A Resource Based Economy

[4v4l0n42]

it presents the BPS model as natural law, moreover in normative manner, which I had already criticized as dangerous and thought we agreed on.

I don't see how that is presented in a normative manner. It describes well established facts about human survival and human flourishing.

This is not even tangential to scientific reasoning, don't you think? So because we believe the evolutionary model is true, would it mean that we have to eliminate the weak? It's the same kind of fallacy.

No, it's a completely different fallacy. What you describe is eugenics, a pseudoscience that has nothing to do with serious debate about BPS or any other model from which to start, and it's completely decoupled from reality.

And no scientific evidence backing up the societal model and no transition plan? Sorry but there is nothing else I can offer other than repeating the questions and criticisms others have already posted.

No scientific evidence?
Among many, I suggest you this reading:

"General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives and Practice" By Lars Skyttner - Reprinted in 2005
http://www.amazon.com/General-Systems-Theory-Problems-Perspectives/dp/9812564675

As for the transition plan, there are many documents, videos, conferences and radio shows outlining how that may be achieved, and it's a continuos work in progress.

[1714067121]

1714067121

[1714067121]

1714067121

[1714067121]

1714067121

[memvola]

I don't see how that is presented in a normative manner. It describes well established facts about human survival and human flourishing.

Obviously, as long as it defines what is normal. What is healthy? What is rational? You claim to know these. Two conditions in which I am willing to decide what someone needs regardless of their wants is when they are unable to communicate what they want (e.g. animals) or I am responsible of imposing my will over them (e.g. parenting). And both can sometimes be mildly arrogant.

Never mind the fact that a model can only be considered a fact only in proper context.

No, it's a completely different fallacy. What you describe is eugenics, a pseudoscience that has nothing to do with serious debate about BPS or any other model from which to start, and it's completely decoupled from reality.

How is eugenics decoupled from reality? It's a fact that eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population. There is nothing unscientific about that. I think it's the same two fallacies. (1) You can't actually know what healthy is, and (2) you don't know enough about how it all works. You don't know which traits are desirable and which are not, and even if you claim to identify some as undesirable (maybe you gather it from living people who have those traits), you can't put weights on them to foresee what will happen if that person enters the gene pool.

Suppose you claim to have the perfect individuals according to a particular model and the technology to perfectly clone them. And you know that with sexual reproduction, it would take billions of people, millions of whom will suffer from disease before any positive trait is introduced to the population, would you take that risk? What would the RBE movement do?

No scientific evidence?
Among many, I suggest you this reading:

"General Systems Theory: Problems, Perspectives and Practice" By Lars Skyttner - Reprinted in 2005
http://www.amazon.com/General-Systems-Theory-Problems-Perspectives/dp/9812564675

Thanks, I have enough recommended readings as it is, maybe I'll check it out later. But as it stands, I'm highly sceptical about what the movement itself can achieve.

As for the transition plan, there are many documents, videos, conferences and radio shows outlining how that may be achieved, and it's a continuos work in progress.

And I respect that. We almost share the same motives. Though if you don't trust people enough to control an unrestricted free market to act for the betterment of mankind, how do you suppose the same people to voluntarily work for that in a collective? I think it requires exactly the same intellectual achievement for the individuals.

[4v4l0n42]

Obviously, as long as it defines what is normal. What is healthy? What is rational? You claim to know these. Two conditions in which I am willing to decide what someone needs regardless of their wants is when they are unable to communicate what they want (e.g. animals) or I am responsible of imposing my will over them (e.g. parenting). And both can sometimes be mildly arrogant.

Regardless of what I think, I have certain needs, because of my very biology and physiology. I can train myself to eat less, if I want to, but eventually I will die if I continue to refuse food. That is not to say that people should be force-fed, but that I don't see why we should do the opposite: forcefully deny them of food (and the rest: water, shelter, nurturing environment, etc...). I'd say providing those needs is very compassionate, rather than arrogant, and the opposite behaviour is violent and despotic.

How is eugenics decoupled from reality? It's a fact that eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population. There is nothing unscientific about that.

There is, and a lot. First of all, their definition of weak is highly speculative and not scientifically supported. Some eugenics programs wanted to get rid of homosexuals. What is the scientific rational behind that? Secondly, the goal is to maximise well being, which includes social relations, how well we interact with each other and how we feel. If, for example, somebody feels remorse because other people actuated a eugenic program of somebody they know, they will feel sorrow, despair, and other negative emotions, which result in an unstable psycho-physical condition, and that can be measured, studied and verified scientifically.

Just because the mainstream view of science is very narrow and simplistic, it doesn't mean that it reflects what science really is. If you think that there is nothing scientifically wrong with eugenics programs, it means that you have a very limited understanding of what science is.

I think it's the same two fallacies. (1) You can't actually know what healthy is, and (2) you don't know enough about how it all works.

Yes we do. We don't know what healthy is in its entirety, but the same goes for aerodynamics, physics, medicine, engineering, etc. I don't see you complaining about people building cellphones, flatscreens and giving you antibiotics.

Suppose you claim to have the perfect individuals according to a particular model and the technology to perfectly clone them.

The premise is wrong. Perfect individual? Perfection is an empty word, you might have a desirable condition, given certain factors, What you might have, theoretically, is a collection of desirable individual types, given different environments and conditions.

And you know that with sexual reproduction, it would take billions of people, millions of whom will suffer from disease before any positive trait is introduced to the population, would you take that risk? What would the RBE movement do?

I don't understand the question. First of all, cloning humans is not a good idea, both morally and scientifically. Secondly, what do you want to achieve with this?

And I respect that. We almost share the same motives. Though if you don't trust people enough to control an unrestricted free market to act for the betterment of mankind, how do you suppose the same people to voluntarily work for that in a collective? I think it requires exactly the same intellectual achievement for the individuals.

Because of what history shows us. According to classical economics theories, FOSS, Creative Commons, Open Source Ecology, Open Hardware initiative, the Rep Rap, Couchsurfing, Just for the love of it, etc. should not exist.

Yet they do.

This, and many other things, prove that people naturally want to work towards the betterment of society, if they are given a chance.

[mobodick]

Aah, but in all that you wrote here you didn't use the word 'better', which was what i was talking about.
Better is an opinion and is not based on hard data.
Better is always from some(ones) point of view.

And i agree with most of the rest of your post, hard facts are hard facts.

So hards fact are telling us it is better to take care on our offspring then to abuse it.

That is only true becuase we have this impulse built in because it makes a lot of sense evolutionary speaking.
Then again, people have been abusing other people for ever and it seems we are still here.
So while it is better from the abused persons point of view, it does not make it better overall.
And it's only people that care about such things.
Ask a rabbit and he would propably be neutral on the issue.

Actually, all moral values and such are limited to the human species.

They are also telling us it is better to have energy then dont have it.

People have had energy for ever.
It is called the sun and it is captured in plants and then animals. Then, after milions of years sunlight is turned to oil and gass.
Our current need for energy comes largely from how we organized our societies.
But is it better?
For the short term it is certainly a view that most people have.
But how about the environment, for instance?
Will your children still think it was 'better' to use up so much fossil fuels?
And since most of our energy comes from fossil fuels, is using more of it better or not?
How about the fact that in 100 years we have used up most of the energy that has been stored in the earth for milions of years.
In 50 years we will have used up the rest.
Is it better to use up everything or is it better to leave some for future generations?

I would say that thinking it is better is very egoistical and certainly very short term.

So, now we have learned that the human moral evaluation changes even with the time-span that you look at.
There are no absolute values.
It all depends on how you look at it and then how you judge (form opinion, whatever).

[mobodick]

I'm not sure what methods you talk about (skimmed through the thread, so I'm guessing)

Capitalism, socialism, fascism, communism, totalitarian regimes, free and unrestricted market...

Biopsychosocial model is a perfect path into the Brave New World.

I agree that it can be misinterpreted by non scientifically trained. But any serious discussion about human needs makes any dystopic scenario impossible. You can read the works of prof Gabor Mate or Robert Maurice Sapolsky, professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and, by courtesy, Neurosurgery, at Stanford University.

I think the discussion of method is secondary to the goal. Do we want to feed everyone? Do we want them to be happy? Do we want them to live longer? Do we want them to be free? These may not be mutually exclusive but certainly are not the same thing. Also, do we have a goal as humanity other than being here until the next impact event? I don't think any of the methods presented are inherently unscientific, they just serve different purposes. I might be wrong though...

As I said, there are degrees and it's a matter of scientific debate. However, we alrady have a starting point, which is not based on human opinion, but on solid scientific facts.

Fact: we all need food and water to survive -> we should provide those for free as a right to life, since it's technically possible.
Fact: research shows that beating and abusing children undermines their psychological development -> we should not employ violence on children.
...and so on. As the research continues, we'll have more and more facts to add to our list, and we'll use the scientific method to achieve those goals.

Peace.

Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane things on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.
And now you have to form an opinion about what you consider good or evil.

[4v4l0n42]

Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane things on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.

Fact: free access to education and equal rights between men and women stabilises population, without the need for depopulation or sterilisation practices.

As for resource scarcity, there will always be scarcity in this economic model, it's mathematical and physical inescapable fact. To achieve dynamic equilibrium you have to shift from the infinite-growth paradigm to a steady state economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state_economy

In the current economic paradigm, even by reducing population (and doing something abhorrent while you are at it), you would just procrastinate it a little, but the issue is still there.

To sum up: to solve the inevitable problem I propose free access to information, education and the necessities of life (we'll talk later how to do this) and a shift to a steady state economy.

What do you propose, instead?

[kjj]

Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane things on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.
And now you have to form an opinion about what you consider good or evil.

Fact:  Humans produce more food and water than they consume.

[mobodick]

I don't want to nitpick but i think this is a terrible example.
There is no very clear distinction between food and poison.

It amazes me the simplistic view that you and jtimon have of any science. So, there is no clear distinction between food and poison... actually there is. There is no clear distrinction between certain foods and certain substances, in particular circumstances, doses, etc... but we generally know what constitutes poison and what not.

We have learned to keep them separated precisely because we cannot tell the difference easily.
People at some time had to sample a potato to see if they could use it as food and not get poisoned by it.
It's an obvious process but that does not make one simplistic considering it.
In fact, it is you who has a simplistic view becuase you put poison and foos as mutually exclusive.
But is you had cared to read what i wrote you would have realized that reality is more complex than that.
As i said, almost everything is poisonous at some level. That includes food.
Food, otoh, is valued for its nutrients.
A food can be valuable, even if it is somewhat poisonous, because it contains some substance that we cannot source from another food.

Science is not about this or that, black or white.

Exactly, so food is not white and poison is not black.
It's all shades of grey.
I'm amazed that you say this while you posed these as opposites, food is good, poison is bad.
As you now apparently have realised, things are more complex and you need to consider at least some of the detail to understand what is realy going on.

According to your reasoning, nutrition is not a science and serves nothing, because there is no distinction between what's good for you and what's not. We might as well drink arsenic instead of water, because we there is no clear distinction between what's good and bad for us, and we can't know anything!

I never said such things.
You are oversimplifying it.
From a toxicological standpoint, if you want to drink 10 liters of water then indeed you may just as well drink some arsenicum and not go through the hell of death by water poisoning.
But water is needed by your body in some quantity so you need to consume it anyway.
But is it 'good'?
No, it's nessesary, a nessesity.

I know these things BECAUSE of science.

We all know that's bullshit. Certain foods and good, in certain doses, to certain people. To others, it plays out differently. But this is not a deficiency of science, this is its very strength, it has the ability to adapt and be scalable.

If you know it's bullshit then you should stop oversimplifying things.
Especially if you start hanging values like good and bad over your oversimplifications.

Science itself is (moral)value-less, it's moral-agnostic if you will.
It can be used for what some consider good and it can be used for what some consider evil.
Science cannot decide what is good or bad or evil, humans can.
And we certainly do use science to make up our opinion about good and bad and evil.
But you have to realise that the value comes om us, humans, not the science or the scientific method.
 

[4v4l0n42]

From a toxicological standpoint, if you want to drink 10 liters of water then indeed you may just as well drink some arsenicum and not go through the hell of death by water poisoning.
But water is needed by your body in some quantity so you need to consume it anyway.
But is it 'good'?
No, it's nessesary, a nessesity.

I know these things BECAUSE of science.

We are experiencing miscommunication. I am stating precisely what you are saying: things are complex, and the only way to make sense of them is to use science.

I did read your links, and I know perfectly what you mean. We are talking past each other. My understanding of what you said was that since there is no clear distinction, it's not a scientific discussion.

if you, on the other hand are saying that because there is no clear distinction, we have to use science, then we are in agreement.

The same applies for well being. And, among all the shades of grey, if you take the extremes, there will be a clear distinction, as there is with food and poison. There is no doubt that 1 liter of arsenic if poisonous for humans (it's actually lethal). 10 liters of water can be pretty bad for you, might even kill you, but 20 cl are pretty good for you. It's a degree, a range of values.

Science itself is (moral)value-less, it's moral-agnostic if you will.
It can be used for what some consider good and it can be used for what some consider evil.
Science cannot decide what is good or bad or evil, humans can.
And we certainly do use science to make up our opinion about good and bad and evil.
But you have to realise that the value comes om us, humans, not the science or the scientific method.

I think I wrote this at least 10 times, but apparently you care more to write than to read.

I am setting the matter of morals aside for the moment, I am interested in discussing how to achieve the following goals, which I stated before: survival of the species, sustainability, nurturing and creative environment are all favourable conditions that can be evaluated, measured, studied and tested scientifically.

Facts, not opinions.

[memvola]

I'd say providing those needs is very compassionate, rather than arrogant, and the opposite behaviour is violent and despotic.

Now, we don't need the biopsychosocial model to know that people need to drink water, do we? As for the "nurturing environment", it's close to what I'm talking about.

There is, and a lot. First of all, their definition of weak is highly speculative and not scientifically supported. Some eugenics programs wanted to get rid of homosexuals. What is the scientific rational behind that? Secondly, the goal is to maximise well being, which includes social relations, how well we interact with each other and how we feel. If, for example, somebody feels remorse because other people actuated a eugenic program of somebody they know, they will feel sorrow, despair, and other negative emotions, which result in an unstable psycho-physical condition, and that can be measured, studied and verified scientifically.

Just because the mainstream view of science is very narrow and simplistic, it doesn't mean that it reflects what science really is. If you think that there is nothing scientifically wrong with eugenics programs, it means that you have a very limited understanding of what science is.

You repeat almost exactly what I said about why eugenics program is wrong, and then tell me I have a very limited understanding of what science is. Disappointing indeed.

The fact that a theory is wrong doesn't make it unscientific. Plus, I explicitly told that "eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population" is a scientific fact, their premise, not the eugenics movement itself! I explained why defining "weak" objectively is impossible. It was a perfect example of how demagogy can take a scientific fact, contaminate it to fit certain goals of policy makers. You need to attack the analogy, not me.

Also, arbitrary feelings doesn't make or destroy science. That's why I asked the second question. I've been asked several times what I would do if I knew my baby would be born disabled. There isn't a clear answer to that. You feel remorse either way. I hope you are getting a hint about why I use the word "arrogance" here.

I think my rebuttal of the eugenics movement was actually better than yours.

I think it's the same two fallacies. (1) You can't actually know what healthy is, and (2) you don't know enough about how it all works.

Yes we do. We don't know what healthy is in its entirety, but the same goes for aerodynamics, physics, medicine, engineering, etc. I don't see you complaining about people building cellphones, flatscreens and giving you antibiotics.

The question of whether an aeroplane is better or not doesn't have an answer. If you are asking if it can fly to a longer distance, or carry more people, then yes. You can't decide that a person is unhealthy if she is in her desired state. You can't label a relationship unhealthy if the people involved are not complaining. You could say they are unfit for the population though, if for instance their mental state is causing problems to the population at large. And that doesn't make it fine, it's just a necessary evil.

Suppose you claim to have the perfect individuals according to a particular model and the technology to perfectly clone them.

The premise is wrong. Perfect individual? Perfection is an empty word, you might have a desirable condition, given certain factors, What you might have, theoretically, is a collection of desirable individual types, given different environments and conditions.

And you know that with sexual reproduction, it would take billions of people, millions of whom will suffer from disease before any positive trait is introduced to the population, would you take that risk? What would the RBE movement do?

I don't understand the question. First of all, cloning humans is not a good idea, both morally and scientifically. Secondly, what do you want to achieve with this?

Why are you so unwilling to participate in a simple mind experiment? You claim that we can know desirable traits in humans and what a desirable environment is for humans. I said, let's suppose you do know that... Even if not perfect, you could statistically know that letting people arbitrarily reproduce will cause much more suffering.

And how on earth can you assert that cloning humans is scientifically or morally bad? Are you sure you didn't make that up on the fly just to avoid participating in my dilemma? Again, assuming you can perfectly clone someone... How is it scientifically unsound? I'm guessing you would probably assert that someone could feel bad about this. If you are basing everything on current conventions, how on earth are you even suggesting to "change our ways"? And morally? Come on, you are eliminating sickness from the world. Please respond within bounds of the mental experiment, or don't respond at all.

Look, you made me act rude, but you are giving me a heartache. If verbal violence is as bad as physical violence, I'd like to add mental violence as the worst to that list.

And I respect that. We almost share the same motives. Though if you don't trust people enough to control an unrestricted free market to act for the betterment of mankind, how do you suppose the same people to voluntarily work for that in a collective? I think it requires exactly the same intellectual achievement for the individuals.

Because of what history shows us. According to classical economics theories, FOSS, Creative Commons, Open Source Ecology, Open Hardware initiative, the Rep Rap, Couchsurfing, Just for the love of it, etc. should not exist.

Yet they do.

This, and many other things, prove that people naturally want to work towards the betterment of society, if they are given a chance.

Well, I spend most of my time with FOSS, hospitality networks, open standards, Esperanto movement and such and barely make any money. I really don't understand how classical theories predict that they wouldn't exist? For starters, unrestricted free markets (I wouldn't call it "classical") would be compatible with any of these.

Don't think I don't get your point though. I think we should all do what we want to do, and want to do things that would take us somewhere together. And no monetary transactions would be needed, everyone would have what they need to accomplish their goal. And this is actually possible with current technology and resources within this world. I also understand toying with this idea by using a model of the human.

What I can't accept is, undermining of major philosophical questions in order to make some solution feel real, hiding cynicism behind political correctness to feel confident. We must accept how hopeless it is, and why it is hopeless, to even begin thinking about it honestly.

[Murwa]

Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane thngs on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.i
And now you have to form an opinion about what you consider good or evil.

There is no need to. As all empirical data shows us population in developed countries tends to stabilize by its-self.

The best course of action is self-evident. We raise the standard of living of poor countries , the population stops exploding due to increase of education and awareness of people.

[Rassah]

Fact: Overpopulation is a serious risk to all life on earth (because humans, like other animals, are mostly egoistical) and foor + water = more humans
The HUMANE thing to do for the future is reducing population, not increasing it.
But of course, that leads to inhumane thngs on the short term.
So, to do good you need to do some evil.i
And now you have to form an opinion about what you consider good or evil.

There is no need to. As all empirical data shows us population in developed countries tends to stabilize by its-self.

The best course of action is self-evident. We raise the standard of living of poor countries , the population stops exploding due to increase of education and awareness of people.

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

[Murwa]

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

Entire thread dedicated too that but i summarize it for you.


Who raises the standard of living?
* Mankind

How?
* Via application of technology and scientific methods for social concern.

With what labor
* This is open question , it can be dealt with various means depending how we arrive at the transition period. End game if full automation but before that there is a way how i could see it done. Notice : we probably wont experience full fledged RBE in our lifetime , but we can and should start moving towards it now.
     - Voluntarily , via open source projects
     - Government sponsored. We have fiat money , instead of borrowing them from private banks with interest attached , governments could print it ( but not like in Zimbabwe ) and use it for RBE implementation purposes.

what incentives?
So we dont die as a species or fall back into medieval like society via
* Globar war / depletion of resources / overpopulation
* environmental distater/pollution
So we are free from mindless jobs .
* many many others.

[Rassah]

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

Entire thread dedicated too that but i summarize it for you.


Who raises the standard of living?
* Mankind

I think you answered the "who" below, which seems to be volunteers and government workers, with money collected through taxation, with "for the greater good/motherland (motherplanet?)" I still don't see how this differs from early 20th century USSR. They also used science and technology to support their agricultural projects, and also simply printed money to pay for it, which on worked because no one was allowed to trade that currency for other currencies.

[Murwa]

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

Entire thread dedicated too that but i summarize it for you.


Who raises the standard of living?
* Mankind

I think you answered the "who" below, which seems to be volunteers and government workers, with money collected through taxation, with "for the greater good/motherland (motherplanet?)" I still don't see how this differs from early 20th century USSR. They also used science and technology to support their agricultural projects, and also simply printed money to pay for it, which on worked because no one was allowed to trade that currency for other currencies.

Before i answer anything more , where did you read in my post "with money collected through taxation".
It looks like you read what you want to read ( or what is filtered with your perception unconsciously ) without actually thinking.

[memvola]

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

Entire thread dedicated too that but i summarize it for you.


Who raises the standard of living?
* Mankind

I think you answered the "who" below, which seems to be volunteers and government workers, with money collected through taxation, with "for the greater good/motherland (motherplanet?)" I still don't see how this differs from early 20th century USSR. They also used science and technology to support their agricultural projects, and also simply printed money to pay for it, which on worked because no one was allowed to trade that currency for other currencies.

Before i answer anything more , where did you read in my post "with money collected through taxation".
It looks like you read what you want to read ( or what is filtered with your perception unconsciously ) without actually thinking.

So, he should have been content with the answer that says nothing more than "mankind using science to end problems of the world". Ah, and yes, government could print money, but not like Zimbabwe. No sir. Unlike them, when we print money, it's not taxing the poor, we can import labor from outer space you know...

[Murwa]

So, he should have been content with the answer that says nothing more than "mankind using science to end problems of the world". Ah, and yes, government could print money, but not like Zimbabwe. No sir. Unlike them, when we print money, it's not taxing the poor, we can import labor from outer space you know...

Automation by definition means as low labor as possible and application of technology.
Inflation is a different tax then "money collected through taxation".
Inflation is here right now anyway.

The change would those money would be actually spend to provide for needs so people dont have to pay for basic stuff ( poor and rich alike )

Beside i opted it as only one of the possibilities , the question of transition period is open. The point i was trying to make is it is not impossible task.

[memvola]

Beside i opted it as only one of the possibilities , the question of transition period is open. The point i was trying to make is it is not impossible task.

Anything is possible if you know how to achieve it.

Automation by definition means as low labor as possible and application of technology.

You are falling to the same trap again. It looks as if you are rephrasing Stalin. (I don't like USSR analogies but this one was worth mentioning.) I've been thinking the same thing since I was a kid, but thinking it is nothing. Stalin screwed up big time trying to achieve that very same goal, because of the very same mistake.

Cynicism aside, you are making three leaps at once. You assume that we know how to automate and we don't do it. You assume it is economically feasible to automate but we don't do it. And finally you assume it will be socially feasible to automate. I think all of these are partially true. But I don't have anything substantial to back it up, do you? Again, looks as if your assumptions follow your conclusion, and not the other way around.

[Rassah]

Who raises the standard of living? How? With what labor and what incentives?

Entire thread dedicated too that but i summarize it for you.


Who raises the standard of living?
* Mankind

I think you answered the "who" below, which seems to be volunteers and government workers, with money collected through taxation, with "for the greater good/motherland (motherplanet?)" I still don't see how this differs from early 20th century USSR. They also used science and technology to support their agricultural projects, and also simply printed money to pay for it, which on worked because no one was allowed to trade that currency for other currencies.

Before i answer anything more , where did you read in my post "with money collected through taxation".
It looks like you read what you want to read ( or what is filtered with your perception unconsciously ) without actually thinking.

You said government sponsored. Projects that big will have to be. Do you have a system for the government to collect thet billions that will be required to start this project voluntarily?

[Murwa]

You are falling to the same trap again. It looks as if you are rephrasing Stalin. (I don't like USSR analogies but this one was worth mentioning.) I've been thinking the same thing since I was a kid, but thinking it is nothing. Stalin screwed up big time trying to achieve that very same goal, because of the very same mistake.

Look stalinism was actually.

Dictatorship
"State capitalism"

Nothing to do with RBE ...

Cynicism aside, you are making three leaps at once. You assume that we know how to automate and we don't do it. You assume it is economically feasible to automate but we don't do it. And finally you assume it will be socially feasible to automate. I think all of these are partially true. But I don't have anything substantial to back it up, do you? Again, looks as if your assumptions follow your conclusion, and not the other way around.

We actually do automate , you can see it if you actually looked at numbers.
Obama spent trillions of $ to increase jobs but companies spend 36% more on equipment and only 2% more of actually employing people.
And yes i am sure survey also included companies that create and service equipment . Funny thing some people ignore that and tell me someone have to do just that.

That would mean companies that create and service equipment spend more money on ... equipment.

This is a trend , obviously we cant automate everything right now , but this is general trend that wont stop.

I dont assume , assumption is a mother of all fuckups.