Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:37:31 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 124 »
  Print  
Author Topic: A Resource Based Economy  (Read 261096 times)
Ruffstylz
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 05:26:59 PM
 #201

The Venus project is such a joke. Fresco hasn't gone anywhere in 30 years. One test facility  new models and books but 0 progress towards attaining anything they claim. It has been about pushing a vision  with hoping to one day see it a reality. But thats where it will remain, a group in a state of hope trying to get people to see. That does not create resource abundance and there is already another system with the same goal that has been in practice for decades. Permaculture. Food forests.
Open-e-farm is a great example of where the technology of abundance is headed. Anyone still supporting venus project should probably jump ship before they waste too much more time and get obboard with a practical functioning set of ideas that solves the problem of producing resource abundance. for bitcoins to truely work their decentralized nature must be matched with decentralized power distribution and the coins themselves becoming the base unit which with things are monetized. So long as we rely on a conversion through dollars to use bitcoins they will fail.

I agree in that Fresco needed TZM to come along and popularise his idea and his ego's now in the floodlight as someone that believes only he knows how to create a resource-based economy; all the world's scientists would fail at it apparently. The Zeitgeist Movement remains as upholders of the central logic that's now unrestricted by Fresco into being fashioned into whatever open source post-scarcity economics works. It's for everyone to put their good ideas into it to make it work.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480955851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955851
Reply with quote  #2

1480955851
Report to moderator
1480955851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955851
Reply with quote  #2

1480955851
Report to moderator
1480955851
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480955851

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480955851
Reply with quote  #2

1480955851
Report to moderator
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 05:32:46 PM
 #202

Look a robot thats going to build straw houses.

openfarmtech.org/forum/discussion/200/a-robot-to-build-a-straw-house

Cool. But it is a technology. Technologies can be used in a communist, a state capitalist or in a libertarian society.
A lot of things need to be improved in our society, but I don't think resources must be managed centrally for that.


Ok where have I said anything about centrally managed resources? The comment was directed at cbeast as an example of someone is actually doing something with these ideas rather than living in dream land. Did you miss all my posts about how I think centrally managed resources and rbe is dumb?

1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
May 29, 2011, 05:52:36 PM
 #203

Look a robot thats going to build straw houses.

openfarmtech.org/forum/discussion/200/a-robot-to-build-a-straw-house

Cool. But it is a technology. Technologies can be used in a communist, a state capitalist or in a libertarian society.
A lot of things need to be improved in our society, but I don't think resources must be managed centrally for that.


Ok where have I said anything about centrally managed resources? The comment was directed at cbeast as an example of someone is actually doing something with these ideas rather than living in dream land. Did you miss all my posts about how I think centrally managed resources and rbe is dumb?

Sorry. My mistake.
I friend of mine who likes the idea of a rbe tries to use technologies as arguments many times. I though you were doing the same here.

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
May 29, 2011, 06:05:21 PM
 #204

Lol no worries I was just confused

1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 11:28:04 AM
 #205

Hello everyone,
this is my first post on the Bitcoin forums, I hope to find a good community here  Smiley

I read this thread up until page 7, and I could see a pattern emerge, so I would like to give my two cents here.

From what I gather, the main criticisms towards an RBE are the following:

  • TZM advocates are all talk and no action
  • TZM wants to get rid of money, which is stupid, since money is just a means of exchange
  • Economy based on competition and trade are good, it's just that centralised banking allowed for corruption, Bitcoin solves that
  • An RBE kind of makes sense, but I don't want machines taking over
  • I don't like the idea of group of scientists or computer algorithms deciding for everyone else
  • Show me a working city, then we'll talk
  • Global systems = authoritarian systems -> FUCK YOU

I'm sure I left something out but I think that pretty much sums it up.

Now, briefly on each point:

TZM advocates are all talk and no action
It is important to understand what the word action really means. According to what those who suggested this, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King where all talk and no action, too. In order to bring about global social change (e.g.: growing out of racism) requires first and foremost a change in values. If action precedes that, you are going to have violence and imposed decisions, which is what TZM wants to avoid at all costs. History tells us that the most efficient and effective way to bring about change is through peaceful means, by changing the culture of the people and empowering them with the gift of reason and cooperation. Once that happens and it reaches a critical mass, then we can start to talk about "physical action" (eg: building cities), otherwise you'll end up with a very nicely done technological city with people who will fuck it up because they don't understand the reason for such a system to exist.

TZM wants to get rid of money, which is stupid, since money is just a means of exchange
TZM does not want to get rid of money. It wants to grow out of the need for useless cyclical consumption of goods, defective by design with planned obsolescence, which produces a highly inefficient system with negative retroaction. There is a big difference. Once an efficient system is put in place (through peaceful means of cooperation, not imposed authoritarian decisions), people will have more and more free access to the necessities, and the very need for money will be greatly reduced. It might take a long time, but that fact that money becomes irrelevant in the the future is an inevitable consequence of the advancement of technology (see 3D printing and automated systems for producing goods and services, auto-repaired by robots).

Economy based on competition and trade are good, it's just that centralised banking allowed for corruption, Bitcoin solves that
Bitcoin offers an interesting opportunity to move away a lot of the problems related to financial tricks and its corruption, and it certainly is a step towards the right direction. What's missing is that the basis of corruption is not tackled, which is the fact that the system rewards corruption at all levels, and not just monetarily. By changing out values to a more sustainable economy, the incentive for corruption will be greatly reduced in the first place.

An RBE kind of makes sense, but I don't want machines taking over
Understandable if you base that on Hollywood sci-fi, but quite silly if you understand the process of systems theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory). This is science, not science fiction. Wink

I don't like the idea of group of elitist scientists or computer algorithms deciding for everyone else
It will not be "group of elitist scientists", but rather an Open Source Global Management system where anyone can collaborate, much like Linux or Firefox work now. The difference will be that it will not be relegated to computer programmers, but anyone will have access to the proper education (for free) to enter the design process and make changes, propose new ideas and be part of the teams. Authoritarian regimes are based on the ignorance of the people, emergent systems on their intelligence and education. Aaaand... back to the "action" part: change the culture, educate people, first.

Show me a working city, then we'll talk
As mentioned before, there is a time for everything. This is the "awareness" phase, and TZM is still in its infancy. There is a project underway of building a technical platform through a non-profit for scientists and engineers to start implementing the blueprints proposed, which will take time. As everything in science, it needs proper time for planning, testing and so on. Smiley

Global systems = authoritarian systems -> FUCK YOU
I think I answered that with the previous comments.

Having said that, I hope this response helps clear out some of the doubts, any further question is welcome and forgive me if I misinterpreted some of your comments. Tongue
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 11:49:46 AM
 #206

Zeitgeist Movemente is not a joke, it's just a sect/cult.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 12:19:50 PM
 #207

Zeitgeist Movemente is not a joke, it's just a sect/cult.

Oh, right, I missed that.

Sure, and there is more! They are also satanists! And communists! And nazists!
It's true, I have proof!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4xVqL5ZQco

Roll Eyes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCzJWn8eOxc
jtimon
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile WWW
June 06, 2011, 01:15:02 PM
 #208


I'm going to put words in your mouth for the sake of simplicity. Correct me where you want.

Quote from: someone
TZM wants to get rid of money, which is stupid, since money is just a means of exchange
Quote from: 4v4l0n42

No. Money will be just less and less needed due to technological advancements.


Cool.
Since RBE is not communism, that just means that is going to be easier to become self-sufficient because of the robots. I like that, But...
I think cultural/technological advancements will also allow more specialization and division of labor, which is all that money is about.
I was worried about people thinking that the prohibition of money would be great and such. That's why I labeled RBE with communism.
If you think that money will disappear on its own, you just have to wait for it to be useless
.
I think it just need some changes and will remain with us for long.

Quote from: someone
Economy based on competition and trade are good, it's just that centralised banking allowed for corruption, Bitcoin solves that
Quote from: 4v4l0n42

Bitcoin takes out some incentives for "corruption", but there's many more.


What else do you want to change about money?
Personally - and few people in the forum (if any) will agree with me on this - I think interest is a bad thing for society.
I've proposed freicoin (bitcoin with demurrage) with little success. I also try to promote ripple, the ultimate mutual credit tool. IMO, not a currency, but money. That, of course, depends on your definition of money.

Quote from: someone
  • I don't like the idea of group of scientists or computer algorithms deciding for everyone else
  • Global systems = authoritarian systems -> FUCK YOU
Quote from: 4v4l0n42

It's all going to be voluntary and free software.


Very cool. I'm for free culture.

I was confused. I thought RBE was cornucopian communism but it's just cornucopian awareness.
 Wink

2 different forms of free-money: Freicoin (free of basic interest because it's perishable), Mutual credit (no interest because it's abundant)
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 01:45:56 PM
 #209

Understand, of course, that actual communists believed their system was "voluntary" as well.  And they spent decades performing psychological research in order to find the most effective ways of conning people into agreeing with them.

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 01:53:35 PM
 #210

Cool.
Since RBE is not communism, that just means that is going to be easier to become self-sufficient because of the robots. I like that, But...
I think cultural/technological advancements will also allow more specialization and division of labor, which is all that money is about.
I was worried about people thinking that the prohibition of money would be great and such. That's why I labeled RBE with communism.
If you think that money will disappear on its own, you just have to wait for it to be useless.

That's my point. Talking about the "elimination of money" is just detrimental at this point, because it feeds projections and hell-like scenarios by people who don't get the steps before that.

Rather, let's concentrate on what is relevant: the view of the world as a single system and the human species as a single family and recognizes that all countries must disarm and learn to share resources and ideas if we expect to survive in the long run. Hence, the solutions arrived at and promoted are in the interest to help everyone on the planet Earth, not a select group.

I like to quote Carl Sagan on this: The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism and to rabid nationalism are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. We are one planet.

The money thing is just a natural consequence of that, not particularly relevant at this point.

What else do you want to change about money?
Personally - and few people in the forum (if any) will agree with me on this - I think interest is a bad thing for society.
I've proposed freicoin (bitcoin with demurrage) with little success. I also try to promote ripple, the ultimate mutual credit tool. IMO, not a currency, but money. That, of course, depends on your definition of money.

It's not money, it's the system based on profit and competition.

Forgive me, but I know you'll ask me to elaborate on that, so I'm posting a fairly long article to explain what I mean.

In the modern day, there is a great deal of public criticism in regard to “abuse” within the financial system. Toxic derivatives, CEO Bonuses, Madoff pyramid schemes, Goldman Sachs fraud, etc.. These near-constant occurrences are traditionally considered “anomalies” within the current order, tossed on to the front pages of our papers as though we should be surprised by these realities. What you don’t see on the cover of newspapers in regard to such “corruption” are those actions which are, in principle, equally as corrupt – but have been accepted as “normal” under the guises of “marketing strategy” and the “competitive nature” of the marketplace. These include various forms of dishonestly, such as the deliberate withholding of efficiency of a given good for the sake of reducing it’s “cost basis”, to the protectionist tendency of any company to preserve itself, regardless of social function or the advent of innovations which might inhibit a currently profitable practice.

It is important to point out that the motivations, and hence actions, of any human being within a society can only be a consequence of that society’s influence. Stealing, for example, is not a “genetic” trait. It is the product of a culture. Human motivation is complex and the study of human behavior should be at the forefront of criminology, with all relevant attributes of the social system considered as a possible cause. It is no revelation of human psychology, and hence sociology, that if a certain act does not offer a proper reward, then naturally there will be little motivation to carry out such an action. Likewise, if personal gain/reward can be attained through what society even condemns as an “unlawful action”, that distinction truly changes nothing if there is a level of desperation within a given person to require whatever that action may be.

Now, historically, the public assumes that certain actions are “moral” and others are not. Lying, for example, is considered “amoral”, both by common religious and legal codes. But what exactly are they referring to? What level of lying is “real”? The fact is, every single act of monetary gain is based on a form of dishonesty, only this dishonestly is simply re-termed as “competitive”. In the marketing world, everything is driven by “advantage”. The “competitive edge” is nothing more than a passive corruption where competing companies seek to “out do” each other in whatever way they can for the sake of market share. The very act of seeking differential advantage is to be engaged in the abuse of another person or group. Regardless, our social system at large chooses to collar this understanding and instead imposes punitive reactions to what the system defines as “socially offensive behavior” (or crime) while, in fact, ignoring the root causes of most of these so-called “criminal” actions – along with overlooking the other “accepted” forms of dishonesty present.

As an aside, the resolution of “offensive” human behavior can only come from an adjustment of the social system. There is no such thing as a “criminal”, as we are all products, and hence the victims, of the culture in which we are born into.

Now, before we begin, there is one more thing I would like to hesitantly point out. Criticism of the current financial order, and hence the profit problem, does not automatically mean the person presenting such a challenge is a “Marxist” or a “Communist”. Yes, the preceding statement is likely comical to those who are accustomed to thinking critically, but sadly, I need to point this out, for we can rest assured that a great number of people reading this article will simply try to find a way to reduce it to “Marxist Nonsense” – a thoughtless, capitalist catchphrase I have grown quite bored with. One of the greatest forms of imposed inhibition comes from creating associations that have been traditionally defined as “disproven”, “discredited” or the like. This is an age-old propaganda tactic to create uncomfortable, inconvenient and controversial associations in order to derail critical thought about specific “taboo” issues. Like a religion, the monetary system and the “theology” of the “free market”, is no exception. The high priests of our current economic model naturally come in the form of “monetary economists” which work in a field that is provably decoupled from any type of natural scientific order in regard to what actually sustains human life on this planet – which are natural resources and the scientific method. The only viable economic model that can possibly exist in any civilization must be explicitly based on resource management and preservation. The market system that currently exists in the world today is an utter failure in this regard and, in fact, works in a reverse capacity – perpetuating exploitation, pollution, and psychological neuroses.

Here are six problematic attributes of the market system:

1. A “Corruption Generating” Incentive System. It is often said that the competitive marketplace creates the incentive to act for the sake of social progress. While this is partially true, it also generates an equal if not more pronounced amount of corruption in the form of planned obsolescence, common crime, wars, large scale financial fraud, slave labor and many other issues. Well over 90% of the people in prisons are there because of monetary-related crime or non-violent drug offenses. The majority of legislation exists in the context of monetary-based crimes. Also, if one is to critically examine history and peer into the documented biographies/mentalities of the greatest scientists and inventors of our time, such a N. Tesla, A. Einstein, A. Bell, the Wright Brothers, and many others, it is found that they did not find their motivation in the prospect of monetary gain. The interest to make money must not be confused with the interest to create socially beneficial products. In a sustainable society, human motivation would be driven by contributions to society, and hence ‘themselves’ – not abstractly “making money”. The system would be designed to best facilitate the needs of the population directly. Yes, this is that dangerous phenomenon we hear so much about, with the image of blood engulfing the planet Earth, denoted as “socialistic”. God forbid society might actually be ‘designed’ to benefit the people which live inside of it. The fact of the matter is, the profit motive incentive, and hence our competition oriented system, is entirely “anti-society”. It is a pure corruption. The entire point of a social organization is to facilitate and perpetuate the well-being of its citizenry. In society today, the exact opposite is true. People are told they must “earn a living”, which perpetuates a form of superstition that only certain people deserve the “right of life” and others do not.

2. The need for infinite growth. Infinite economic growth is not only mathematically unsustainable, but it is ecologically detrimental. While people can debate the theoretical nature of “capitalism” and how it is “supposed” to function, one thing is historically clear. It perpetuates/requires constant growth and consumption. The entire basis of the Market System is not the intelligent management of our mostly finite resources on this planet, but rather the perpetual extraction and consumption of them for the sake of profit and “economic growth”. In order to keep people employed, people must constantly buy and consume, regardless of the state of affairs within the environment and often regardless of product utility and basic necessity. This is the absolute reverse of what a sustainable practice would require, which is the strategic preservation and efficient use of resources. In a sustainable society, a “steady-state” economy would be in order. This would mean that there is no pressure to consume, as labor is not linked into the feedback loop. While it is very difficult for most people today to imagine a world which does not impose the need for “labor for income”, it needs to be pointed out that the constant requirement for labor is nothing but detrimental in the modern day, especially in light of the growing efficiency of mechanization of labor across developed nations.

3. A disjunct, inefficient industrial complex which wastes tremendous amount of resources and energy. In the world today, with the advent of Globalization, it has become more profitable to import and export both labor and goods across the globe, than to produce locally. We import bananas from Ecuador to the US, bottled water from Fuji, Japan, while western companies will go to the 3rd world to exploit cheap labor, etc.. Likewise, the process of extraction, to component generation, to assembly, to distribution of a given good might cross through multiple countries for a single final product, simply due to labor and production costs / property costs. This is extreme inefficiency and only justifiable within the market system for the sake of “saving money”.

In a sustainable society, the focus would be maximum efficiency. The production process is not dispersed, but made as centralized and fluid as possible, with elements moving the very least amount, saving what would be tremendous amounts of energy and labor when compared to methods today. Food is grown locally whenever possible (which is most of the time given the flexibility of indoor agriculture technology today) while all extraction, production and distribution is logically organized to use as little labor/transport/space as possible, while producing the *best possible goods. (*see more below) In other words, the system is planned to maximize efficiently and minimize waste.

4. A propensity for “Establishments”. Very simply, established corporate/financial orders have a built in tendency to stop new, socially positive advents from coming to fruition, if there is a foreshadowed loss of market share, profit and hence power. It is important to consider the basic nature of a corporation and its inherent need for self-perpetuation. If a person starts a company, hires employees, creates a market and becomes profitable, what has thus been created, in part, is the means for survival for a group of people. Since each person in that group typically becomes dependent on their organization for income, a natural, protectionist propensity is created whereas anything that threatens the institution thus threatens the well-being of the group/individual. This is the fabric of a “competition” mindset. While people think of free market competition as a battle between two or more companies in a given industry, they often miss the other level – which is the competition against new advents which would make them outright obsolete. The best way to expand on this point is to simply give an example, such as the US Government and ‘Big Oil’ collusion to limit the expansion of the fully Electric Car (EV) in the US. This issue was well presented and sourced in the documentary called “Who Killed the Electric Car?”. The bottom line here is that the need to preserve an established order for the sake of the well-being of those on the payroll, leads to an inherent tendency to stifle progress. A new technology which can make a prior technology obsolete will be met with resistance unless there is a way for the market system to adsorb it in a slow fashion, allowing for a transition for the corporations ( i.e. the perpetuation of “Hybrid” cars in the US, as opposed to the fully electric ones which could exist now, in abundance.) There are also large amounts of evidence that the FDA has engaged in favoritism/collusion with pharmaceutical companies, to limit/stop the availability of advanced drugs which would void existing/profitable ones.

In a sustainable society, there is nothing to hold back developmental/implementation of anything, once it has been tested thoroughly. There could be no “Established Institutions”. New methods would immediately be implemented into society, with no monetary institution to thwart the change due to their self-preserving nature.

5. An inherent obsolescence which creates inferior products immediately due to the need to stay “competitive”. This little recognized attribute of production is another example of the waste which is created in the market system. It is bad enough that multiple companies constantly duplicate each others items in an attempt to make their variations more interesting for the sake of public consumption, but a more wasteful reality is that due to the competitive basis of the system, it is a mathematical certainty that every good produced is immediately inferior the moment it is created, due the need to cut the initial cost basis of production, and hence stay “competitive” against another company which is doing the same thing for the same reason. The old free market adage where producers “create the best possible goods at the lowest possible prices” is a needlessly wasteful reality and detrimentally misleading. It is impossible for a company to use the most efficient material or processes in the productions of anything, for it would be too expensive to maintain a competitive cost basis. They very simply cannot make the “strategically best”, physically – it is mathematically impossible. If they did, no one would buy it, for it would be unaffordable due the values inherent in the higher quality materials and methods. Remember: People buy what they can afford. Every person on this planet has a built in limit of affordability in the monetary system, so it generates a feedback loop of constant waste via inferior production, to meet inferior demand.

In a sustainable society, goods are created to last, with the expansion and updating of certain goods built directly into the design and recycling strategically accessed as well, limiting waste. You will notice the term “strategic best” was used in a statement above. This qualification means that goods are created with respect to state of affairs of the planetary resources and with the quality of materials used based on an equation taking into account all relevant attributes, rates of depletion, negative retro-actions and the like. In other words, we would not use TITANIUM for every single computer enclosure made, just because it might be the empirically “strongest” materials for the job. That practice could lead to depletion. Rather, there would be a gradient of material quality which would be assessed through analysis of, again, relevant attributes such as comparable resources, rates of natural obsolescence for a given item, statical usage in the community, etc. These properties and relationships could be assessed through programming, with the most strategically viable solution computed and output in real time.

6. The market system is driven, in part, by scarcity. The less there is of something, the more money that can be generated in the short term. This sets up a propensity for corporations to limit availability and hence deny production abundance. It is simply against the very nature of what drives demand to create abundance. The Kimberly Diamond Mines in Africa have been documented in the past to burn diamonds in order to keep prices high. Diamonds are rare resources which take billions of years to be created. This is nothing but problematic. The world we live in should be based on the interest to generate an abundance for the world’s people, along with strategic preservation and streamlined methods to enable that abundance. This is a central reason why, as of 2010, there are over a billion people starving on the planet. It has nothing to do with an inability to produce food, and everything having to do with an inherent need to create/preserve scarcity for the sake of short term profits. Abundance, Efficiency and Sustainability are, very simply, the enemies of profit. This also applies to the quality of goods. The idea of creating something that could last, say, a lifetime with little repair, is anathema to the market system, for it reduces consumption rates, which slows growth and creates systemic repercussions (like a loss of jobs, etc.). The scarcity attribute of the market system is nothing but detrimental for these reasons, not to mention that it doesn’t even serve the role of efficient resource preservation, which is often claimed. While supply and demand dictates that the less there is of something, the more it will be valued (and hence the increased value will limit consumption, reducing the possibility of “running out”), the incentive to create scarcity, coupled with the inherent short term reward which results from scarcity-driven-based prices, nullifies the idea that this enables strategic preservation. We will likely never “run out” of oil, in the current market system. Rather, the prices will become so high that no one can afford it, while those corporation who own the remaining oil, will make a great deal of money off of the scarcity, regardless of the long term social ramifications. In other words, remaining scare resources, existing in such high economic value that it limits their consumption, is not to be confused with preservation that is functional and strategic. True preservation, which must be strategic, can only come from the direct management of the resource in question in regard to the most efficient applications of the resource in industry itself; not arbitrary, surface price relationships, absent of rational allocation.


I was confused. I thought RBE was cornucopian communism but it's just cornucopian awareness.
 Wink

LOL,  Cheesy
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 02:05:52 PM
 #211

Understand, of course, that actual communists believed their system was "voluntary" as well.  And they spent decades performing psychological research in order to find the most effective ways of conning people into agreeing with them.

Suuuure, "voluntary" like the 23,000,000 estimated people killed by Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) with the purges plus Ukraine's famine.

Again, the problem is culture. To con people you need them ignorant or emotionally fragile (like Scientology), when you empower people to become intelligent and educated you can't "con" them. That's what TZM propose.

Education, reason, sustainability, science, cooperation, peace and empathy.
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 02:41:45 PM
 #212

Understand, of course, that actual communists believed their system was "voluntary" as well.  And they spent decades performing psychological research in order to find the most effective ways of conning people into agreeing with them.

Suuuure, "voluntary" like the 23,000,000 estimated people killed by Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) with the purges plus Ukraine's famine.

Again, the problem is culture. To con people you need them ignorant or emotionally fragile (like Scientology), when you empower people to become intelligent and educated you can't "con" them. That's what TZM propose.

Education, reason, sustainability, science, cooperation, peace and empathy.

I thought AI developed by a small number of people number of people was going to take care of making decisions for people?

"Education, reason, sustainability, science, cooperation, peace and empathy"

vague emotionally potent oversimplifications serve to keep people bewildered and off track.




1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 02:53:55 PM
 #213

Understand, of course, that actual communists believed their system was "voluntary" as well.  And they spent decades performing psychological research in order to find the most effective ways of conning people into agreeing with them.

Suuuure, "voluntary" like the 23,000,000 estimated people killed by Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) with the purges plus Ukraine's famine.

Again, the problem is culture. To con people you need them ignorant or emotionally fragile (like Scientology), when you empower people to become intelligent and educated you can't "con" them. That's what TZM propose.

Education, reason, sustainability, science, cooperation, peace and empathy.

I thought AI developed by a small number of people number of people was going to take care of making decisions for people?

"Education, reason, sustainability, science, cooperation, peace and empathy"

vague emotionally potent oversimplifications serve to keep people bewildered and off track.


Don't try to argue with zeitgeist zombies: they know nothing of economy and they've been brainwashed. It's a cult/sect, really.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
anderxander
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 03:04:36 PM
 #214

Yeah thanks, I have been saying that forever and trying to get them to see that because the energy they have is a positive thing, albeit misguided. It's time to be done though. We'll see who achieves the goal first. But seeing as they have been at this for half a century and have gone no where at all, I doubt they can actually do what they are talking about.


They have one test facility. In 40 years?

Permaculturists, Factor E Farm and Open Source Ecology have done more in 3 years in developing decentralized technologies for producing abundance and giving access to affordable, self replicating, manufacturing equipment than TZM has in all its history.

"Factor - E - Farm"

"Building tools for replicable, open source, post-scarcity resilient communities.

Open Source Ecology is a network of farmers, engineers, and supporters that has been imagining and creating the Global Village Construction Set, an open source, low-cost, high performance technological platform. These DIY-fabricated industrial machines can be used to build a sustainable civilization with modern comforts. The GVCS lowers the barriers to entry into farming, building, and manufacturing. It is a life-size lego-like set of modular tools that can create entire economies. "

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Main_Page
 

These technologies will take bitcoin to the next level. Let's show how bitcoin can take these technologies to the next level and donate bitcoin! They accept bitcoin donations.

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Donate


1NhQB9dPCRKWJGBJmBhNJxCUnbrbXTiYY2
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 03:56:56 PM
 #215

Open Source Ecology is a perfect example of the application of what TZM proposes, on a very specific topic.

The overall argument is that instead of comparing who is doing more or less, and in which field, it's the recognition of what is most important and the direction to follow. There are many institutions that are doing excellent work on the same direction: The Singularity University, the XPrize, Open Source Ecology, The RepRap project... instead of saying "Hey, those guys are better", or "those guys have done more than those other guys", we should happy that more and more groups of people are waking up to this direction.

Remember, cooperation is what matters most. It is of little or no importance what label you give: TZM, OSE, SU, whatever the name, it's the idea that counts.

I hope that clear it up for all those who love to use the word "cult".

Quote
Don't try to argue with zeitgeist zombies: they know nothing of economy and they've been brainwashed. It's a cult/sect, really.

Oh geez...  Roll Eyes

I was hoping for a civilised discussion based on reason and science. Calling a group of people "zombies" and "brainwashed" just for the sake of it, without providing any evidence is little more than backyard bullying. If you have an argument, please present it. If you just want to pick up a fight, you will find none Smiley
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 04:02:48 PM
 #216

They have one test facility. In 40 years?

TZM has been around for a little over two years, you are referring to The Venus Project, an organisation form which TZM took some general ideas but soon disassociated from, so that it could have a more general approach and open up to more possibilities, like the one you just mentioned (Open Source Ecology), along with many others. Smiley
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 04:19:40 PM
 #217

Quote
Don't try to argue with zeitgeist zombies: they know nothing of economy and they've been brainwashed. It's a cult/sect, really.

Oh geez...  Roll Eyes

I was hoping for a civilised discussion based on reason and science. Calling a group of people "zombies" and "brainwashed" just for the sake of it, without providing any evidence is little more than backyard bullying. If you have an argument, please present it. If you just want to pick up a fight, you will find none Smiley

- You can't replace most workers with robots.
- You shouldn't replace a democracy with an AI.
- Money will not dissapear.
- Resources ARE scarce.
- Zeitgeist movies just lie about how capitalism and banks work. I don't like capitalism, but when they state that money is debt they are knowingly lying.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 05:15:32 PM
 #218

- You can't replace most workers with robots.
- You shouldn't replace a democracy with an AI.
- Money will not dissapear.
- Resources ARE scarce.
- Zeitgeist movies just lie about how capitalism and banks work. I don't like capitalism, but when they state that money is debt they are knowingly lying.

OK, regardless of the fact that even is the aforementioned were true, the "cult" association is a non-sequitur, I will address them.

You can't replace most workers with robots

Automation has already replaced most of the jobs, which now shifted to "service" sector, providing not much of a social contribution other than having to deal with the social neuroses that are created by the competitive, profit-motive structure (advertisement, banking, lawyers, money-related crimes and police, psychological problems due to stress, financial institutions, etc...).

As for the actual replacement, it's important to note which jobs can be easily automated, and that is the manufacturing sector. When the necessities of life are created automatically by machines (technically feasible with 2011 technology), people can enjoy their lives doing something that actually matters and provides social contribution, because they like to, not because otherwise they starve to death.

You shouldn't replace a democracy with an AI

I agree. In fact, that is not what TZM proposes. Go and review the material please, instead of jumping to weird conclusions.

Money will not dissapear

It will become more and more irrelevant, in a post scarcity economy. And even if that was not the case, it doesn't change anything with regards to the social direction (sustainability and application of the scientific method for social concern).

Resources ARE scarce

Exactly! That's why a cyclical consumption model based on "infinite resources" does not make sense. What makes sense is the intelligent use of those scarse resources, to create an "access abundance", meaning that we can sustainably provide more than we actually need. This is technically possible if things were made to last (no planned obsolescence) and to be re-used instead of being thrown away very quickly. Water, food, houses, transportation and so on can be provided in abundance, if correctly managed. If not, you end up in chaos, with billions of people starving. Like, you know, right fucking now.

Zeitgeist movies just lie about how capitalism and banks work. I don't like capitalism, but when they state that money is debt they are knowingly lying

I don't like to talk about that part much, because it's mostly irrelevant. But if you want proof of that just read the document released by the Federal Reserve "Modern Money Mechanics". http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Modern_Money_Mechanics.pdf

Again, even if that was not true, it doesn't change the overall argument by one bit.
Findeton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 05:44:35 PM
 #219

You can't replace most workers with robots

Automation has already replaced most of the jobs, which now shifted to "service" sector, providing not much of a social contribution other than having to deal with the social neuroses that are created by the competitive, profit-motive structure (advertisement, banking, lawyers, money-related crimes and police, psychological problems due to stress, financial institutions, etc...).

As for the actual replacement, it's important to note which jobs can be easily automated, and that is the manufacturing sector. When the necessities of life are created automatically by machines (technically feasible with 2011 technology), people can enjoy their lives doing something that actually matters and provides social contribution, because they like to, not because otherwise they starve to death.

It's good to know that you don't think engineers, architects and doctors shouldn't and can't be replaced by machines. Because, by the way, that's what Venus Project creators state.

You shouldn't replace a democracy with an AI

I agree. In fact, that is not what TZM proposes. Go and review the material please, instead of jumping to weird conclusions.

I don't know exactly differences between TZM and Venus Project, but in the Venus Project they state that politics are not necessary, and that every political aspect should be decided by AI. They say that, for example, the location of a dam/reservoir should be decided by AI. All that is nonsense and crazy: AIs do not think, all the power would be in the hands of programmers.

Money will not dissapear

It will become more and more irrelevant, in a post scarcity economy. And even if that was not the case, it doesn't change anything with regards to the social direction (sustainability and application of the scientific method for social concern).

Scientific method applies only to science. Social sciences are not exact, and of course you can't create an AI to decide with the so-called "Scientific method" anything related to social sciences.

Social sciences (like economy, politics and sociology) only can be performed by people, not AI.

Moreover, science can only be performed/controlled by scientists, not AI. Science is the constant search for an error of actual scientific models and the constant search for better theories. All of that is done by thinking, and machines do not think.

So yeah, all that "scientific method"  thing achieved through AI is NONSENSE.

Bitcoin Weekly, bitcoin analysis and commentary

14DD7MhRXuw3KDuyUuXvAsRcK4KXTT36XA
4v4l0n42
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98


View Profile
June 06, 2011, 06:06:41 PM
 #220

It's good to know that you don't think engineers, architects and doctors shouldn't and can't be replaced by machines. Because, by the way, that's what Venus Project creators state.

I don't care what they say, TZM is a very different thing and proposes no such nonsense.

I don't know exactly differences between TZM and Venus Project, but in the Venus Project they state that politics are not necessary, and that every political aspect should be decided by AI. They say that, for example, the location of a dam/reservoir should be decided by AI. All that is nonsense and crazy: AIs do not think, all the power would be in the hands of programmers.

TZM proposes to utilise the scientific method for social concern, and that includes AIs for arriving at better decisions, much like we do now for virtually any technical process. The difference is that, because of social evolutionary baggages, the actual social design as a whole does not use such a method, which is utterly absurd.

Scientific method applies only to science. Social sciences are not exact, and of course you can't create an AI to decide with the so-called "Scientific method" anything related to social sciences.

Social sciences (like economy, politics and sociology) only can be performed by people, not AI.

You are confusing scientific method with AI.

Geez, science is what fucking works, ok? If you were to write a compiler not using the scientific method, guess what? If would not work. If you build a bridge not using the scientific method, it falls down. If you don't apply the scientific method to social design, guess what? Poverty, hunger, corruption, wars... good fucking job there!

The AI just helps people achieve certain goals better, because it works much better than the human brain on very specific tasks. The overall structures is obviously managed by the collective intelligence of the people, who decide what to do based on scientific evidence (e.g.: what do we need? How do we achieve it?)
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 ... 124 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!