tell me what is wrong with that ? |
|
|
|
They can give you economics lessons, design and maintain the machines that leave them without job, become scientist, sell their art, etc.
There's many services to sell.
And those services dont consume anything ? Economic lessons are drafted on earth with stick ? Scientists dont use any tools ? Artists draw pictures only in their imaginations ? What if any of the above services gets better efficiency due to better equipment ( for example more machines can be serviced per person ) , the person that loses its job and he change it for different one , he is forced to start consuming even more. Your your theory doesn't apply for all recessions but only the last one?
Just clarify this, please.
No really the tendency started since great depression. Just look how many useless jobs we have since then ( bankers , marketers , lawyers , government employees ) and many more I dont think it is a main reason for recession since societies were offseting in creation of above jobs. The main reason for todays recession is obviously criminals from wall street and money created out of debt. |
|
|
|
Wasn't technology the cause of unemployment back then?
Does your luddite/cornucopian theory of recessions only apply to the "age of computers" or something?
Situation back then : New jobs were created faster then they were replayed by machines. Technological progress was relatively slow we had plenty of cheap resources around and so. Today : New jobs are created slower then they are replaced by machines. Progress in automation and robotics is very fast and increasing as we speak , also we are reaching energy,resource,peak, that slows down job creation. No difference ? World fucking changes it doest stay the same for 200 years , gosh. Just it is only enough that process of automation is faster then job creation and you have a problem . It is not like we all are gonna wake up tomorrow unemployed ... |
|
|
|
People are fired , new jobs are needed.
Yes perhaps they can change profession or do different work , but in that case economy requires indefinite growth to keep making new jobs all the time
No. The workers that have been substituted by machines have to find other ways to serve others, but that's not infinite growth. Oh i love how you used the word serve, i like high grade prostitutes as well. Ok so what are they gonna do exactly , picking their noses ? Practically everything you do for money requires consumption of some sort even if energy. The rest i wont even comment because it is below certain level. |
|
|
|
That obviously is unsustainable and we see the effects today.
Gosh. I bet this thread would be completely different if only we could find three people to put this theory into some sort of historical context. Ah yes because situations from 200 years ago totally apply . |
|
|
|
Tell why MC donalds will not fire its cashiers once it fully automate its selling. Of course they will be fired , that what is called profit maximization.
And they will have free time to provide another service. With the money MC customers save from the automation, they will demand another services in which wages will rise attracting those unemployed. They can also chose a more painful job or one with more qualification required. In this case, they, by selling their work, will drive wages down resulting also in reduced final costs for the customers. But consumers will spend what they save in other things. Pay more attention to what you answering too. Someone claimed that recession is not caused because people are not fired due to automation. That is obliviously wrong. People are fired , new jobs are needed. Yes perhaps they can change profession or do different work , but in that case economy requires indefinite growth to keep making new jobs all the time with ever increasing speed as time goes on. ( since progress is geometrical . That obviously is unsustainable and we see the effects today. |
|
|
|
Improved productivity doesn't cause recessions - it's the only reason we have the standard of living we do nowadays. You example is flawed. Just because A becomes more productive doesn't mean that he will fire C. If you had a business and developed a technology that would double your earnings, would you fire your employees and keep working the same amount as before? No, you'd keep the people onboard and take more time off!
You are assuming that he doesn't already have plenty of time off, that somehow magically technology doesnt allow him to work less. Assumptions are a mother of all fuckups. Tell why MC donalds will not fire its cashiers once it fully automate its selling. Of course they will be fired , that what is called profit maximization. |
|
|
|
I give up.
There's no point in explaining the same things over and over again.
Planned obsolescence is about monopolies and cartels, short-term thinking is caused by interest, artificial scarcity also interest, etc.
I feel bad that I haven't teach you anything, but I'm not wasting my time anymore.
Planned obsolescence is about monopolies and cartels - dead wrong . You as a producer want to sell products as often as possible ( obvious ) . It is called profit maximization - if you dont you get to be out competed or go bankrupt cause you cant cover operational costs. short-term thinking is caused by interest - Yes artificial scarcity also interest - wrong. Supply - demand mechanic as its finest. You can never achieve abundance because that would mean prices of goods would reach 0. Obviously that can never happen Have you learned anything from me?
Actually yes i did i learned there are alternative currencies that could be taken into considerations as short term alternative, for out of debt money. There rest of your "knowledge" is wrong . |
|
|
|
What are you talking about? You freely chose to spend your time growing food, probably because you want to eat.
Why the hell we would want to waste our lifes producing food if its production can be totally automated  ? Discussing if science alone can run a whole society again is a waste of time in my opinion. Did you watch that praxeology video?
Yes and i tried to point it to you that she is claiming stuff that is out of touch with reality.I another words she if full of shit. Our society is engineered in a indirect way. Stop ignoring reality in the name of ideology , start paying attention to it. Beside TZM is not about engineering per say only about changing society's values , which is how it works today. Ok, there's alternative moneys that you admit you don't understand but you're sure they have to be eliminated.
Tell me which money can get rid of : * planned obsolescence * technological hold back in the name of profit or ( Tesla, Edwin Amstrong, our entire medicine drugs market ) * disregard for environment * technological unemployment - infinite growth parading ( i pointed you can have one or the other , you cant get rid of both in money system ) * artificial scarcity that is implemented into supply / demand mechanics * money = power = power corrupts syndrom. * People that have no job opportunity or cant work for various reasons cant have acces to free food , water , shelter , education and healthcare.( assuming we have all of that in abundance ) * many more i missed or i am not aware off. |
|
|
|
You need food to rise your children, not money. You don't have to use money within anarchy: you can be self-sufficient.
Food and much more ... nevertheless in that case you have to spend your "freedom" on food production. That is just moving backward in time. How can everyday data tell us anything about Ripple (a brand new concept) or freigeld (a concept only used at the local level)?
At most the everyday data tell us that the current monetary system is obsolete.
Ok lets not get into details here i dont know about all that. But we agree be it gold standard or fiat money should be done with. Although monetary incentives fail to increase the creativity of this non mechanic workers, we still need a way to measure the goodness of the entrepreneur's innovations.
The only way I see to measure it is the demand for the products of the innovation.
in RBE people have demands too , you know. What you get is not imposed on you in any way. Maybe only how you got it ( depending on values for example good or energy produced in a sustainable for environment way ) And you have science that can tell about efficiency of all innovation. If you have agreed that money is responsible for the specialization and civilization. Don't you think that it could be dangerous to remove it?
TZM is not about removing all money in one day. Obviously that would be dangerous. Perhaps some sort of hybrid or transition period that include currency ( one of those you are linking that is not debt based and so on ) could work. But the end goal should be elimination of money . |
|
|
|
While in an ideal anarcho-capitalism (I already claimed that I'm for free market but against capitalism), each individual is autonomous and takes his own decisions.
Only in theory , in monetary system person is bounded by a needs to survive he has to work for money ( which stifle creativity) in order to survive , live decent life and have money to rise children. There is really no freedom for most of population. thats why i used phrase : misguided concept of "FREEDOM" I'll go back to the first one, which I assume is the one you accept as a self-evident proof that we must destroy the whole concept of money. Because it's cursed tool that cannot be fixed. Is not worth to even try to fix it or think about it because is self-evident that the tool was broken already at its birth.
There is so much stuff broken with them i see no reason to fix them since as more we learn everyday more data speaks that money concept is obsolete. What you seem to blindly deny is that robots would not have been possible without money !!!
I dont deny that, in fact in above example science tell us money is excellent motivator for simple algorithmic tasks. The reality of XIX , XX century was that most of the jobs were as such but right now it is changing rapidly. Money system has done its job and its on the verge of its possibilities. Time to move over. Work force is shifting from mundane tasks ( which are easily automated ) to the more creative one ( in which money incentive does not fit ). Thus entire argument when we automate most of the economy there will be no progress is invalid and in fact data show us we can at least expect total opposite effect ( increase in innovation ) -Incentive often reduces creativity.
So what. I agree with this. How is this incompatible with my claims?
Because it is a monetary incentive that reduces creativity. How it can be compatible with money system ? As pointed Incentives like self mastery , autonomy and purpose works much better. in change with social values and proper education system , next generations will be driven by just that and in fact those are very liberal qualities !!! |
|
|
|
Money is only good incentive for manual work.
Unless you include every work that involves typing in a computer's keyboard as "manual work" you're obviously wrong. An interesting TED piece on money and motivation: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.htmlAwesome. But it is normal most people will still be in denial here , facts doesn't matter to them only believes philosophy assumptions and misguided concept of "FREEDOM" |
|
|
|
- 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
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... I suggest you watch this video. Money is only good incentive for manual work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc |
|
|
|
They can try to influence me, but I can resist. I'm free to chose to buy their shit or not.
You response has nothing to do with what i stated . She claimed as a fact that society cannot be engineered while reality tells otherwise. So there's no need to eliminate money. Good. Just change values.
I think that only changing values is not enough, I think that redesigning the monetary system is also necessary and urgent.
But at least we agree on that, values must change.
Yes there is need to do so long term because profit mechanism is broken in so many ways. As for redesigning monetary model rules of money have already changed 4 times in the last 100 years. all it leads from one crisis to another. How long we will be stuck in this vicious circle , especially that we are on the edge what our planet can provide , sustain from us. |
|
|
|
Yeah, our planet is finite. But we're going to space. Economic growth will continue.
Well defiantly not until we strip our entire planet of resources and devastate it , drilling for resources is cheaper than fight against power of gravity. |
|
|
|
|
