A Resource Based Economy

[Murwa]

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?

Look like Lincoln issued money or Kennedy wanted to ( but was shot ) , to grasp how it could be done. There is no collecting only issuing debt and interest free money in enough quantity ( depending on GDP growth ) to not to screw up economy.

But getting rid of banks , government can issue its own money instead of lending from banks ( the same inflation but reduced side effects ) , and can reduce taxes at the same time since there is no interest or debt to pay back.

The key it to get rid of private banks as we know it.

[1714176986]

1714176986

[LightRider]

The Zeitgeist Movement and Venus Project are getting some interesting media attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE

[mobodick]

"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population"

Sorry to say, but this is incorrect.
It should be:"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population under current circumstances".
The difference is incredibly important to evolution and genetic variation (even the seemingly weak ones) is a big part of the survival mechanism of a species.
It is, as we have found out in biology over the past decennia, the core flaw with the eugenic line of thought.

[Rassah]

"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population"

Sorry to say, but this is incorrect.
It should be:"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population under current circumstances".
The difference is incredibly important to evolution and genetic variation (even the seemingly weak ones) is a big part of the survival mechanism of a species.
It is, as we have found out in biology over the past decennia, the core flaw with the eugenic line of thought.

It's difficult to figure out who exactly is weak, too. You'd think if you wanted strong people, you'd pick football jocks, but...

[memvola]

"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population"

Sorry to say, but this is incorrect.
It should be:"eliminating the weak from the gene pool will result in a healthier population under current circumstances".
The difference is incredibly important to evolution and genetic variation (even the seemingly weak ones) is a big part of the survival mechanism of a species.
It is, as we have found out in biology over the past decennia, the core flaw with the eugenic line of thought.

Yes, that's exactly the idea I've elaborated in the following sentences, and also other parts of the topic. The reason I gave the eugenics example is because its premise is only correct in a very narrow context. Also, what you say is the less important flaw of eugenics. Not only it's "temporary" as you said, it's you who define health. So descriptive ignorance and normative relativity are two different things. Even if you could measure weakness in all possible circumstances, it would still be your measure.

To elaborate, imagine that Alice's view as the goal of humanity is epistemological enlightenment. And Bob's is happiness of individuals. And Carlos thinks it's survival of humans as a race. What would be their ideas of the ideal environment for a human being? Or even, are their idea of a human being the same? What would they think about cloning or eugenics? What about economical structure, social structure? How would they compare the value of life to other values? So on and so forth...

[Murwa]

To elaborate, imagine that Alice's view as the goal of humanity is epistemological enlightenment. And Bob's is happiness of individuals. And Carlos thinks it's survival of humans as a race. What would be their ideas of the ideal environment for a human being? Or even, are their idea of a human being the same? What would they think about cloning or eugenics? What about economical structure, social structure? How would they compare the value of life to other values? So on and so forth...

Without survival of the species there are no happy individuals nor there can be any enlightenment.

Just a thought.

[memvola]

To elaborate, imagine that Alice's view as the goal of humanity is epistemological enlightenment. And Bob's is happiness of individuals. And Carlos thinks it's survival of humans as a race. What would be their ideas of the ideal environment for a human being? Or even, are their idea of a human being the same? What would they think about cloning or eugenics? What about economical structure, social structure? How would they compare the value of life to other values? So on and so forth...

Without survival of the species there are no happy individuals nor there can be any enlightenment.

Just a thought.

Agreed. But every individual, or every perspective within an individual, or every different ideology, puts different weights on these and other values. There is the knowledge aspect, such as scientific predictions of extinction events or the feasibility of colonizing other planets or religious dogma (such as believing that apocalypse should not be avoided). There are also values used to decide, based on this knowledge, what the best outcome is for the will to realize itself. For instance, some people would prefer dying over living in pain. Entire populations probably wouldn't, but it's not something we can predict.

[LightRider]

We are each becoming a neuron in the growing superbrain of the human species. Our aggregate perceptions coupled with increased interlinking and communications will lead to a very interesting new paradigm of social organization and resource allocation.

[memvola]

We are each becoming a neuron in the growing superbrain of the human species. Our aggregate perceptions coupled with increased interlinking and communications will lead to a very interesting new paradigm of social organization and resource allocation.

Arguably, this is already the case. Amen to the interesting new paradigms though.

[mobodick]

To elaborate, imagine that Alice's view as the goal of humanity is epistemological enlightenment. And Bob's is happiness of individuals. And Carlos thinks it's survival of humans as a race. What would be their ideas of the ideal environment for a human being? Or even, are their idea of a human being the same? What would they think about cloning or eugenics? What about economical structure, social structure? How would they compare the value of life to other values? So on and so forth...

Without survival of the species there are no happy individuals nor there can be any enlightenment.

Just a thought.

Agreed. But every individual, or every perspective within an individual, or every different ideology, puts different weights on these and other values. There is the knowledge aspect, such as scientific predictions of extinction events or the feasibility of colonizing other planets or religious dogma (such as believing that apocalypse should not be avoided). There are also values used to decide, based on this knowledge, what the best outcome is for the will to realize itself. For instance, some people would prefer dying over living in pain. Entire populations probably wouldn't, but it's not something we can predict.

And this is the basis for my ciritique pages ago of the original idea.
Since many humans have may different views on life it would be virtually impossible to have everyone cooperate in forming such a resource based economy.
Education will teach people to think for themselfs, but that does not mean they will automatically think what the OP needs them to think to undergo such a societal revolution.

[Murwa]

Agreed. But every individual, or every perspective within an individual, or every different ideology, puts different weights on these and other values. There is the knowledge aspect, such as scientific predictions of extinction events or the feasibility of colonizing other planets or religious dogma (such as believing that apocalypse should not be avoided). There are also values used to decide, based on this knowledge, what the best outcome is for the will to realize itself. For instance, some people would prefer dying over living in pain. Entire populations probably wouldn't, but it's not something we can predict.

I think you going way to far with you problems.

TZM advocates resource based economy not a rigged enforced way of life .

You know economy like producing food and shit and managing resources , you are again falling into a trap way o thinking , if you dont know everything you cant do anything

Right now we face the same exact problems , i think in current paradigm where actually money is making decisions for us we have much less freedoms then we could have.

[Murwa]

And this is the basis for my ciritique pages ago of the original idea.
Since many humans have may different views on life it would be virtually impossible to have everyone cooperate in forming such a resource based economy.

Could you bring one example of possible conflict of interests so i may understand what you mean ?

[mobodick]

And this is the basis for my ciritique pages ago of the original idea.
Since many humans have may different views on life it would be virtually impossible to have everyone cooperate in forming such a resource based economy.

Could you bring one example of possible conflict of interests so i may understand what you mean ?

There are too many examples of conflicts than i could possibly write here.
Think of human greed, jealousy, egoism and hate and that is just a start.
Or maybe cartain parents wanting (demanding) more for their children.
Then, before you know it, a country stands up and claims they deserve the most because they have the bestest resources.
That's human nature, i'm afraid.

[Murwa]

There are too many examples of conflicts than i could possibly write here.
Think of human greed, jealousy, egoism and hate and that is just a start.

Oh common this is basic stuff.

First i asked you about ONE example of something tangible all i got is old school propaganda.

Or maybe cartain parents wanting (demanding) more for their children.

There is no concept of more in abundance state.
Do you demand more air to your children ?( the most important resource of all you cant live without even few minutes ). Do you need to provide more air to your children ? Are you afraid your children wont get enough air ? ( ok i am but its a matter of monetary system and pollution following so destroying abundance is the case here )

Then, before you know it, a country stands up and claims they deserve the most because they have the bestest resources.

Countries is just an artificial boundaries that emerged from scarcity environment, when you look at earth from space there are no borders.

That's human nature, i'm afraid.

There is no such thing , you are 90% result of your environment.
 If you were born in middle east you would most likely pray to Allah 5 times a day while hating Yankees at the same time and human nature would have nothing to do with it.

Genes are only predispositions but environment is the key influence how you actually act.
In countries like Sweden where culturally corruption is something to be embarrassed of, there is very little of it.

[mobodick]

There is no such thing , you are 90% result of your environment.
 If you were born in middle east you would most likely pray to Allah 5 times a day while hating Yankees at the same time and human nature would have nothing to do with it.

Genes are only predispositions but environment is the key influence how you actually act.
In countries like Sweden where culturally corruption is something to be embarrassed of, there is very little of it.

But your genes tell you that you want to form a social group.
And they make you make a virtual boundary, them and us.
Then suddenly us is better than they, etc, etc, etc, history is full of it.
Don't think for a minute that education is the cure-all for this.
This mechanism is in our genes and it dictates a large part of our social behaviour.

Corruption is more a signal of a failing government than anything else.

[memvola]

Agreed. But every individual, or every perspective within an individual, or every different ideology, puts different weights on these and other values. There is the knowledge aspect, such as scientific predictions of extinction events or the feasibility of colonizing other planets or religious dogma (such as believing that apocalypse should not be avoided). There are also values used to decide, based on this knowledge, what the best outcome is for the will to realize itself. For instance, some people would prefer dying over living in pain. Entire populations probably wouldn't, but it's not something we can predict.

I think you going way to far with you problems.

TZM advocates resource based economy not a rigged enforced way of life .

You know economy like producing food and shit and managing resources , you are again falling into a trap way o thinking , if you dont know everything you cant do anything

Right now we face the same exact problems , i think in current paradigm where actually money is making decisions for us we have much less freedoms then we could have.

My comment wasn't directly about RBE, you are taking it out of context. I like the RBE concept. My objections are against scientism and related fallacies, which mainly boil down to the is-ought problem.

Plus, my objections start after assuming we knew enough. Don't even get me started about what we actually know.

[LightRider]

Today and Tomorrow

The child that you starve today,
Will not grow your food tomorrow.

The man you put on the street today,
Will steal from you tomorrow.

The student that you won't teach today,
Will not mend your wounds tomorrow.

The profits that you made today,
Will create your loss tomorrow.

Your police who locked me up today,
Will lock you up tomorrow.

Your religion that preaches love today,
Will teach you hate tomorrow.

The master who you serve today,
Will have you killed tomorrow.

The life you had until today,
Was made of my tomorrow.

All I've learned, from all my days,
from all my joy and sorrow,

Is if I don't care for you today,
Then who will care for me tomorrow?

[LightRider]

After viewing the recent LA Townhall presentation, I realized that a monetary market system that wasn't based on debt or interest is something that Peter Joseph hasn't yet heard about. I think that if he learns about and understands bitcoin, he would be able to promote it or at least mention it to the rest of the Zeitgeist Movement.

[cbeast]

After viewing the recent LA Townhall presentation, I realized that a monetary market system that wasn't based on debt or interest is something that Peter Joseph hasn't yet heard about. I think that if he learns about and understands bitcoin, he would be able to promote it or at least mention it to the rest of the Zeitgeist Movement.

Don't worry about them. You understand what bitcoin is about, but don't expect others to. Groups like that are well to develop a Ripple type system. Eventually, people will realize the senselessness of money, even bitcoin.

[herzmeister]

Nice poem, very reminiscent of First They Came....

I don't believe Peter Joseph would support Bitcoin, he is the kind of guy who wants to have his vision realized without indirections, dare I say radically. He'd probably even hate it as the libertarianism Bitcoin stands for is almost the polar opposite to a centrally managed resource based economy.