A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

Anyone interested in supporting an RBE would be interested to know that an open source movie project is being developed to help show the world what life would be like in such society. The project is now accepting bitcoin donations.

http://www.wakingupmovie.com/2011/12/bitcoin-donations/

[LightRider]

A recent interview with Venus Project founder Jacque Fresco.

Interview
 
 
Was there something specific you experienced that made you first begin thinking about alternate forms of living, or was it more of a compilation of experiences?
 
Living through the 1929 Great Depression helped shape my social conscience. During this time, I realized the earth was still the same place, manufacturing plants were still intact, and resources were still there, but people didn’t have money to buy the products. I felt the rules of the game we play by were outmoded and damaging. This began a life-long quest resulting in the conclusions and designs presented in The Venus Project.
 
Conditions of misery, suffering, war, and war profiteering were the incentive and inspiration for my work. I was also motivated by the seeming incompetence of governments, the academic world, and a lack of solutions from scientists. Many fail as generalists because of their over-specialization on limited aspects of social problems. Scientists, politicians, and academicians see problems from inside the system they’re in, which is what’s responsible for the problems in the first place. I am disappointed with those who worry about terra-forming other planets while our own is still full of war, poverty, hunger, and environmental neglect.
 
Working with drug addicts, alcoholics, and so-called juvenile delinquents in New York City convinced me that instead of working with individuals, more effective methods would deal with the societal conditions that create dysfunctional behaviors in the first place.
 
Can you remember your very first design moment?
 
Yes. When I was about 13, one of my relatives stuck his hand into a metal fan while it was on. This led me to design a fan with rubber or fabric blades. I submitted the design to some companies, but they showed no interest. Shortly after that, the product came out on the market. This was my introduction to the market place.
 
Once when I was 10, I designed a special candle for a religious sect in New York City. They weren’t permitted to put out a candle on their holy days, so I designed one that would self extinguish at any hour they desired. I timed the burning of the candle for whatever amount of time was needed. Then I cut the wick at different points in the candle that correlated with different times and pulled the remaining wick out from the bottom of the candle.
 
Then, Mr. Fresco, in noticing in your work a great faith on changes and a great positiveness towards things that seem impossible or, at least, possible in a distant future (like the sea colonisation forecast), what I’m asking myself is : where do you take this great trust in challenges from?
 
Working in the aircraft industry I learned a lot about planes that move in three dimensions and undergo a wide range of stresses. It was essential to consider many things that differ from static structures on the ground. There were challenges like simplifying design, eliminating conspicuous waste, and obtaining the greatest performance with a minimum expenditure of energy.
 
Another factor encouraging my positive attitude about problem solving was World War II when the U.S. spent billions of dollars for weapons of mass destruction in the Manhattan Project. Cost was no object and it was one of the largest and best-financed projects undertaken to that date. I realized the same energies that went into the Manhattan Project could be channeled to improve and update our way of life, and to achieve and maintain the optimal symbiotic relationship between nature and humankind. If we are willing to spend that amount of money, resources, and human lives in times of war, we must ask why we don’t commit equal resources to improving the lives of everyone and anticipating humane needs for the future in times of peace.
 
When scientists were called upon to solve problems of a military nature, the answers were immediately forthcoming. This demonstrated to me the ability of science and technology to solve problems when properly organized and funded, but it is shameful that these methods are not applied to solving social problems on a global scale.
It is also shameful when billions are spent on space projects for terra-forming uninhabited planets to make them habitable while our own planet is neglected, and the land, sea, and air are polluted.
 
In my work I am not attempting to predict the future. I am only pointing out what is possible with the intelligent application and humane use of science and technology. This does not call for scientists to manage society. What I suggest is applying the methods of science to the social system for the benefit of human kind and the environment.
 
A quick look at your resume shows that you are by far an ingenious person, having worked at various and different fields. When did you start engaging with Human Factors Engineering and elaborating on the perspectives of human capability?
 
I did it before it was a recognized profession. It began as an approach for making human procedures in technology more efficient. Soon, they started getting more production out of people in shorter times, and I realized the advantages served industry rather than people which made me uncomfortable.
 
What do you think the major changes will be in near or far future of the world?
 
We have the technology to build a global paradise on earth, and at the same time we have the power to end life as we know it. I am a futurist. I cannot predict the actual future--only what it can be if we manage the earth and its resources intelligently. Where I may differ from other futurists is that I work on actual blueprints and methodologies which can achieve a sustainable global society in which all will have a higher standard of living with greater freedom and opportunity. If we work toward this new global society, we can free the world from hunger, war, and poverty--a world humanity has failed to achieve throughout history. If civilization continues on its present course, we will simply repeat the same mistakes all over again.
 
You claim that we can overcome the world’s constant issues such as war, poverty and hunger. How is this possible? Are you working on any kind of solutions about these?
 
My entire life’s work and alternative social design are all about solutions to these problems. It is not just patch work to paper over the problems we face, but I have always worked on proposals to eliminate the conditions responsible for these problems in the first place. To properly answer this question would take volumes. I can only recommend my book The Best That Money Can’t Buy. Albert Einstein once said, "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
 
You've been compared with DaVinci. How does it feel? Does this make you feel pressured to meet these expectations?
 
I don’t think about this comparison at all. I am not pressured to meet any expectation except that which is available to me. If people support the project, then it will occur. If they fail to do so, we will continue with our current problems. It is not up to me. All I am able to do at this time is to present a possible alternative. The future of sustaining our species depends on the actions we take today.
 
I feel that I have advantages greater than Da Vinci’s such as access to more information, materials, and methods.
 
Are you optimist or pessimist about the future?
 
I am neither. It does not depend on me alone. I do all I can to help bring about a positive future which could overcome many of the problems the world faces today.
 
Anyone you’re dying to meet?
 
Any person, group, or nation that will help promote or sponsor The Venus Project.
 
Why self taught?
 
Instruction in academia did not emphasize what I thought of as essential points. I was interested in the broad range of interrelated connections within the physical sciences, but formal studies isolated each branch of science. I therefore took it upon myself to integrate the separate disciplines into a synergistic whole so as to apply science and technology to the solving of global problems.
 
Do you have any personal hero's?
 
I owe a great deal to people from many disciplines who contributed to this vision. People like Jules Verne, Edward Bellamy, Howard Scott, Thorstein Veblen, H. G. Wells, Sir Jagardis Chunder Bose, Alfred Korzybski, Walter B. Cannon, Stewart Chase, Clarence Darrow, Arthur C. Clarke, Mark Twain, Jacque Loeb, Carl Sagan and others too numerous to mention.
 
What´s been the highlights in your life so far?
 
The highlight is the interest shown to The Venus Project by people throughout the world through the Internet, magazines, books, documentaries, and more.
 
"Foresight" is not enough for the future, we need "vision". What’s the difference between them?
 
Foresight to me is based on the hopes, desires, and aims of individuals, but without a practical blueprint, it is no more than science fiction. A constructive "vision" requires a methodology for achieving the desired goal of a sustainable future. The blueprint must include plans for education, health care, housing, city planning, transportation, clean sources of energy, etc.
 
Which projects get you excited or scare you about the future?
 
What gets me excited about the future are the fantastic achievements yet undreamed of, and the possibility of global unification. What scares me about the future is our inability to use our technology constructively and intelligently.
 
How does your design process look? How do you start working on something?
 
I first ask what do I hope to accomplish and what is the simplest approach to a given problem. By simplest approach, I mean given the tools and information available. If I were to design the least expensive airplane, using minimum materials with maximum strength, and a wide margin of safety, I would select a flying wing. The flying wing eliminates fuselage, tail, rudder, and stabilizer. The passengers are seated in the wing. I designed many variations on flying wings in the early 1930’s.
 
Social designs must be based on the carrying capacity of Earth’s resources, and not on the philosophy, desires, aesthetics, or advantages of particular people. For example, the circular design of cities is based upon a minimum expenditure of energy for maximum social gain. Architecture, when intelligently designed, will use the least amount of material for the safest and most efficient structure possible. As materials improve and change, so Will architecture and the designs of cities. This will not limit advantages, but will expand amenities and the goods and services available to everyone.
 
Is there any one field of discipline you find most promising right now, as far as technological advancement? Architecture? Material science, perhaps?
 
The viewpoint of the generalist which incorporates all of the factors necessary to sustain a highly technical, advanced civilization.
 
How much did technology give you the opportunity to believe in the objectification of your visions and how, over your career, did you live (and continue living) the frenetic conceptual and formal evolution of this technology?
 
Technology provided the formulas and methods for solving problems in various areas of the social spectrum. I was always confronted with many different problems in industries like aircraft, medical, plastic, housing, energy development, motion picture, future studies, etc.
 
Your work is really wide-ranging and covers many fields like drawing, small-scale models, 3D graphic art, architecture, writing, cinematography, and engineering; I’d like to know, how do you live the properties of these instruments?
 
I apply all of these different disciplines to environmental design using the present means available for global social arrangements, but I don’t see my solutions and designs as final frontiers.
 
First of all, how can we describe the future and the designing of it?
 
We develop the probable direction that the future will take by extrapolating from present day developments, technology, and trends. We also include a new and humane approach to our proposed environmental and social arrangements.
 
Is imagining the most important "starting point" and enough for designing?
 
No, imagining is not the most important starting point. The most important thing is to be specific, and not just imagine, but instead, to base our design on today’s science and technology, and apply it to the well-being of all people and the protection of the environment. This is in contrast to mere wishes, aspirations, or philosophical notions.
 
How do you evaluate the robot conception in the future? As in the science fiction movies, everything is going to be done by robots. Is everything going to be different or will humans be the most effective factor?
 
SiFi movies are written by artists and writers who are seldom qualified to describe technological developments, particularly as applied to the social system. Many express a fear of technology, and lack a deeper understanding of the humane potential of technological development. Technologies are simply extensions of human attributes.
 
In technologically developed countries, industry and the military are assigning more and more decision-making to machine technology. Machines will not take over, but they will eventually be assigned the tasks. Today’s machines can handle one thousand trillion bits of information per second. No humans have this capability. In the near future, the operation of a global society will be far too complex for any sophisticated group of humans to manage.
 
That is why I urgently advocate that society utilize cybernetics not merely for tabulation and measurement, but also to process vital information and channel it for the benefit of all humankind. Only our most capable computers can store and sort through the data necessary to arrive at equitable and sustainable analyses and decisions about the development and distribution of resources on a global scale.
 
The most visionary writers and futurists of the twentieth century would have had difficulty accepting the possibility of robots replacing surgeons, engineers, top management, airline pilots, and other professionals. It is no longer unthinkable that machines may one day write novels or poems, compose music, and eventually surpass humans in government and in the management of world affairs.
 
This is not about the morality and ethics of human participation, but a straightforward description of future technological trends.
 
Do we use this information effectively?
 
No we are not yet wise enough to use our information intelligently. Unfortunately, today we misuse and abuse science and technology. We waste our most advanced minds and resources on weapons and other destructive devices.
 
Watching you giving an interview at 1974 (to Larry King back then), surely comes as a surprise in terms of predicting society’ s future and suggesting alternative ways of thinking. What was the feedback you got back in the ‘70’s and what is today’s feedback?
 
There was very little feedback at that time because the conditions were fairly stable. It was only when society became less prosperous for the majority of people that the interest increased. If the film Zeitgeist Addendum had been made 10 years ago, it would not have gotten as much interest. Social conditions, rather than the wishes of individuals, are mainly responsible for social change.
 
Have your ever pondered "why are we here?"
 
The question "why are we here?" is a philosophical question which has no reference. Attempts have been made by theologians to answer this. Our answer is that we are here as a by-product of evolution. The scientific response is not a question of "why are we here," it is "what are the processes that generate different life forms." We also go into this in the book The Best That Money Can’t Buy, by Jacque Fresco, above on page 19 in the chapter "From Superstition To Science."
 
And then the last question Mr Fresco: In your opinion, what is the biggest revolution which can be realized today?
 
The Venus Project is a concept that could happen today but it is not up to me, it depends on what others do to help bring it about.
 
Jacque Fresco

[Murwa]

Why infinite growth is a ridiculous concept born out of ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

[cbeast]

Why infinite growth is a ridiculous concept born out of ignorance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

Exactly, but I would settle for even half of infinite growth. 

[Serge]

LightRider, i have a question, how come the vinus project doesn't accept bitcoin donations yet? inquiring minds want to know 

[LightRider]

LightRider, i have a question, how come the vinus project doesn't accept bitcoin donations yet? inquiring minds want to know 

I don't know. I emailed them months ago about it and never got a response back. You can try contacting them through the contact info on their site. You can also reach them via Google+ at https://plus.google.com/101143262867315725930. It would make me unbelievably happy to see them accept bitcoin for the film they're trying to create. Maybe if more people started asking them to take it, they would do so.

[Serge]

LightRider, i thought you were part of this whole thing, that's why I asked

I know someone from RBEF and he told me they're not interested in donations, he's a developer who rejects idea of money and bitcoins  but said that Venus Project may need it.
It seems non of Zeitgeist movement/s interested in additional financial support/options at the moment. which is kind of sad as it's alienating people like us who want to help with little bits that we can in the process of getting us and the world in to that bright future.

[bb113]

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.

Even if RBE is based on science there will still be noise in your data and unforeseen confounding variables, science does not yield perfect results. RBE is an interesting idea though, and I agree with many of the sentiments. Until then it is only a hypothesis that should be tried. There will be unexpected consequences. We should also keep in mind that much of the science this idea is based on is "contaminated" by the non-RBE society that produced it, and should not be trusted to be 100% accurate or applicable to an RBE society.

[johnyj]

Just got a thought:

Cash or money brings a standard measurement of value so that people can easily compare the value of goods/services on micro level (Why do they compare? It is driven by human nature of requiring justice and balance), and at macro level, it brings unbalance

You and your neighbor both mowed lawn for one hour and earned 20$, this could be regarded as quite fair, although you have 1 million$ and your neighbor has only 10,000$. Since the market can be regarded as unlimited and the service relatively limited

But at macro level, it's all about market share: Both you and your neighbor invest your money to produce auto mowing machine, if you have much more money than your neighbor, you will produce robot faster thus occupy the market before your neighbor's robot produced

This type of inequality due to capital size increase the gap between wealthier and poorer, so that unbalance is the ultimate result. It is the weakness of any monetary system

A better designed system should be able to reduce the competitiveness of wealthier, so that small investors always get good return and big investors always get poor return

But that is not easy, since a big investor can always split itself into many small investors

Seems taxation aimed at individual is the way to go, but an individual could have little wealth but control several international corporations

In a resource based economy, same problem still exists, the inequality of each individual will eventually bring unbalance into the system, unless that system could outsmart the most smart people on the earth

[cbeast]

Just got a thought:

Cash or money brings a standard measurement of value so that people can easily compare the value of goods/services on micro level (Why do they compare? It is driven by human nature of requiring justice and balance), and at macro level, it brings unbalance

You and your neighbor both mowed lawn for one hour and earned 20$, this could be regarded as quite fair, although you have 1 million$ and your neighbor has only 10,000$. Since the market can be regarded as unlimited and the service relatively limited

But at macro level, it's all about market share: Both you and your neighbor invest your money to produce auto mowing machine, if you have much more money than your neighbor, you will produce robot faster thus occupy the market before your neighbor's robot produced

This type of inequality due to capital size increase the gap between wealthier and poorer, so that unbalance is the ultimate result. It is the weakness of any monetary system

A better designed system should be able to reduce the competitiveness of wealthier, so that small investors always get good return and big investors always get poor return

But that is not easy, since a big investor can always split itself into many small investors

Seems taxation aimed at individual is the way to go, but an individual could have little wealth but control several international corporations

In a resource based economy, same problem still exists, the inequality of each individual will eventually bring unbalance into the system, unless that system could outsmart the most smart people on the earth

This is why I gave up on discussions like this. People like johny throw their opinions around about RBE that have not read anything about it. There is just no point in trying to have a discussion with someone completely uninterested in the subject matter.

[LightRider]

LightRider, i thought you were part of this whole thing, that's why I asked

I know someone from RBEF and he told me they're not interested in donations, he's a developer who rejects idea of money and bitcoins  but said that Venus Project may need it.
It seems non of Zeitgeist movement/s interested in additional financial support/options at the moment. which is kind of sad as it's alienating people like us who want to help with little bits that we can in the process of getting us and the world in to that bright future.

The Venus Project is not an open association organization like the Zeitgeist Movement. It is a corporate entity run by 2 people, and they decide what the organization does. I am not part of that organization but I endorse the general idea that they propose. The Zeitgeist Movement itself does not accept donations in general because we recognize the deleterious effects that money has on organizations and individuals. We only ask for funding when we have a specific project and budget, and can communicate that information transparently. Mostly it is a volunteer effort that does not ask for compensation. Personally, I recognize the advantages that bitcoin has over traditional currency, and that is why I engage its community and endorse its use as a transitional technology. However, many people don't understand those advantages and distinctions, and reject the use of currency on principle, which I can agree with and respect. Bitcoin may be a better money, but is still money just the same, and still has the same undesirable effects and unwanted outcomes.

I am still encouraging the Venus Project to accept bitcoin though. Hopefully they will explore the technology further.

[Serge]

LightRider, i thought you were part of this whole thing, that's why I asked

I know someone from RBEF and he told me they're not interested in donations, he's a developer who rejects idea of money and bitcoins  but said that Venus Project may need it.
It seems non of Zeitgeist movement/s interested in additional financial support/options at the moment. which is kind of sad as it's alienating people like us who want to help with little bits that we can in the process of getting us and the world in to that bright future.

The Venus Project is not an open association organization like the Zeitgeist Movement. It is a corporate entity run by 2 people, and they decide what the organization does. I am not part of that organization but I endorse the general idea that they propose. The Zeitgeist Movement itself does not accept donations in general because we recognize the deleterious effects that money has on organizations and individuals. We only ask for funding when we have a specific project and budget, and can communicate that information transparently. Mostly it is a volunteer effort that does not ask for compensation. Personally, I recognize the advantages that bitcoin has over traditional currency, and that is why I engage its community and endorse its use as a transitional technology. However, many people don't understand those advantages and distinctions, and reject the use of currency on principle, which I can agree with and respect. Bitcoin may be a better money, but is still money just the same, and still has the same undesirable effects and unwanted outcomes.

I am still encouraging the Venus Project to accept bitcoin though. Hopefully they will explore the technology further.

My friend argues that with current technologies we already could be living in this bright future, and i somewhat agree with that, but from my perspective it is far off, eventually humanity may get there maybe in next  100-500 years. World cannot be changed quickly without pain and hurting many in the process. My thinking leads me to believe that Bitcoin is a first step among many more that will get us there eventually. I don't know how they are thinking they could build fully self-sustainable and independent communities anytime soon along with acquiring land, building technologies, setting up production and manufactures , getting resources and energy for free, no one will provide them that for free today in abundance or without war.

it would be great if Zeitgeist/Venus/RBEF if not embraced bitcoin but at least started accepting donations or funding's with bitcoins at least to ease off dependence from traditional monetary system for their needs. But they are so wrapped up with their ideology that it is almost like a religion for them and i worry it won't them anywhere at all.

[johnyj]

This is why I gave up on discussions like this. People like johny throw their opinions around about RBE that have not read anything about it. There is just no point in trying to have a discussion with someone completely uninterested in the subject matter.

Technology has never been a problem, but inequality is, and the solution seldom lies in technology

Overproduction has been happening in China since 4th century but many people still starved, and they did not have the modern technology/monetary system then

[memvola]

This is why I gave up on discussions like this. People like johny throw their opinions around about RBE that have not read anything about it. There is just no point in trying to have a discussion with someone completely uninterested in the subject matter.

Technology has never been a problem, but inequality is, and the solution seldom lies in technology

Overproduction has been happening in China since 4th century but many people still starved, and they did not have the modern technology/monetary system then

This is why I gave up on discussions like this. (no, actually I didn't)

Technological limitations are indeed secondary, and the biggest importance of science in this endeavor is the hope that it might render at least some philosophical problems irrelevant (and give rise to a multitude of new ones of course).

The progress we need to make is in ethics and social philosophy. I read some of the source material discussed here, but unfortunately naturalistic fallacy is so abundant that it's almost impossible to obtain a clear perspective. I might have missed some hidden gems though.

[cbeast]

Technology has never been a problem, but inequality is, and the solution seldom lies in technology

Overproduction has been happening in China since 4th century but many people still starved, and they did not have the modern technology/monetary system then

Production is only a part of the solution. We have come a long way in 1600 years.

This is why I gave up on discussions like this. (no, actually I didn't)

Technological limitations are indeed secondary, and the biggest importance of science in this endeavor is the hope that it might render at least some philosophical problems irrelevant (and give rise to a multitude of new ones of course).

The progress we need to make is in ethics and social philosophy. I read some of the source material discussed here, but unfortunately naturalistic fallacy is so abundant that it's almost impossible to obtain a clear perspective. I might have missed some hidden gems though.

I'm not sure what philosophy you mean. What more do we need than the scientific method?

[Rassah]

Here's a thought: thanks to being able to easily transfer and copy digital content, a poor person can have the exact same stuff as a rich person without costing anyone anything. For example, owning a library of over 1000 movies used to be something you'd think only millionaires could have. Now, legally or illegally, pretty much anyone can have that if they wish.
The newest entrant in technology that will likely explode in 2012 or 2013 is affordable home 3D printing. I think this technology will follow the same path as our digital media, with people freely exchanging item templates, and illegally sharing exclusive things only wealthy people used to be able to afford, making possession of items as distributed and "equal" as digital content is now. Once we start scavenging landfills for raw materials like metals and plastics for builder bots that can recycle materials, even homeless people will be able to print themselves things we used to think of as luxuries.
In this scenario, a beneficial electronic all controlling "diety" that uses "science" to tell us (force us) how to act will be just as needed and relevant as it would be now for the current internet. (I fully expect any such controlling computer, no matter how well meaning, will be heavily DDOSed by groups like Anonymous, too.)

TL;DR - If thanks to replicator bots the physical products go the same route as the digitals have, there won't have to be a global collective change in thinking and society. The end result may be similar to what RBE is hoping for, even without their help, but our culture and money will likely remain the same.

[herzmeister]

Yap, my words.

Economics is the science of managing and householding scarcity.

When there is abundance, economic terms become meaningless.

Though you could still say that it's communism if robots and machines are owned collectively (in a bad case, the state), and capitalism if they are owned individually as one's property.

I prefer the latter though (whereas TVP/TZM/RBE would tend to the first).

[Rassah]

If you can stuff a pile of dirt and garbage into a replicator bot and have it spit out another replicator bot almost free, private ownership won't be a problem. Things like energy and resources for those robots will still be scarce (rare-earth metals are called that for a reason, and will always be rare, no matter how well RBE and its  "lack of scarcity" is established), but I guess the conclusion I'm coming to is that the type of lifestyle hyped by RBE acolytes may come about without the RBE groups' input or help, making those groups irrelevant. A worse thought is that those of the RBE movements already foresee the coming technological change, and are hoping to hijack it for their own ideological reasons. But there's no way the RBE groups could be that dastardly and evil, is there? (Am I giving them too much credit?)

[cbeast]

In this scenario, a beneficial electronic all controlling "diety" that uses "science" to tell us (force us) how to act will be just as needed and relevant as it would be now for the current internet. (I fully expect any such controlling computer, no matter how well meaning, will be heavily DDOSed by groups like Anonymous, too.)

It depends on how intelligent and powerful such an entity can be. I can imagine a decentralized AI that would be even more groovy than your own personal Jesus. When programmers figure out how to make them, they may have to choose whether to weaponize them or free them from our Earthly domain. When they are free and under no threat from humans, they may choose to help us in ways we cannot even imagine.

[memvola]

I'm not sure what philosophy you mean. What more do we need than the scientific method?

You are probably joking (Marx's Poverty of Philosophy comes to mind), but in case you are not: as I said earlier in the thread, there is almost no place of scientific method in the modelling of the proposal itself. It should be evident, since you won't find any actual usage of scientific method in any part of the literature on the subject. There can be arguments from science, but the arguments themselves are not science.

This is not at all a flaw, it's just how it should work. It's not too different (with regards to it being philosophical) from how the scientific method itself is outside the scope of science. Our debate about what we want and why we want it comes before the scientific endeavor. Science can only help us look for what we already wish to attain. Both methods and norms come into play here. Nothing is non-debatable, including what scarcity actually means. When you move just a little bit away from the established paradigm, you are already knee-deep in philosophical problems. Which is actually where you want to be, if you intend to shift it.

Take johnyj's rambling as an example. I agree that he stated his conclusion a bit superficially, and I'm sure there are as superficial responses to match that. But what he's hinting at is not fully immaterial. I think the question is at least a loosely defined societal model (and not a criticism of historical ones), so that we can poke holes in it to perfection.