A Resource Based Economy

[Bitcoin_Silver_Supply]

TVP != TZM. So, stop associating the two. Venus Project bla bla bla, therefore TZM... is a non sequitur.

I can see why your movement would be going to great lengths to distance itself from Fresco and The Venus Project despite the films glorifying them. Fresco seems to be very bad at keeping the "less pleasant" details of his Malthusian plan to himself (2:10 mark, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4F90DeJJpA).

Question: "So how do you make sure [population] won't exceed the limits of resources?"

Fresco: "Well, the survey committee tells us what kind.. (colleague interjects) ...They would have to be educated

Question: What if you can't get people to stop reproducing?

Fresco: We show them a film called dynamic equilibrium in nature.. If you produce more people than the land can support, these are the problems you're gonna have. Now if they don't seem to understand that...That's another problem.

[1713572180]

1713572180

[1713572180]

1713572180

[1713572180]

1713572180

[1713572180]

1713572180

[1713572180]

1713572180

[1713572180]

1713572180

[Findeton]

In fact, nowhere it's said the process should be democratic. It should a rational consensus based on scientific evidence, which is a completely different thing.

Look, it's really simple. If you needed to get you appendix taken out, would you hold a democratic vote, or would you ask various specialists and see if they agree or not?

Again, the problem is culture. As free, relevant education is given access to, more and more people will become knowledgeable and capable of understanding what's going on. As I already said, TZM promotes culture, not ignorance.

First: If the venus project is different from the Zeitgeist movement, you should distance yourself from people like LightRider every time you can, because elsehow it will damage TZM. I haven't seen any distance keeping action from TZM.

About democracy: So you want wise men (scientists, supposedly) to rule your society. I repeat it: that's an aristocracy/meritocracy. According to Wikipedia "Aristocracy is a form of government in which the best qualified citizens rule". So I still see no difference in essence between what you advocate and what The Venus Project advocates.

[jtimon]

By the way, 4v4l0n42, does your definition of RBE fit with this one?

Loosely. That is only concerned with resource abundance, it tells little or nothing about sustainability and intelligent resource management.

This is a bit more comprehensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mkRFCtl2MI

And the transcript, if you don't want to watch the video:
http://dotsub.com/view/9c2f8c32-f350-45fe-b053-7ad8dd526eec/viewTranscript/eng

I've watched the video. Is there a shorter definition?
Anyway, it says that social balance is impossible because of the free market. I don't think so. Removing the free market would be removing freedom, it doesn't matter if people give it to politicians, "experts" or machines.
I agree with the video when it says that the monetary system is highly corrupted. Bitcoin partially solves that. But I also think that interest (thus capitalism) is incompatible with social justice. That's why I proposed freicoin inspired by Gesell's ideas.

[4v4l0n42]

First: If the venus project is different from the Zeitgeist movement, you should distance yourself from people like LightRider every time you can, because elsehow it will damage TZM. I haven't seen any distance keeping action from TZM.

I don't know LightRider, and I don't have time to "distance" myself from any particular individual. I state the facts and answer questions, then if you have a working mind you can do the rest yourself.

About democracy: So you want wise men (scientists, supposedly) to rule your society. I repeat it: that's an aristocracy/meritocracy. According to Wikipedia "Aristocracy is a form of government in which the best qualified citizens rule".

You are missing the point. It's not about who decides what, but according to what method. We advocate the scientific method, so if everybody was scientific literate, as we propose, everybody would be engaged in the act of "deciding".

Aristocracy is a loaded word, and doesn't solve the problem because you are to have to explain who is qualified and why, who decides and so on.

If you don't understand that, try joining the Drupal or the Firefox development team. And, by the way, it's not just programmers, there is usability testing, graphic design and all sorts of things, and that's just a software program. Apply that to the whole society, and anybody can contribute, given that the scientific method is followed.

You keep thinking in abstract terms and ideologies, and that's why you project those notions to other. I'm talking about practical things that work, I'm not interested in discussion the sex of the angels as you are.

I still see no difference in essence between what you advocate and what The Venus Project advocates.

That's because you haven't read the material or our articles, you haven't been attending any of the meetings, you don't know how we work, you haven't seen our conferences, you haven't engaged in discussion with anybody. You just read a couple of lines, flicked through superficially, made up stuff, and then insulted everyone who talked about an RBE.

No wonder you don't understand.

[Sjalq]

OK, if you advocate the scientific method, what has recent history taught us happens when we destroy the pricing mechanism?

[Findeton]

About democracy: So you want wise men (scientists, supposedly) to rule your society. I repeat it: that's an aristocracy/meritocracy. According to Wikipedia "Aristocracy is a form of government in which the best qualified citizens rule".

You are missing the point. It's not about who decides what, but according to what method. We advocate the scientific method, so if everybody was scientific literate, as we propose, everybody would be engaged in the act of "deciding".

Aristocracy is a loaded word, and doesn't solve the problem because you are to have to explain who is qualified and why, who decides and so on.

If you don't understand that, try joining the Drupal or the Firefox development team. And, by the way, it's not just programmers, there is usability testing, graphic design and all sorts of things, and that's just a software program. Apply that to the whole society, and anybody can contribute, given that the scientific method is followed.

You keep thinking in abstract terms and ideologies, and that's why you project those notions to other. I'm talking about practical things that work, I'm not interested in discussion the sex of the angels as you are.

You can only apply the scientific method to SCIENCE. Love is not a science. Engineering is not science although it uses science. Politics is not a science. Programming is not a science. You have to understand the difference between doing science and applying scientific knowledge.

Science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations" (wikipedia).

The scientific method is just a way of acquiring new knowledge, not a way of organizing society or deciding economy/policy/laws. It's neither a way of deciding if for example capitalism, communism or a resource based society is the best thing for humanity. You can't use the scientific method to decide if a man has to go to prison or not. You can't use the scientific method to decide if we ought to build nuclear power plants or solar cells...

So: Where exactly do you pretend to apply the scientific method?

[4v4l0n42]

The scientific method is just a way of acquiring new knowledge, not a way of organizing society or deciding economy/policy/laws.

That's where you are dead wrong.

You can't use the scientific method to decide if a man has to go to prison or not.

As I already stated, the matter of ethics is for another discussion. But yes, you can, and, in fact, if you study the science of human behaviour you see that prisons are highly detrimental for societies.

If you want to deal with criminality and prevent it, I suggest you study the scientific literature in that reagard. A few names.

Gabor Maté is a Hungarian-born Canadian physician who specializes in the study and treatment of addiction and is also widely recognized for his unique perspective on Attention Deficit Disorder and his firmly held belief in the connection between mind and body health.

James Gilligan is an American psychiatrist and author, husband of Carol Gilligan and best known for his series of books entitled Violence, where he draws on 25 years of work in the American prison system to describe the motivation and causes behind violent behaviour. During his career, Gilligan has served as director for the Bridgewater State Hospital for the criminally insane, director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system and President of the International Association for Forensic Psychotherapy. He now lectures at the Department of Psychiatry, New York University.

You can't use the scientific method to decide if we ought to build nuclear power plants or solar cells...

If you don't understand how wrong this sentence is, then there is nothing to talk about. You simply have no idea how the scientific method works.

[andes]

I havent read the whole thread, but from the little I have heard about RBE / Venus Project, they think someone/something can make the "best" economic decisions in an "objetive" manner, so peoples decisions are not needed.

First off, there is no absolute objetivity whatsoever. That is a naive simplification. In fact, if you believe in science, you must necessarily come to the conclusion that objective reality is an ilusion. Ask any quantum physicyst, or good biologist, and he will tell you that there is no such thing as absolute objectivity. Science disproves objective reality. Its that simple.

Venus project lives in an oxymoron. Seems this guys are operating from a mindset 150 year old.

I recommend reading the book "Tree of knowledge" from Humberto Maturana to awake to this fundamental issue.
http://www.amazon.com/Tree-Knowledge-Humberto-R-Maturana/dp/0877736421

[4v4l0n42]

First off, there is no absolute objetivity whatsoever. That is a naive simplification. In fact, if you believe in science, you must necessarily come to the conclusion that objective reality is an ilusion.

True. And it's a strawman argument. Nobody said that with science you get the best objective decision. However, you can make the best with the knowledge available at the moment, and that is constantly changing.

I really don't see why people have such a difficulty understanding the basics of the scientific method. Science tells you what is the best up to that point, with the information available. As more information comes in, you make better predictions, create better theories and better experiments. It's not a fallacy of the method, it's how it's supposed to work.

When the first ideas of non-Euclidean geometry were introduced, we didn't throw geometry out of the window. We gained more knowledge. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, we didn't burn the books about Newtonian mechanics.

Why do you keep thinking in absolute, philosophical terms? If you want to better manage a society, you need to be practical and talk about real things.

[Findeton]

First off, there is no absolute objetivity whatsoever. That is a naive simplification. In fact, if you believe in science, you must necessarily come to the conclusion that objective reality is an ilusion.

True. And it's a strawman argument. Nobody said that with science you get the best objective decision. However, you can make the best with the knowledge available at the moment, and that is constantly changing.

I really don't see why people have such a difficulty understanding the basics of the scientific method. Science tells you what is the best up to that point, with the information available. As more information comes in, you make better predictions, create better theories and better experiments. It's not a fallacy of the method, it's how it's supposed to work.

When the first ideas of non-Euclidean geometry were introduced, we didn't throw geometry out of the window. We gained more knowledge. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, we didn't burn the books about Newtonian mechanics.

Why do you keep thinking in absolute, philosophical terms? If you want to better manage a society, you need to be practical and talk about real things.

4v4l0n42 when you get to real things, everything is subjective. I'm an engineer and that's one reason I know you are wrong. I mean, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with nuclear power plants in comparison to solar power harvesting: each option has its own drawbacks and advantages. BTW I advocate for solar techs but that's just my opinion: you can ask on this matter to many scientists and they'll not agree with each other on this subject.

The scientific method is just a way of acquiring new knowledge, not a way of organizing society or deciding economy/policy/laws.

That's where you are dead wrong.

No, that's where you are wrong. I repeat it: The scientific method is just a way of acquiring new knowledge, not a way of organizing society or deciding economy/policy/laws.

You cannot apply the scientific method to anything apart from science. And science is "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations" (wikipedia).

The scientific method is a way of acquiring new knowledge (testing accepted and new theories), JUST THAT. You don't understand that, and I DO understand that because I am an engineer and because I'm an engineer I know the difference between doing science and applying science.

If you try to use the scientific method to anything apart from acquiring new knowledge in the realms of science, you are just PRETENDING to use the scientific method just like parrots pretend to speak by repeating sentences.

And yeah, you're a member of a cult. Just like scientology is a cult, Zeitgeist and the Venus Project are cults/sects. Although I must say that from what I know Scientology is a far more dangerous sect, for now.

[andes]

First off, there is no absolute objetivity whatsoever. That is a naive simplification. In fact, if you believe in science, you must necessarily come to the conclusion that objective reality is an ilusion.

True. And it's a strawman argument. Nobody said that with science you get the best objective decision. However, you can make the best with the knowledge available at the moment, and that is constantly changing.

I really don't see why people have such a difficulty understanding the basics of the scientific method. Science tells you what is the best up to that point, with the information available. As more information comes in, you make better predictions, create better theories and better experiments. It's not a fallacy of the method, it's how it's supposed to work.

When the first ideas of non-Euclidean geometry were introduced, we didn't throw geometry out of the window. We gained more knowledge. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, we didn't burn the books about Newtonian mechanics.

Why do you keep thinking in absolute, philosophical terms? If you want to better manage a society, you need to be practical and talk about real things.

Talk about fallacies! You say you understand the scientifc method, but you sound more like a brainwashed cult follower, than a scientist. Where in the world did you learn that science tells me what is the best for me? This is nonsense.

I am am engineer, so I understand the scientific method very well. And so did Galileo 400 years ago. What I dont understand is the fixation of you guys with the scientific method, as if it was some new cool discovery. Most of the man made things you see arround you were made one way or another using the scientific methd. The scientific method is all arround us, it is nothing new, nothing exclusive of your movement. Its the most common thing arround in our technological world.

Also, from what you write I think you dont understand subjectivity at all. You confuse the concept of precision, and accuracy of science, with the concept of subjectivity. These concepts are not related.

Science is about description and predicion of natural laws. It is just a man-made mental frame to attack certain problems. It deals very well at explaining the simple "dead" parts of our universe (i.e. astronomy, classical mechanics, chemistry). It deals increasingly worst with the more complex phenomena (living organisms, psycology). It starts to disintegrate when trying to explain the fundamental fabric of spacetime (quantum physics --> most scientists now believe in the existence of multiple universes). And then it fails utterly at explaining the fundamental nature of reality itself, and the nature of consiousness. And it must fail, of course, because science itself is a creation of counsiousness, a tool of the mind. A hammer cannot explain the nature of a carpetener.

And regarding value-based decision making: Science cant tell me allways whats best for me! Ultimately, what it is best for me, has to do with my own values. Its subjective in nature. It is an integral part of my consciousness, something science will never explain. If you try to impose to me whats best for me, I will impose to you my fist.

I tend to see your movement as trying to use a fallacius and simplistic association between science and values, to impose a certain worldview over others. This is dangerous. It has been done before with disatrous results.

The misuse of science has made this world a mess. We dont need more science fanatics, we need more understanding and respect for ourselves and our world. We have plenty of science arround us, we lack human morality and decency.

[Findeton]

I really don't see why people have such a difficulty understanding the basics of the scientific method. Science tells you what is the best up to that point, with the information available. As more information comes in, you make better predictions, create better theories and better experiments. It's not a fallacy of the method, it's how it's supposed to work.

When the first ideas of non-Euclidean geometry were introduced, we didn't throw geometry out of the window. We gained more knowledge. When Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, we didn't burn the books about Newtonian mechanics.

There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels. You are comparing science with politics and morality and that's absurd. You might think that you haven't entered the realms of morality and politics but you HAVE. Maybe you will disagree on this subject, but then I must conclude that your reasoning is blocked by you sect/cult.

Science says something like: nuclear power plants harvest a lot of energy per mass of uranium, and create nuclear waste. Solar cells are created through a process that contaminates a lot of liters of water and releases a lot of CO2, and harvest energy from the sun with a 15-20% efficiency. Science, and the scientific method, does NOT tell you which option to choose. Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fullfill your dreams/objectives/morality.

Science doesn't tell you if you should gun somebody. Science just tells you that the bullet will hit that person at a certain velocity and it will probably provoke his death. Should you shoot that somebody? should you build that bridge? Should you use currencies or a resource based economy? Should you create prisons? Should you live in a planned economy society? Science won't decide any of that for you.  Science will (maybe) make some predictions on the result of your decision, but making the decision is absolutely out of the realms of science, and of the scientific method.

[Sjalq]

Price mechanism, price mechanism, price mechanism!

RBE folks please explain to me if you think money is emergent (naturally occurring)?

And if so what fundamental problem does it solve?

[4v4l0n42]

You claim to be engineers, yet you show little knowledge of the scientific process at work. I wonder if you ever did any science at all in your life, and with what results.

You claim that we confuse things, yet you make the most fallacious arguments about subjectivity and the association with values, ethics, science and personal views.

All I can see is a couple of people withy reasoning minds, capable of presenting some counter-argument, and a lot of big-mouthed ignorants who use words cult and fanatics very lightly.

As the discussion goes into that realm, it is obvious you have:
- no understanding of the subject
- no interest in understanding anything
- a complete close mind when it comes to new ideas, and you keep feeding back to your loop
- all the interest in picking a fight

Needless to say, I am not interested in wasting my time when such conditions apply. So, if and when you are capable of civilised discussion, I'll be happy to answer.

I am a scientist. I have a background in computer science, but in the years I have studies a variety of subjects, and I had the pleasure to thoroughly discuss with people who are doing real science and real research, from biochemists, structural engineers, roboticists, evolutionary biologists, physicists et cetera.

All of those scientists I talked to support my claims to a certain extend. And when they had a criticism, it was based on solid science.

You just shout insults.

As Oscar Wilde put it:
Ah! Don't say you agree with me. When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong.

I shall add: tell me that you disagree, and why.

[LightRider]

Price mechanism, price mechanism, price mechanism!

RBE folks please explain to me if you think money is emergent (naturally occurring)?

And if so what fundamental problem does it solve?

Everything is emergent, as we live in an emergent universe.

Money has outlived its usefulness, as it was developed in response to real or perceived scarcity, along with the development of early forms of government and society. We currently enjoy a highly technical society that can produce far greater resources for people through the full use of our technical and scientific capabilities. Unfortunately, the dominant monetary system and associated institutions resist such progress due to distorted values.

Money is no longer needed, as its current dominant function is to deny people what they need to survive if they fail to have enough of it.

A resource based economy requires that we learn what resources we have available on this planet and use them intelligently to provide a higher quality of life than the richest people enjoy today. Without such knowledge of our current resource availability, we are left with a flawed monetary system and a wasteful, destructive and abusive pricing mechanism that is functioning only to improve its own arbitrary and irrelevant metrics at the expense of human life and ecological stability.

[Vinnie]

Needless to say, I am not interested in wasting my time when such conditions apply. So, if and when you are capable of civilised discussion, I'll be happy to answer.

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Stop bumping this fucking topic. You're ruining this forum. Please, for the love of God, stop wasting your time here. I beg you.

[Vinnie]

blah blah blah

You too.

[Findeton]

You didn't answer a sole thing. So I'll repeat it, because it looks like we've reached your soft spot:

There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels. You are comparing science with politics and morality and that's absurd. You might think that you haven't entered the realms of morality and politics but you HAVE. Maybe you will disagree on this subject, but then I must conclude that your reasoning is blocked by you sect/cult.

Science says something like: nuclear power plants harvest a lot of energy per mass of uranium, and create nuclear waste. Solar cells are created through a process that contaminates a lot of liters of water and releases a lot of CO2, and harvest energy from the sun with a 15-20% efficiency. Science, and the scientific method, does NOT tell you which option to choose. Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fullfill your dreams/objectives/morality.

Science doesn't tell you if you should gun somebody. Science just tells you that the bullet will hit that person at a certain velocity and it will probably provoke his death. Should you shoot that somebody? should you build that bridge? Should you use currencies or a resource based economy? Should you create prisons? Should you live in a planned economy society? Science won't decide any of that for you.  Science will (maybe) make some predictions on the result of your decision, but making the decision is absolutely out of the realms of science, and of the scientific method.

[LightRider]

Needless to say, I am not interested in wasting my time when such conditions apply. So, if and when you are capable of civilised discussion, I'll be happy to answer.

Jesus tap dancing Christ. Stop bumping this fucking topic. You're ruining this forum. Please, for the love of God, stop wasting your time here. I beg you.

You are melodramatically absurd.

[LightRider]

You didn't answer a sole thing. So I'll repeat it, because it looks like we've reached your soft spot:

There's no scientific theory on whether you should use nuclear power plants or solar panels. You are comparing science with politics and morality and that's absurd. You might think that you haven't entered the realms of morality and politics but you HAVE. Maybe you will disagree on this subject, but then I must conclude that your reasoning is blocked by you sect/cult.

Science says something like: nuclear power plants harvest a lot of energy per mass of uranium, and create nuclear waste. Solar cells are created through a process that contaminates a lot of liters of water and releases a lot of CO2, and harvest energy from the sun with a 15-20% efficiency. Science, and the scientific method, does NOT tell you which option to choose. Science just shows you how nature works, and it's you that have to decide how to apply that knowledge to fullfill your dreams/objectives/morality.

Science doesn't tell you if you should gun somebody. Science just tells you that the bullet will hit that person at a certain velocity and it will probably provoke his death. Should you shoot that somebody? should you build that bridge? Should you use currencies or a resource based economy? Should you create prisons? Should you live in a planned economy society? Science won't decide any of that for you.  Science will (maybe) make some predictions on the result of your decision, but making the decision is absolutely out of the realms of science, and of the scientific method.