A Resource Based Economy

[mobodick]

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.

Would you deny that most people are driven by emotions and desires?

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

What do you mean propaganda?
It's all over history.
People have feelings and this plan would only work if everyone suddenly decided to ignore them.
Or someone was capable of manipulating the feelings of others to suit the grand purpose.
The idea is based in an utopia and that makes it unachievable.
History tells us that any move towards utopia ends with tyranny.
It's when the leaders become blind to the needs of the people and start forcing their ideas onto them.
That is when revolutions happen.
It's, again, how humans interact.
It is not something that can easily be fixed by education.
Education will help people help themselfs but change is not taught in schools, it needs an incentive, a soil to carry it.
People need to have some sort of bad experience to commit to change.
And i think at the moment most people would not want such a change simply because they have it too good.
That's the reality of things.

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 )

The problem is that parents thinking of their children are egoistical (dictated by their biology).
Their deepest drive is not to have a good earth for all children. They want their child to be better than all other children.
Of course i'm generelizing, but that only shows that there are different people on earth with different sets of goals, short and long term.

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.

And yet there has been no day without a war somewhere in the world for quite some time.
It seems that people and their leaders are pretty much fixated on those borders.
You may say that education will fix it, but i have heared these ideas since childhood and yet i see patriotic and nationalistic ideas in almost everyone i meet in daily life.
People tend to naturally want to form groups (it's better from a survival point of view) and then to stress the border between their group and the rest of their environment in various ways.
You can clearly see this in, for instance, the social dynamics of football (americans:soccer) fans.
You would need large parts of culture and how it influences humans to become extinct.
You would need a global culture that would replace any national identity to even get started.
Have you seen the attempts at a global government and how they failed time after time?
I guess not then.

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.

Yeah, well that is kind of a wrong interpretation of those numbers.
It's something popular that gets repeated blindly through the media.
90% of how you are is somehow shaped by the environment, but the roots are in the genes.
There are honestly so many things that are driven by genes that most people tend to take them for granted.
The fact that you can walk, that you can see, that you can hear, think and feel.
All comming from your genetic makeup.
The environment is working on those things but don't ever forget that you are in actuality an interaction between your genes and the environment.
On the one hand there would be nothing for the environment to work on without the genes so it's at best a system requiring both.
On the other hand you have genes that actively interfere with us as an organism.
Making a separation of a system from it's environment is silly. Nothing in reality is separated in such a way.
We are 100% the result of our environment working on our genes.

You give the example of someone in the middle east hating yankees.
But how is that different from a yankee hating an arab?
Or your neighbour hating you?
Is the capacity for hatered not dictated by genes?

By misunderstanding the relation between genes and environment (which often includes large ammounts of other genes) you trivially dismiss a large portion of what makes us human.
Just saying.,

And it comes down to an oversimplified ideal of what you think a human should be that is at the core of the idea of a resource based economy.
The real world, however, is far more complex that this and without addressing this complexity you have absolutely no chance whatsoever to even begin organizing such a revolution.

And maybe i should state again that i am not against the idea of a RBE but i just think that it is not feasible given human nature.

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.

Genes are not 'only predispositions'.
Genes play an active role throughout a persons life.
From birth till death and everything in between.

Corruption is like masterbating.
If it's socially unacceptable then it will be done when no one is looking.
Think of all the pedo-priests around the world.
That's human nature for you.
And besides, sweden has a good social care system so noone actually has a lot of complaints.
It's not that they are better people, they just have a better life.
Their natural drives to improve their situation are pacified.
But they are not extinguished and if the social system in sweden collapses people will again be unhappy and corruption will thrive.
And it's just another example of a gene-environment interaction.
The genes want a certain environment to be content in.
And once they are content enough they don't want to lose the environment that made them content and sometimes will even kill for it.

Humans are much more complicated than the idea of RBE allows for.

[1715084591]

1715084591

[1715084591]

1715084591

[alan2here]

I found the orientation video to be particularly good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ngs-tOybJc

A key idea in the RBE is infrastructure. Everything becomes a process with inputs and outputs. No advertising is reqired and it's impossible to be ineficent and make any profit at all. It also unjoins the idea of where something is to what something is. Like Bitcoin it's a conceptually simple solution to various verry tricky problems.

[memvola]

I found the orientation video to be particularly good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ngs-tOybJc

Sorry but it got too frustrating to watch after he claims it's not a political movement in the very first sentence. At this point it can only appeal to people who are not familiar with the millenia old contemplations about a RBE.

it's impossible to be ineficent

What is the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem by this particular movement? Any published papers you can recommend?

[herzmeister]

You Zeitgeist movement / Futuristic RBE technology devotees can stop advocating now, seems you have already won: Timetravel to 2749 ( Montauk Project & Philadelphia Experiment )  

[mobodick]

I found the orientation video to be particularly good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ngs-tOybJc

Sorry but it got too frustrating to watch after he claims it's not a political movement in the very first sentence. At this point it can only appeal to people who are not familiar with the millenia old contemplations about a RBE.

it's impossible to be ineficent

What is the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem by this particular movement? Any published papers you can recommend?

Don't even try... :/
There is no place for light in the land of the blind.

If the ideas in this video something like the internet could not have been invented (it's the fastest changing technology thus far, lots and lots of obsolecense. Moreover, it's basicly military tech.).
Because of this, i ask anyone supporting these ideas to switch off their computers, bring it back to the store they bought it and go invent their own computing and communication devices according to these ideas. See how long it will take.

About the video, it's pretty stuid.
Make only the stuff people want, almost no people needed to operate the system.
What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?
And why the hell is everything in this video based on products of the society that the video critisizes?
Ordering your stuff on the net? If this system was in place there woud be no internet.
At best we would still be in terminal land.

It's hurting my brain to hear the speaker explain a complete society based on high tech systems (optical illness diagnose systems to replace doctors and chirurgs) but at the same time everything should last a livetime? Come on.
Without change there cannot be change for the better.
I still can remember the communist machines that drove that society.
They did their work, but no chance for doing it better.
This guy has a very romantic, but ultimately naive look on technology.
He combines his simplistic look of humanity with high tech computer systems, some of which are more than a lifetime away.
And that is in our wastefull competitive new is better society.
He clings on to the holy computer that we all belief in it giving us the right answers.
It knows the freaking periodic table, that must be enough to save humanity.
I don't have a face and palm large enough to make the correct statement.
Even the picard-riker double-facepalm is not enough, not by a long shot.

Remember, if someone can explain an idea clearly that doesn't make the idea great.
I mean, i know that it works in Star Trek, but that is also an idealized picture of someones view of how society COULD be.
He waives the most difficult sociological problems with oneliners like : "Well, the pentagon propably has such systems and they use it for war."
Que?

Yeah, democracy is an illusion, but at least it is working. What he proposes is ideas built on clouds supported by assumptions.
Notice how he fails to change our society.
No bridge to get it going, to form a way that we can go to make it possible.
His bottom line is "reality sux, so let's throw that out. Then let's use some fantasies about sociology, technology and science in general and use that to think up some structure that would much better be populated by robots than people. But hey, reality is out the door so i don't care if it is even remotely possible to execute."


I'm sory to say, this idea sux on so many levels i'm not sure i should laugh or puke.

[memvola]

What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?

Well, FWIW, abundance would spark creativity. Most people who have personal yachts are probably longing for things at the emotional level and don't need the yacht in the first place. There will always be infinitely many things to accomplish. But what does this mean regarding the topic, I have no idea. I agree with your other points, so essentially, more creativity means more destruction.

[mobodick]

What will the rest of us do with their free time once we all have ordered our own personal yacht?
How long will it take before people will start crushing each others skulls out of boredom?

Well, FWIW, abundance would spark creativity. Most people who have personal yachts are probably longing for things at the emotional level and don't need the yacht in the first place. There will always be infinitely many things to accomplish. But what does this mean regarding the topic, I have no idea. I agree with your other points, so essentially, more creativity means more destruction.

Well, the thing is most humans don't have noble goals.
In fact, most people have pretty selfish goals.
And that, again, is human nature.
Most people on this planet are preoccupied with chasing their selfish goals (family, money) most of the time.
Have you ever thought about what people would direct that selfish drive towards once there is no need for money and everything for the family is provided for?
Not everyone is an artist, or a doctor, or a scientist.
Most people would have no purpose in life besides getting drunk all the time.
I'm willing to bet that nintendo will have it's golden century once this system is in place.
One of the main things in our society is that everyone is kept busy.
Most people go to work, stay there for 8 hours and then go back home tired and watch tv.
That's most people in the western world.
What would happen if most people would suddenly have all the time in the world?
How would you prevent such an abundance of time from escalating in boredom induced agression?
Have you ever seen what animals do when they are realy realy bored?
If you think humanity is above that then think again.
The more intelligent you are, the more you are affected by boredom.
Humans get bored super quickly.
And when we get bored we start to fsck around.
It's only a matter of time.

So, realy, this whole idea is pretty idealistic, technocratic and elitist.
You'd create a highly skilled and motivated upper class and they would become increasingly separated from the masses that just generally mock about.

And this is nothing new.
People have been struggling with these issues for, say, a couple of thousands of years, if not more.

[Rassah]

it's impossible to be ineficent

As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.

[LightRider]

it's impossible to be ineficent

As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.

And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.

[Rassah]

it's impossible to be ineficent

As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.

And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.

As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.

[mobodick]

it's impossible to be ineficent

As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.

And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.

As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.

Computer sais no.

[Nicolai Larsen]

it's impossible to be ineficent

As long as new technologies are able to replace older ones, nothing is really efficient.

And as long as technology replaces human labor, there will not be enough jobs to employ people.

As long as there is new technology to invent, develop, build, and maintain, there will always be new jobs to employ people.

lol

[herzmeister]

The Relationship of automation to unemployment article is quite thorough on wikipedia.

Even Keynes saw Technological Unemployment as an upcoming problem, but the prevailing opinion of economists on this today is that despite the concerns throughout the industrial and modern era it has always proven to be a myth, as new areas with new jobs kept opening up that had not been seen before.

However, among those wise academics it seems that Nobody expects the Technological Singularity.   

Assuming there comes a time when there really can't be created any new jobs for humans, it's interesting to ponder if a free market would still hold up in such a society. It's possible that it will find its balance with working hours becoming less while income growing. Alternatively/additionally there could be stronger decentralization in any aspect of life, so that individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them (bitcoin mining anyone? Also for example instead of hosting internet clouds in vast data centers of a few large corporations, how about hosting clouds decentralized in encrypted containers on people's hard drives that are accessed through a failsafe, RAID-like functionality of redundancy across the networks?).

[memvola]

it's interesting to ponder if a free market would still hold up in such a society

<snip>

individuals or small groups/companies would actually own the machines that produce goods and services to generate the income for them

So, everyone will be a capitalist, it's not a danger to the free market. "Socially necessary labour time" will become a meaningless term. But the thing is, IMO, it was meaningless all along anyway. Resource management is an occupation by itself and the more decentralized it is the better, for all humanity.

[Murwa]

Its an old topic but i will try to answer.

Would you deny that most people are driven by emotions and desires?

I don't, where did i ?

What do you mean propaganda?
It's all over history.

History is written by the victors.

People have feelings and this plan would only work if everyone suddenly decided to ignore them.
Or someone was capable of manipulating the feelings of others to suit the grand purpose.
The idea is based in an utopia and that makes it unachievable.
History tells us that any move towards utopia ends with tyranny

I don't know which utopia you are referring to. Resource based economy is just it. Economic model , it is not like we can create matter out of thin air. It is not like everyone will be happy like on drugs. Where did you imagine such a concept i don't know.

It is not something that can easily be fixed by education.
Education will help people help themselfs but change is not taught in schools, it needs an incentive, a soil to carry it.
People need to have some sort of bad experience to commit to change.
And i think at the moment most people would not want such a change simply because they have it too good.
That's the reality of things.

Yeah i agree i can see how people are in letarg to even such a basic concept like money out of debt it its effect on their lives. But it is a matter of environment they were condition form the day they were born not to question, get a job and someday get rich.

The problem is that parents thinking of their children are egoistical (dictated by their biology).
Their deepest drive is not to have a good earth for all children. They want their child to be better than all other children.
Of course i'm generalizing, but that only shows that there are different people on earth with different sets of goals, short and long term.

And i already pointed out that it is not about setting up goals for people but about creating a framework where they are free to pursuit their interests.
I dont understand how concept of abundance fit into those goals.
 Is it your opinion that there should be limited unmount of food on earth when we could creates abundance, just because some people have a goal of controlling all farming on the world ( monsanto ) ??

Are you saying we should maintain artificial scarcity ??
I dont understand your train of thoughts at all.

Abundance state is in self interest of all people involved. Do you want to live your live in uncertainty about fulfilling your basic needs or would you rather spend your energy on something better ?
No amount of genes can tell you that option 1 is better no matter what genes makes you.

You give the example of someone in the middle east hating yankees.
But how is that different from a yankee hating an arab?
Or your neighbour hating you?
Is the capacity for hatered not dictated by genes?

Yes it is. But as you can see the environment triggers them. You don't hate your neighbor out of the blue.

And maybe i should state again that i am not against the idea of a RBE but i just think that it is not feasible given human nature.

I seriously doubt that that is in human nature not to create of abundance of food around the world if we could. Abundance state in best self interest of all it not out of air concept.
There is only thing stopping us right now it is wrong incentive and corporations like Monsanto that actually would like to control all farming.

[mobodick]

Its an old topic but i will try to answer.

Would you deny that most people are driven by emotions and desires?

I don't, where did i ?

What do you mean propaganda?
It's all over history.

History is written by the victors.

People have feelings and this plan would only work if everyone suddenly decided to ignore them.
Or someone was capable of manipulating the feelings of others to suit the grand purpose.
The idea is based in an utopia and that makes it unachievable.
History tells us that any move towards utopia ends with tyranny

I don't know which utopia you are referring to. Resource based economy is just it. Economic model , it is not like we can create matter out of thin air. It is not like everyone will be happy like on drugs. Where did you imagine such a concept i don't know.

It is not something that can easily be fixed by education.
Education will help people help themselfs but change is not taught in schools, it needs an incentive, a soil to carry it.
People need to have some sort of bad experience to commit to change.
And i think at the moment most people would not want such a change simply because they have it too good.
That's the reality of things.

Yeah i agree i can see how people are in letarg to even such a basic concept like money out of debt it its effect on their lives. But it is a matter of environment they were condition form the day they were born not to question, get a job and someday get rich.

The problem is that parents thinking of their children are egoistical (dictated by their biology).
Their deepest drive is not to have a good earth for all children. They want their child to be better than all other children.
Of course i'm generalizing, but that only shows that there are different people on earth with different sets of goals, short and long term.

And i already pointed out that it is not about setting up goals for people but about creating a framework where they are free to pursuit their interests.
I dont understand how concept of abundance fit into those goals.
 Is it your opinion that there should be limited unmount of food on earth when we could creates abundance, just because some people have a goal of controlling all farming on the world ( monsanto ) ??

Are you saying we should maintain artificial scarcity ??
I dont understand your train of thoughts at all.

Abundance state is in self interest of all people involved. Do you want to live your live in uncertainty about fulfilling your basic needs or would you rather spend your energy on something better ?
No amount of genes can tell you that option 1 is better no matter what genes makes you.

You give the example of someone in the middle east hating yankees.
But how is that different from a yankee hating an arab?
Or your neighbour hating you?
Is the capacity for hatered not dictated by genes?

Yes it is. But as you can see the environment triggers them. You don't hate your neighbor out of the blue.

And maybe i should state again that i am not against the idea of a RBE but i just think that it is not feasible given human nature.

I seriously doubt that that is in human nature not to create of abundance of food around the world if we could. Abundance state in best self interest of all it not out of air concept.
There is only thing stopping us right now it is wrong incentive and corporations like Monsanto that actually would like to control all farming.

I know what...
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.

[Murwa]

I know what...
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.

Well we have to be realistic since global movement would pretty much impossible right now which i tend to agree, we would just to have to manage things locally.

Global system would be just the most efficient from the scientific point of view, but it doesn't mean any part of RBE or some sort of hybrid economy cant happen anywhere until someone conquers entire world.

[mobodick]

I know what...
Write a letter to Putin and ask him nicely if you can use his natural resources so you can start this global resource based economy.
Once you get his reply we can discuss this further.

Well we have to be realistic since global movement would pretty much impossible right now which i tend to agree, we would just to have to manage things locally.

Global system would be just the most efficient from the scientific point of view, but it doesn't mean any part of RBE or some sort of hybrid economy cant happen anywhere until someone conquers entire world.

But locally you will hardly have the resources to make such a technologically advanced society a reality.
You would rely almost entirely on current society.

[Atheros]

I just read the beginning of this thread back from April. I think it very well illustrates an example of the phase of "unrealistic expectations" we've been hearing about lately.

[cbeast]

I just read the beginning of this thread back from April. I think it very well illustrates an example of the phase of "unrealistic expectations" we've been hearing about lately.

It's all based on science. No belief necessary. The problem with science though, is that it takes hard work to achieve.