A Resource Based Economy

[LightRider]

We should declare the earth and all its resources as the common heritage of all people, as we recognize that we are transient caretakers of a finite planet. We recognize that all people can work together for the benefit of mankind in a collaborative and cooperative effort to allow each person to reach their highest potential.

You use the word "we" a lot.  Who does "we" include, and not include?  Clearly it doesn't include the people who are criticizing your ideas, because all "we" seems to do is agree with them.  So what happens to the people who don't fall under the category of "we"?

I refer to the people who understand the ideas and goals of an RBE and work towards those ends. Admittedly there are very few, but we are working towards helping people come to understand what we're doing and why it is a better alternative to what is being done now. We intend to build a model that makes the current paradigm obsolete, so the number of people who disagree or don't understand will be reduced significantly as they are able to see how these ideas are beneficial to all people. Nothing "happens" to them.

[1715253952]

1715253952

[1715253952]

1715253952

[1715253952]

1715253952

[1715253952]

1715253952

[1715253952]

1715253952

[LightRider]

The movement has started, and we are working towards our goals. To assert otherwise would be incorrect.

Your pipe dream plan seems to require getting lot of people to understand first before you "do something".

The bitcoin project doesn't exactly works that way. We educate/advertise the project, but we also do something. We invent and hack as we go.

Since you haven't been paying attention, I will state once again that the vast majority of the technical and scientific understanding to make this plan work is already available and in working order today.

We need people to understand that we can scale these systems out to help produce abundantly for all people. If people don't know and understand this, then they continue to be subject to the whims of the minority in power and will continue to suffer. Unfortunately, many people are so deeply integrated into our current system that they would actively reject anything different even if it would be in their best interest not to. These are the obstacles we must overcome.

[kiba]

Since you haven't been paying attention, I will state once again that the vast majority of the technical and scientific understanding to make this plan work is already available and in working order today.

Let me know when you have a town or even a village of 100 people that is a functioning society. Than, I will take your project seriously.

[epii]

We should declare the earth and all its resources as the common heritage of all people, as we recognize that we are transient caretakers of a finite planet. We recognize that all people can work together for the benefit of mankind in a collaborative and cooperative effort to allow each person to reach their highest potential.

You use the word "we" a lot.  Who does "we" include, and not include?  Clearly it doesn't include the people who are criticizing your ideas, because all "we" seems to do is agree with them.  So what happens to the people who don't fall under the category of "we"?

I refer to the people who understand the ideas and goals of an RBE and work towards those ends. Admittedly there are very few, but we are working towards helping people come to understand what we're doing and why it is a better alternative to what is being done now. We intend to build a model that makes the current paradigm obsolete, so the number of people who disagree or don't understand will be reduced significantly as they are able to see how these ideas are beneficial to all people. Nothing "happens" to them.

But the remaining people who oppose your system - and oppose it more intensely, perhaps violently, as it is forced upon them (because, even if you see your system as perfectly rational, you must recognize that humanity is not) - how will they be dealt with?  You will not reach a consensus of seven billion people.

[kiba]

It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.

There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.

I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.

[wb3]

Some people test the waters before they jump in, others just jump in, others wear blindfolds and follow the noise.

But some sit back, and laugh.

[kiba]

This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.

A whole bunch of mumbo jumbo to me.

[LightRider]

It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.

There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.

I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.

This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.

Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions.

[LightRider]

It is not about the technology, it never was, and it never will be. The rational use and distribution of resources has always been a matter of will, as it is now, and as it will continue to be. To look upon technology as a panacea is to ignore the lessons of history. There are wonderful technologies that are decades, and even centuries old, which could deliver tremendous benefits to humanity... The obstacles to their use are in the choices we collectively make and the will to implement them. As it is with many of the solutions lauded by the Zeitgeist Movement and its satellites, none will be adopted in any significant manner until the will exists to do so.

There is a reason why the 'New Left' faded to obscurity, this is due to us becoming so enamored with mass media and its collective vision. Until those in the Zeitgeist Movement recognize the origin of the philosophies it purports to advance and comes to terms with the inherent contradiction in the way it has been re-packaged by Fresco and Merola nothing of substance will happen. The problem is that they have been trying to impose a certain objectivism on the thoughts of Marcuse, who was a radical subjectivist. The result is that the whole case is built up around Marcuse to describe the problem, then Fresco jumps in with his own subjective vision, posing it as an objective solution. There is a huge disconnect here and Zeitgeist, et al. will never be able to bridge this gap as such. There is an attempt to spin Marcuse in an objective manner, and the problem starts here. The only way forward is to actually embrace the subjectivism of Herbert Marcuse and encourage individuals to form their own visions instead of trying to impose Fresco's.

I just have no idea what you guys are fricking talking about.

This is where much of the thinking behind the Zeitgeist Movement comes from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse

But, this is not discussed by its leaders because it would foment a philosophical discussion which could undermine their aims.

Philosophical and semantic arguments are a fun distraction, but real problems are technical and concrete, and demand technical and concrete solutions.

The most elegant and efficient technical solution is of no matter if nobody implements it. The only thing the Zeitgeist Movement is engaged in now is philosophical and semantic arguments through the instrument of the media it produces and promotes. The reason Fresco and Merola can not delve into the origins of the Zeitgeist philosophy is that it would begin to unravel... And that is all they have.

I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.

[wb3]

I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.

There are steps to accomplishing Goals. You don't start with the end Goal, and get everyone to accept it.

Here is a Goal, lets colonize Mars.

You don't start by selling the tickets though. If you did, imagine the results as ticket holders died waiting to get there.

[LightRider]

I don't see how the goal of helping all people live better can be unraveled because of irrelevant philosophies.

There are steps to accomplishing Goals. You don't start with the end Goal, and get everyone to accept it.

Here is a Goal, lets colonize Mars.

You don't start by selling the tickets though. If you did, imagine the results as ticket holders died waiting to get there.

We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.

If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.

[kiba]

We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.

If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.

Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.

Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.

[em3rgentOrdr]

We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.

If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.

Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.

Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.

These RBE folk seek technology to allow humans to allocate resources effectively.
Bitcoin IS THE TECHNOLOGICAL breakthrough that these RBE people seek!
Bitcoin will allow humans to allocate scares resources effectively!
All RBE people should start adopting Bitcoin!

Q.E.D.

[LightRider]

We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.

If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.

Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.

Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.

These RBE folk seek technology to allow humans to allocate resources effectively.
Bitcoin IS THE TECHNOLOGICAL breakthrough that these RBE people seek!
Bitcoin will allow humans to allocate scares resources effectively!
All RBE people should start adopting Bitcoin!

Q.E.D.

I wouldn't go quite that far, but it has the potential to be highly disruptive and is obviously a better and more efficient currency system. Most of the alt-currencies that are being used in local chapters are more like time-banks and the like meant for community cohesion. What this offers is a global economy free of the old institutions in every way, and that is something that should really be exciting. I look forward to this better model making the current one obsolete, and that is really the way to get things adopted. It's not exactly in line with what an RBE is, but it is lightyears beyond what is being done now, and that is an encouraging development in my opinion.

Thanks to all of you who are engaging me in this discussion about these ideas. I very much enjoy having my thoughts challenged and I hope you do as well.

[LightRider]

We don't yet have the technical capacity to travel to and from Mars. This is not comparable or relevant to what is being discussed.

If you choose to let yourself be limited by philosophy, then this approach might not be readily understandable to you. But I'm certain it will become clearer if you think about it.

Philosophy is not irrelevant, but crucial to understanding and learning of our universe. That is how we master the physical universe. Where does science come from? Natural philosophy. Likewise, economic forces determine success and failure of technologies.

Where do you think bitcoin come from? It's from the study of cryptography, economic, programming and political philosophy. It is because our benefactor understand these fields that he was able to bring bitcoin to us, and now bitcoiners are able nurture and curate its potential into reality.

I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.

[kiba]

I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.

That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge.

If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost.

[LightRider]

I would contend that it is our capacity for scientific endeavor that advances philosophy, not the other way around.

That's not my point. Philosophy and knowledge is related. It is a mistake to compartmentalize or reject knowledge.

If you don't understand economics, you may try to do what's economically is impossible or have hidden cost.

Reality has no hidden costs. Economics is a restraint on our development, not an enabler.

[benjamindees]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKRDvSZ-igA

Reality does have hidden costs.  Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.

[­­­Atlas_]

When it comes to the elimination of money, most individuals with have to trust that their needs will be met as they do their jobs. This has to be assured and would usually require government-force.

This is where it all falls apart.

[LightRider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKRDvSZ-igA

Reality does have hidden costs.  Proper application of economics only restrains us from that which is fruitless.

I really like Khan Academy, really fun to learn new stuff there!

As noted though, entropy isn't hidden from us. We have identified and can plan and account for it to a certain degree.

Efficiency is a technically and scientifically determined value, economic theory is unnecessary and is in fact a destructive concept.