A Resource Based Economy

[wb3]

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.

There are different kinds of knowledge, Spiritual Knowledge, Cultural Knowledge, Philosophical, and Scientific.

The last two are where science comes from but there are misunderstandings about the relationship.

Philosophical Knowledge asks, ponders, questions, and theories.

Scientific Knowledge - Observes experiments, and test, the key is it makes no claims of truth and/or fact. It just reports observations, and kicks the results back to the Philosophical Knowledge branch to determine its conclusions based on those observations.

Basically a pure Scientist would make no claims or conclusions, just report results. Ask a scientist what the weather will be tomorrow, he will tell you; it is 70 degrees right now, but I can't tell you what it will be 1 min. from now. That is left up to philosophers.

There is a lot of philosophy in papers produced today. But it is only a matter of perspective, using results from science.

For example; science has said gravity was a fundamental force. But know that is being questioned in scientific papers. 

My point being is Philosophy produces the conclusions not Science. All Science says it at the time of the experiment from this height, within these parameters, an object fell at 32 feet per sec squared.

So they are related, but should always be taken as fact or truth because of the philosophical element.

[1714172973]

1714172973

[LightRider]

Basically a pure Scientist would make no claims or conclusions, just report results. Ask a scientist what the weather will be tomorrow, he will tell you; it is 70 degrees right now, but I can't tell you what it will be 1 min. from now. That is left up to philosophers.

I disagree with your assessment of a "pure scientist" and what he will do. The vast body of accumulated knowledge that scientists rely upon to formulate hypotheses is something that allows us to make reasonable predictions about physical phenomenon. Science isn't just about taking measurements, it is used to describe the way the universe work in a continuously evolving, changing and growing manner with increasingly higher levels of resolution and detail. Science differs from philosophy in that historical and reproducible data and results can be used to predict the outcome of specific situations. Philosophy has no such data or results. Just an increasingly elaborate and voluminous library of opinions. This is why we need to choose to let technical processes and information be our guide to resolving technical problems. Philosophy gets in the way and is generally a hindrance to people starving to death while the economists debate about how much profit there would be in feeding them.

[wb3]

I understand and many do. I point out the Philosophy of Science and Scientific Knowledge. They co-mingle in a lot of areas. In some areas the data is handled properly. Take for example a court case with DNA evidence. The scientist on the stand states the Odds and the reasons the odds are what they are. He does not state that the defendant is guilty based on those odds. To do so would require an assumption that isn't his job. He just states the results and probabilities.

I see this as important for many reasons. A person trying to prove a theory is bias in proving the theory. So if you let him make the conclusions and/or steer the questions into a particular direction, the end result can be flawed and will be flawed at a higher rate.

Remember the eminent scientist from the London Museum, he had to resign because it was found that he discovered what "he" wanted to discover in Carbon Dating. After close examination, he didn't even know how to run the Carbon Dating Machine.

Good Studies are Double Blind to eliminate personal wants and desires.

[LightRider]

I understand and many do. I point out the Philosophy of Science and Scientific Knowledge. They co-mingle in a lot of areas. In some areas the data is handled properly. Take for example a court case with DNA evidence. The scientist on the stand states the Odds and the reasons the odds are what they are. He does not state that the defendant is guilty based on those odds. To do so would require an assumption that isn't his job. He just states the results and probabilities.

I see this as important for many reasons. A person trying to prove a theory is bias in proving the theory. So if you let him make the conclusions and/or steer the questions into a particular direction, the end result can be flawed and will be flawed at a higher rate.

Remember the eminent scientist from the London Museum, he had to resign because it was found that he discovered what "he" wanted to discover in Carbon Dating. After close examination, he didn't even know how to run the Carbon Dating Machine.

Good Studies are Double Blind to eliminate personal wants and desires.

That's why I said "technical processes and information" need to be our guide, not individual opinions which are obviously flawed.

[LightRider]

From another thread:

The basis of private property is the idea of exclusion, limitation and scarcity. Markets promote the ideas of private property, capital and profit and employ currency to do so. Bitcoin is a type of currency. Using energy to enforce these ideas is less efficient than providing for the needs of all people.

Nobody enforces Bitcoin. If you want whole world without private property ruled by scientist and supercomputer, you will have to enforce that. Scarcity is not an idea, it's reality. Anyone who thinks he can convince 6 billion people to live in some circular communistic towns and that scarcity will magically go away and everyone will be happy about his share is a lunatic. Every experiment in the history with "just and equal" redistribution of goods ended up with larger poverty and more waste than ever.

You don't need to enforce it, you need to promote it. There isn't a policeman right behind you every second of your life. You are just scared of having to deal with one, which keeps you in line. That won't be necessary in an RBE.

So your system is promoted because we have to beat the cop behind our back to allow your will to rule the planet, and Bitcoin is enforced cause we freely endorse it?

No one has to beat anyone. We create the infrastructure necessary to provide access abundance to all people. There is no stealing because there wouldn't be a need to. There wouldn't be violence because there would be no need for it. We don't need a convoluted system of arbitrary resource restriction because all resources are available to those who need them. We spend enormous amounts of time and energy today to keep people from accessing what they need, and even more time and energy in punishing people who are forced to engage the system using undesirable methods and tactics. Unless those people happen to be in the upper percentage of wealth owners, in which case they can cause as much abuse as they wish without reprimand.

[Bitcoiner]

A question for the RBE folks: How is any economic system not ultimately based on resources? If we're not living in a paradise as promised by RBE proponents, it's not because there's a conspiracy to hold back resources (although there is a lot of waste caused by governments). Prices are not arbitrary; they reflect actual availability of resources as well as demand for those resources. Simply asserting that "resources are abundant" will not magically make it so, and to the extent that any practitioners of RBE follow the principles of mutual exchange and trade then they are actually following capitalism (though probably not what they think of as capitalism). To the extent that they go against the principles of mutual exchange and trade then they are simply following statism, which might be fine for them but isn't fine for me. We have enough of that as it is.

[benjamindees]

Along those lines, I'd like to know what constitutes a "resource".  Is it just raw materials?  Refined materials?  Produced goods?  Services?

And if it includes goods and services, then how do you propose to produce them in abundance?  Forced labor?  Zero-point energy generators?

[LightRider]

A question for the RBE folks: How is any economic system not ultimately based on resources? If we're not living in a paradise as promised by RBE proponents, it's not because there's a conspiracy to hold back resources (although there is a lot of waste caused by governments). Prices are not arbitrary; they reflect actual availability of resources as well as demand for those resources. Simply asserting that "resources are abundant" will not magically make it so, and to the extent that any practitioners of RBE follow the principles of mutual exchange and trade then they are actually following capitalism (though probably not what they think of as capitalism). To the extent that they go against the principles of mutual exchange and trade then they are simply following statism, which might be fine for them but isn't fine for me. We have enough of that as it is.

Worldwide debt stands at trillions of dollars. What resources does this amount reflect? Prices are manipulated because information is private, not public when it comes to owning resource rich lands. Prices are arbitrary when the currency they are valued in can be manipulated to the benefit of a select few. There are more than enough resources available to provide for all people. Arbitrary restriction through economic institutions ensure that a small group of people maintain control over those resources at the detriment to the many. You assert a false dichotomy when you say we can only have statism or capitalism. We can choose to live without being subservient to anyone or anything but the laws that govern nature.

[LightRider]

Along those lines, I'd like to know what constitutes a "resource".  Is it just raw materials?  Refined materials?  Produced goods?  Services?

And if it includes goods and services, then how do you propose to produce them in abundance?  Forced labor?  Zero-point energy generators?

Resources are everything that exists that can be used to produce what we need to live. We can harness the abundant natural renewable sources of energy to power machines that can produce abundant sources of food, clean air and water, and products necessary for a high standard of living. This can be done if we eschew the wasteful and unnecessary traditions and practices that we have had with us since antiquity.

[benjamindees]

Worldwide debt stands at trillions of dollars. What resources does this amount reflect?

Human resources.

There are more than enough resources available to provide for all people.

We can harness the abundant natural renewable sources of energy to power machines that can produce abundant sources of food, clean air and water, and products necessary for a high standard of living.

Okay, what resources are available that are not being utilized?  What sources of renewable energy, and what technologies, can be used to power machines like cars and steel mills for example?  How high of a standard of living can your ideal society produce given current technology?  Is it something along the lines of India/China or more like Western Europe?

[LightRider]

Worldwide debt stands at trillions of dollars. What resources does this amount reflect?

Human resources.

I think we should abolish slavery.

There are more than enough resources available to provide for all people.

We can harness the abundant natural renewable sources of energy to power machines that can produce abundant sources of food, clean air and water, and products necessary for a high standard of living.

Okay, what resources are available that are not being utilized?  What sources of renewable energy, and what technologies, can be used to power machines like cars and steel mills for example?  How high of a standard of living can your ideal society produce given current technology?  Is it something along the lines of India/China or more like Western Europe?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv0Y1t1bNw

[LightRider]

When are they going to build something?

When we choose to value a better life for all people.

[benjamindees]

I'm really only interested in energy production; all the rest is stamp collecting.  But these are my thoughts on the tech in the video, in the order in which they appear:

Window Solar Cells
   Low efficiency, limited materials, and difficult to scale up production
   All of the windows in all the buildings on Earth would amount to about 100 Watts / person
      Not insignificant but probably not worth the cost

Space Solar Power
   Require 10 km^2 receivers?
   Huge risk of failure
   High energy costs of launch
   Limited materials
      Will only really be feasible once space mining / manufacturing is cost effective

Geothermal
   All of the potential geothermal energy in Iceland:
      20 TWh / year == 2,281,591,050 watts == 0.25 watts / person
      About one LED light bulb
   Requires good sites
   Deep drilling is energy intensive and risky

Ocean Thermal Energy / Organic Rankine Cycle
   This is interesting and I'm actually currently looking into this

Wave Power
   Looks like lots of concrete and steel
      Doesn't last long in saltwater
      Requires lots of energy to produce / poor EROEI

Floating Wind Farms
   Haven't done the EROEI on these but it is questionable
   Could have potential though

In General
   These are huge machines that require lots of skilled human labor to build
   And usually they don't scale down
   In a RBE, how do you convince skilled workers to build them for free?

Giant Vertical Axial Wind Turbines
   Even bigger machines
   Require extremely good sites -- coastal with high winds and no picky neighbors

Hydrocarbon Fuel Cells
   Useful on a small scale for peak power production
   That Bloom guy is lying about exponential growth in efficiency
      He's also lying about 'sand' being the basis of the tech
      There are probably some limited materials required
   Hydrocarbons are better used as transport fuel than for electricity
      Prices tell us this
      In an RBE we would have no price signals
   Co-gen has been used for a while and is cheaper on large scales
      Prices tell us this too

[LightRider]

Still cheaper than the lives we lose due to financial interest.

[Bitcoiner]

Worldwide debt stands at trillions of dollars. What resources does this amount reflect? Prices are manipulated because information is private, not public when it comes to owning resource rich lands. Prices are arbitrary when the currency they are valued in can be manipulated to the benefit of a select few.

Yes, the central planning of the price of money has caused a great deal of disruption and misallocation. You hurt the many when you place the power of money in the hands of a select few.

There are more than enough resources available to provide for all people. Arbitrary restriction through economic institutions ensure that a small group of people maintain control over those resources at the detriment to the many.

Which economic institutions are you referring to, here? If you are referring to the problems caused by governments then I agree, but unfortunately there are laws of physical nature which impose a real cost on the exploitation of resources. It takes physical labor and capital to exploit resources and convert them into a form usable by people. It's not free.

You assert a false dichotomy when you say we can only have statism or capitalism.

Well, we can trade with people and exchange in mutually beneficial exchange. This is what I call capitalism. Or, we can force a person to do what we want. This is what I call statism. Either you use force or you don't. Maybe you don't use force in every sphere of life, but I don't think it's possible to "partially" force someone to go to jail or to pay their bills. How is this a false dichotomy?

We can choose to live without being subservient to anyone or anything but the laws that govern nature.

Hell yes! It seems we want the same things, but this is what I call capitalism. Maybe we're simply talking about the same things?

[Bitcoiner]

When are they going to build something?

When we choose to value a better life for all people.

Who doesn't want a better life? Who's "we"?

[Bitcoiner]

Venus Needs Some Austrians
Zeitgeist Movement along with the Venus Project (forum discussion)

[Bitcoiner]

One thing Venus Project is right about is that superabundance relative to today is possible, or should be at any rate. If they propose to have an computer that builds up anything that people ask, then sure, nothing about that idea is inconsistent with the idea of capitalism or of human action so long as they are not saying that capitalist acts between two consenting adults will become illegal. In this scenario the god-like computer will simply be fulfilling the role of a "super entrepreneur".

Eventually prices will be cheap, but prices will still exist. Even if a car becomes very cheap to build, it does not follow that each person will be able to own 50 000 cars each. So long as the universe is finite then there will be prices, and this is not something imposed upon us but rather something that follows as a necessary consequence of the fact that there is real scarcity in the world and there always will be, land is not homogeneous and neither are people, and each person has a different set subjective values. You cannot centrally plan knowledge that only exists inside the individual, like individual preferences and how they interact to allocate capital via the price mechanism.

Again, I see no reason why a "super entrepreneur" type of computer could not exist so I don't deny that. I don't think we're there today but certainly I can only imagine where we would be if not for all of the waste and misallocation caused by wars and central banking.

[LightRider]

Hell yes! It seems we want the same things, but this is what I call capitalism. Maybe we're simply talking about the same things?

In general we all want the same things. We are set against each-other so that we do not collaborate to achieve our mutual desires by the machinations of the powerful few.

You advocate capitalism, the idea that trading x for y will lead to profitable outcomes for certain parties. I advocate sharing, using x and y for the benefit of everyone, with the understanding that the only "profit" to be had is a better world for all people.

[da2ce7]

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.

Yep.  Without a some sort of 'money' to convey 'value information' there will be no effective way to calculate the 'opportunity cost' of any action or inaction.

Money is the 'collective mind,' that the RBE talk about.  A free money takes into account the collective individuals' 'value' that the economy places on 'anything.'

Things that benefit society (bring in more useful resources) will be 'profitable,'  things that destroy useful resources will be 'unprofitable.'

There is only one moral code that people need to accept:  'only enter into voluntary relationship with other people.'  and the right for one to use 'self defence to stop cohesive violent force.'

Then people will be free to choose whatever society they want to live in.  Of course some will choose to live in 'Zeitgeist' communities, others will choose not to.