A Resource Based Economy

[markm]

The economy.

You propose a future in which such an economy is in effect.

The future is fiction until it happens.

It is well known to Trekkers that the technological feasibility of this that or the other plot-device is largely irrelevant, the question is not do we need to wait for replicators, transporters and faster than light travel before we can implement such an economy.

The more important question, getting more and more important as 2063 approaches, is whether it is in fact necessary that a period of world wide devastation / devastating world scale conflict occur in order to proceed to the proposed economic model?

Way back when, it presumably seemed to the authors that such an economy so soon in our future would not be at all possible barring such worldwide devastation or devastating conflict.

It is known that current technology should suffice as far as any physical engineering in concerned.

Portraying the proposed society as a far fetched fiction is a piece of social engineering.


Filling in the timespan between now and the actual world wide deployment of such an economy is going to take some figuring out of how utterly fictional the concept of actually accomplishing such a deployment is going to actually turn out to be.

Many people consider it very far-fetched, such that packaging it alongside ray guns and starships has historically served as a practical way "flying under the radar of such people" to get the ideas "out there" to a more receptive demographic.

As we come closer to whatever desired target date we wish to set as to when exactly we wish to complete the deployment it becomes more and more important / urgent to solve the social engineering problems to which the futuristic technology props serve as smokescreens.

The Venus Project seems to basically propose that we should by now or soon be able to cease pretending we are talking about an imaginary future economy but are in fact working toward actual deployment of such an economy.

The more the intent is perceived as real and realistic the more likely it might be that whatever kind of social upheaval / devastation that opponents of such ideas might find convenient to oppose such ideas with might also be deployed.


It would be nice to proceed without the kind of upheaval / devastation the original-series timeline suggested might turn out to be required.

Toward that end, this Venus thing does seem interesting and maybe, who knows, it could even turn out to be useful.

Admittedly a lot of fandom seems to just shrug at the proposed period of devastation, preferring to look forward to 2063 and beyond without seeming concern about preceding devastation. Likely that tends though to be the portions of fandom least likely to be regarded as actual Trekkers.

-MarkM- (Imagining fiction to be irrelevant to its topics seems weird/shortsighted, counterexamples are probably rife throughout literature.)

P.S. It seems ironic that you are dismissing so lightly the very dream/ideal you claim to espouse and one of possibly its largest and most dedicated groups of fans...

[LightRider]

The economy.

You propose a future in which such an economy is in effect.

The future is fiction until it happens.

It is well known to Trekkers that the technological feasibility of this that or the other plot-device is largely irrelevant, the question is not do we need to wait for replicators, transporters and faster than light travel before we can implement such an economy.

The more important question, getting more and more important as 2063 approaches, is whether it is in fact necessary that a period of world wide devastation / devastating world scale conflict occur in order to proceed to the proposed economic model?

Way back when, it presumably seemed to the authors that such an economy so soon in our future would not be at all possible barring such worldwide devastation or devastating conflict.

It is known that current technology should suffice as far as any physical engineering in concerned.

Portraying the proposed society as a far fetched fiction is a piece of social engineering.


Filling in the timespan between now and the actual world wide deployment of such an economy is going to take some figuring out of how utterly fictional the concept of actually accomplishing such a deployment is going to actually turn out to be.

Many people consider it very far-fetched, such that packaging it alongside ray guns and starships has historically served as a practical way "flying under the radar of such people" to get the ideas "out there" to a more receptive demographic.

As we come closer to whatever desired target date we wish to set as to when exactly we wish to complete the deployment it becomes more and more important / urgent to solve the social engineering problems to which the futuristic technology props serve as smokescreens.

The Venus Project seems to basically propose that we should by now or soon be able to cease pretending we are talking about an imaginary future economy but are in fact working toward actual deployment of such an economy.

The more the intent is perceived as real and realistic the more likely it might be that whatever kind of social upheaval / devastation that opponents of such ideas might find convenient to oppose such ideas with might also be deployed.


It would be nice to proceed without the kind of upheaval / devastation the original-series timeline suggested might turn out to be required.

Toward that end, this Venus thing does seem interesting and maybe, who knows, it could even turn out to be useful.

Admittedly a lot of fandom seems to just shrug at the proposed period of devastation, preferring to look forward to 2063 and beyond without seeming concern about preceding devastation. Likely that tends though to be the portions of fandom least likely to be regarded as actual Trekkers.

-MarkM- (Imagining fiction to be irrelevant to its topics seems weird/shortsighted, counterexamples are probably rife throughout literature.)

P.S. It seems ironic that you are dismissing so lightly the very dream/ideal you claim to espouse and one of possibly its largest and most dedicated groups of fans...

Likewise, we don't need to invoke fiction to describe the potential for our species to utterly devastate our own planet and species in any number of terrible ways. There are clear signs that our current economic model will clash violently with the physical reality of the hydro-carbon energy paradigm and the self destructive nature of the fractional reserve debt monster that we have allowed to grow so large. Not to mention the constant threat of global nuclear war, initiated either by malice or accident, that stands to exterminate the majority of all life on the planet. I do not wish for these events to unfold, but I do not believe that we can avoid them without enacting significant change in the structure and conduct of our society.

I am not particularly a fan of Star Trek, nor do I believe that it necessarily describes the goals and ideas that we promote when discussing an RBE. However, I do appreciate any support that particular fandom has for the effort to make the world a better place for all people.

[markm]

You certainly seem to be proposing to create a Star Trek type economy using current technology.

If the jargon term "resource based economy" does not correspond to the type of economy popularised by Star Trek, that has a huge body of fans due to its popularisation by Star Trek, it would be nice to know how it differs.

How does/would "building a Star Trek type economy using current technology" differ from "building a 'resource based economy' using current technology"?

Everything I have discovered so far about "resource based economy" seems identical to "Star Trek type economy", as far as I can see the quibbling is merely about what level of technology might be achieved by a society operating on the basis of such an economy.

(Possibly also with some misapprehension by some as to what technology might be absolutely necessary to the implementation of such an economy, but Trekkers would hardly be Trekkers if they did not know that current physical engineering  technology should suffice, the challenge being one of social engineering technology if technological at all.)

You seem to propose the implementation of an economy type popularised in movies and television and having a large fan base due to that. If your proposed economy type differs from the one those fans are so eager for, clarifying the differences should be useful, maybe they might not necessarily be "dealbreakers"?

-MarkM-

[LightRider]

Anyone who is interested in promoting these ideas and Bitcoin at the same time should check out my posts at www.witcoin.com.

http://activism.witcoin.com/p/1328/The-Zeitgeist-Movement-and-The-Venus-Project

http://movies.witcoin.com/p/1026/Zeitgeist-Moving-Forward

You certainly seem to be proposing to create a Star Trek type economy using current technology.

Star Trek has very little to do with the economic model being discussed. While I'm sure there are similarities, we do not need to conflate the two ideas. Thanks for your interest, however and I am still grateful for any support from any fans of similar ideas.

[LightRider]

Here is the Zeitgeist Movement's response to the murder of Osama bin Laden, for those who are interested.

You can see the Venus Project's response here: http://youtu.be/-KXgHqp2juQ?hd=1

=================================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
TZM: Response to Media; Death of Osama bin Laden
 
On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in Pakistan.
 
Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display, reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being, reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.
 
It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.
 
The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death simply serves as catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.
 
However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the importance of that problem with respect to priority.
 
The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society. It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September 11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.
 
As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001 become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.
 
Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330 9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget allocations for research on these illnesses is only a fraction of the money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.
 
Such a list could go on and on and with regard to the perversion of priority when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I hope many out there can recognize the severe unbalance we have at hand with respect to our values.
 
So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed, killing four little girls attending Sunday school.
 
In a public address, Dr. King stated:
 
“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America. We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take up the ammunition of love.”
 
- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963
 
~Peter Joseph
wwwthezeitgeistmovement.com

[The Script]

Here is the Zeitgeist Movement's response to the murder of Osama bin Laden, for those who are interested.

You can see the Venus Project's response here: http://youtu.be/-KXgHqp2juQ?hd=1

=================================================

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
TZM: Response to Media; Death of Osama bin Laden
 
On May 1, 2011 Pres. Barack Obama appeared on national television with the spontaneous announcement that Osama bin Laden, the purported organizer of the tragic events of September 11th 2001, was killed by military forces in Pakistan.
 
Within moments, a media blitz ran across virtually all television networks in what could only be described as a grotesque celebratory display, reflective of a level of emotional immaturity that borders on cultural psychosis. Depictions of people running through the streets of New York and Washington chanting jingoistic American slogans, waving their flags like the members of some cult, praising the death of another human being, reveals yet another layer of this sickness we call modern society.
 
It is not the scope of this response to address the political usage of such an event or to illuminate the staged orchestration of how public perception was to be controlled by the mainstream media and the United States Government. Rather the point of this article is to express the gross irrationality apparent and how our culture becomes so easily fixed and emotionally charged with respect to surface symbology, rather than true root problems, solutions or rational considerations of circumstance.
 
The first and most obvious point is that the death of Osama bin Laden means nothing when it comes to the problem of international terrorism. His death simply serves as catharsis for a culture that has a neurotic fixation on revenge and retribution. The very fact that the Government which, from a psychological standpoint, has always served as a paternal figure for it citizens, reinforces the idea that murdering people is a solution to anything should be enough for most of us to take pause and consider the quality of the values coming out of the zeitgeist itself.
 
However, beyond the emotional distortions and tragic, vindictive pattern of rewarding the continuation of human division and violence comes a more practical consideration regarding what the problem really is and the importance of that problem with respect to priority.
 
The death of any human being is of an immeasurable consequence in society. It is never just the death of the individual. It is the death of relationships, companionship, support and the integrity of familial and communal environments. The unnecessary deaths of 3000 people on September 11, 2001 is no more or no less important than the deaths of those during the World Wars, via cancer and disease, accidents or anything else.
 
As a society, it is safe to say that we seek a world that strategically limits all such unnecessary consequences through social approaches that allow for the greatest safety our ingenuity can create. It is in this context that the neurotic obsession with the events of September 11th, 2001 become gravely insulting and detrimental to progress. An environment has now been created where outrageous amounts of money, resources and energy is spent seeking and destroying very small subcultures of human beings that pose ideological differences and act on those differences through violence.
 
Yet, in the United States alone each year, roughly 30,000 people die from automobile accidents, the majority of which could be stopped by very simple structural changes. That's ten 9/11's each year... yet no one seems to pine over this epidemic. Likewise, over 1 million Americans die from heart disease and cancer annually - causes of which are now easily linked to environmental influences in the majority. Yet, regardless of the over 330 9/11's occurring each year in this context, the governmental budget allocations for research on these illnesses is only a fraction of the money spent on “anti-terrorism” operations.
 
Such a list could go on and on and with regard to the perversion of priority when it comes to what it means to truly save and protect human life and I hope many out there can recognize the severe unbalance we have at hand with respect to our values.
 
So, coming back to the point of revenge and retribution, I will conclude this response with a quote from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., likely the most brilliant intuitive mind when it came to conflict and the power of non-violence. On September 15, 1963 a Birmingham Alabama church was bombed, killing four little girls attending Sunday school.
 
In a public address, Dr. King stated:
 
“What murdered these four girls? Look around. You will see that many people that you never thought about participated in this evil act. So tonight all of us must leave here with a new determination to struggle. God has a job for us to do. Maybe our mission is to save the soul of America. We can't save the soul of this nation throwing bricks. We can't save the soul of this nation getting our ammunitions and going out shooting physical weapons. We must know that we have something much more powerful. Just take up the ammunition of love.”
 
- Dr. Martin Luther King, 1963
 
~Peter Joseph
wwwthezeitgeistmovement.com

"TZM" is too close to "TMZ" for my tastes....

[luv2drnkbr]

oh god not this zeitgeist bs again

[s0beit]

You know, after page 1 (in fact, after the first reply) i was hoping this topic would be dead.

The Zeitgeist movement is full of retarded ideas and slightly more retarded individuals that don't even understand the purpose of currency.

I don't know why you would be excited about Bitcoin, in fact you should hate it if you want a resource based economy. Bitcoin flies in the face of everything you believe because people spontaneously, for the purpose of convenience, created a currency to trade with one another.

Also, creating a world in your mind's eye based around the idea everyone must warp their mind to fit your ideals is just plain ignorant to reality.

[Terpie]

You know, after page 1 (in fact, after the first reply) i was hoping this topic would be dead.

The Zeitgeist movement is full of retarded ideas and slightly more retarded individuals that don't even understand the purpose of currency.

I don't know why you would be excited about Bitcoin, in fact you should hate it if you want a resource based economy. Bitcoin flies in the face of everything you believe because people spontaneously, for the purpose of convenience, created a currency to trade with one another.

Also, creating a world in your mind's eye based around the idea everyone must warp their mind to fit your ideals is just plain ignorant to reality.

I don't understand the appeal either. The inception of currency was not some imposition of government or other monolithic entity, it arose spontaneously through the evolution of the market. It is what people need and desire, and although it's current form is somewhat perverted, the elimination of money doesn't seem to make any sense. Typical collectivist thinking without regard to economic motivations.

[LightRider]

You know, after page 1 (in fact, after the first reply) i was hoping this topic would be dead.

I guess that's because you believe everyone has the simplistic view that everything they don't agree with is

...retarded...

and therefor unworthy of discussion. It must be surprising to learn that people might think differently than you. Welcome to this world of new ideas!

I don't know why you would be excited about Bitcoin, in fact you should hate it if you want a resource based economy. Bitcoin flies in the face of everything you believe because people spontaneously, for the purpose of convenience, created a currency to trade with one another.

I'm glad to come across an expert in everything I personally believe! Can you do that with everyone or just

...retarded individuals...

such as myself?!

[gareth69]

Zeitgeist is pure fail.

I watched the whole film. It simply posits, that there will be no scarcity....I mean lol?
It then postulates that some means of resource allocation mechanism will become available, probably based on "computers". Our current best computer systems can't even predict the weather, the markets or any non-linear, chaotic, feedback system well. Somehow the Zeitgeist gods will fix it though...don't hold your breath though since the producers of the film don't seem to have any grasp of computation.

One of the founders states that human societies should be "emergent", and that we live in an imposed system; our current crappy monetary system. However, it then goes on to *impose* it's own **non emergent** solution...Irony much!?

Now think of this...you live in a wonderfull concentric domed city, like in the movie, called domed-ville. We live in a nearby city called Liberty-ville. There's a shared water table between the two cities, with only enough water to feed one city.....

Well the Zeitgeist people have declared an end to scarcity....this is the new resource based economy afterall. Meanwhile their computer has decided that the resources belong to everybody! Trouble is, people in liberty-ville being a little more pragmatic, have an issue with this...oh and they have lots of guns.

[LightRider]

Zeitgeist is pure fail.

I watched the whole film. It simply posits, that there will be no scarcity....I mean lol?
It then postulates that some means of resource allocation mechanism will become available, probably based on "computers". Our current best computer systems can't even predict the weather, the markets or any non-linear, chaotic, feedback system well. Somehow the Zeitgeist gods will fix it though...don't hold your breath though since the producers of the film don't seem to have any grasp of computation.

One of the founders states that human societies should be "emergent", and that we live in an imposed system; our current crappy monetary system. However, it then goes on to *impose* it's own **non emergent** solution...Irony much!?

Now think of this...you live in a wonderfull concentric domed city, like in the movie, called domed-ville. We live in a nearby city called Liberty-ville. There's a shared water table between the two cities, with only enough water to feed one city.....

Well the Zeitgeist people have declared an end to scarcity....this is the new resource based economy afterall. Meanwhile their computer has decided that the resources belong to everybody! Trouble is, people in liberty-ville being a little more pragmatic, have an issue with this...oh and they have lots of guns.

There are a variety of ways to overcome water shortages using technical solutions. Using violence is not a long term solution and in fact is more wasteful. Would you rather live in a society that used their brains or their guns to solve problems?

[The Script]

I just heard an interesting discussion between some guys from the Venus Project/Zeitgeist Movement and Stefan Molyneux.  It was a very rational, friendly discussion where they emphasized their common ground while also hashing out some differences.  Very long, but worth listening to.

http://youtu.be/hxjwBZjADiM

The biggest problem Molyneux had with the Venus Project was how economic efficiency could happen without the pricing mechanism, I share his concern but think it might be possibly someday when supercomputing gets powerful enough.  But even then, I doubt it.

[jtimon]

When I saw the last two zeitgeist documentaries two things came to mind:

-Communism
-Cornucopianism??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

I agree in that many problems we have are (directly or indirectly) caused by our monetary system, but I think a free society cannot depend on plans by "the whole society". If there's no money, there's no free trade and there's no freedom.
The venus project is in conflict with "my ideology" which is a strange mix (still developing) between libertarian and Gesell's ideas. Also influenced by community views such as the youtube channel PeakMoment, free software and free culture.
I invite you to read this book:

http://voluntarykaraism.com/wp-content/uploads/Library/Friedman,%20David%20D/The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom%20(1973).pdf

That was the book thing about anarchocapitalism that I read.
Maybe you don't become libertarian, but I bet you will become more suspicious about "wise governments" and the "public interest".

[LightRider]

When I saw the last two zeitgeist documentaries two things came to mind:

-Communism
-Cornucopianism??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

I agree in that many problems we have are (directly or indirectly) caused by our monetary system, but I think a free society cannot depend on plans by "the whole society". If there's no money, there's no free trade and there's no freedom.
The venus project is in conflict with "my ideology" which is a strange mix (still developing) between libertarian and Gesell's ideas. Also influenced by community views such as the youtube channel PeakMoment, free software and free culture.
I invite you to read this book:

http://voluntarykaraism.com/wp-content/uploads/Library/Friedman,%20David%20D/The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom%20(1973).pdf

That was the book thing about anarchocapitalism that I read.
Maybe you don't become libertarian, but I bet you will become more suspicious about "wise governments" and the "public interest".

Anyone talking about freedom is trying to sell you something. We are all subject to the physical laws of nature.

[jtimon]

When I saw the last two zeitgeist documentaries two things came to mind:

-Communism
-Cornucopianism??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornucopian

I agree in that many problems we have are (directly or indirectly) caused by our monetary system, but I think a free society cannot depend on plans by "the whole society". If there's no money, there's no free trade and there's no freedom.
The venus project is in conflict with "my ideology" which is a strange mix (still developing) between libertarian and Gesell's ideas. Also influenced by community views such as the youtube channel PeakMoment, free software and free culture.
I invite you to read this book:

http://voluntarykaraism.com/wp-content/uploads/Library/Friedman,%20David%20D/The%20Machinery%20of%20Freedom%20(1973).pdf

That was the book thing about anarchocapitalism that I read.
Maybe you don't become libertarian, but I bet you will become more suspicious about "wise governments" and the "public interest".

Anyone talking about freedom is trying to sell you something. We are all subject to the physical laws of nature.

Don't read it then.

[gareth69]

Zeitgeist is pure fail.

I watched the whole film. It simply posits, that there will be no scarcity....I mean lol?
It then postulates that some means of resource allocation mechanism will become available, probably based on "computers". Our current best computer systems can't even predict the weather, the markets or any non-linear, chaotic, feedback system well. Somehow the Zeitgeist gods will fix it though...don't hold your breath though since the producers of the film don't seem to have any grasp of computation.

One of the founders states that human societies should be "emergent", and that we live in an imposed system; our current crappy monetary system. However, it then goes on to *impose* it's own **non emergent** solution...Irony much!?

Now think of this...you live in a wonderfull concentric domed city, like in the movie, called domed-ville. We live in a nearby city called Liberty-ville. There's a shared water table between the two cities, with only enough water to feed one city.....

Well the Zeitgeist people have declared an end to scarcity....this is the new resource based economy afterall. Meanwhile their computer has decided that the resources belong to everybody! Trouble is, people in liberty-ville being a little more pragmatic, have an issue with this...oh and they have lots of guns.

There are a variety of ways to overcome water shortages using technical solutions. Using violence is not a long term solution and in fact is more wasteful. Would you rather live in a society that used their brains or their guns to solve problems?

Light, perhaps you'd care to use your brain, and not cherry pick and quote something out of context. Please answer these basic problems with ZG.

Do *you* agree with the *non agression principle*. No one in Libertyville is going to harm a single hair on your back. They only use force in self defence.

You have not explained *how* there is no scacity, you simply postulate "various technologies". Great we can do that too in Libertyville, there is no scacity! In fact *any* belief system can state it, not just the ZG movement. To differentiate itself ZG must explain *how* it will achieve this.

Who gets what, the basic economic problem. Again, more postulates about some undefined "resource allocator". What happens when a resource belonging to Libertyville or any individual is assigned to someone else? If you agree with the *non agression principle* how do you propose to allocate the resouces of millions of people who don't asctibe to the ZG sytem.

[cbeast]

A Resource Based Economy is entirely plausible. The extinction of the entire human species is more plausible. We haven't been on Earth very long. It's our choice.

[jtimon]

A Resource Based Economy is entirely plausible. The extinction of the entire human species is more plausible. We haven't been on Earth very long. It's our choice.

So is either "Resource Based Economy" or extinction?

Can anyone explain me the difference between "Resource Based Economy" and "cornucopian communism"?

[cbeast]

A Resource Based Economy is entirely plausible. The extinction of the entire human species is more plausible. We haven't been on Earth very long. It's our choice.

So is either "Resource Based Economy" or extinction?

Can anyone explain me the difference between "Resource Based Economy" and "cornucopian communism"?

Unless your parents charged you room and board as child, it's pretty much like that. It's people helping each other as best they can, because they can. Not hard to understand.