Occupy Round Table on Bitcoin

[kwukduck]

Yesterday there was a short item about bitcoin brought up on the occupy-mumble server and i was able to record it in time.

This may reflect how most occupiers think of bitcoin.

http://www.zshare.net/audio/97162286c26905e6/
 (for some reason the audio won't play for me on-site, but it's only 14mb)

Also, there was some chatting going on, that came down to 'we need a world without money!' and 'bitcoin will just fall back into a system that we have now'.

[1715493514]

1715493514

[cbeast]

Yeah, that's why I dropped out of the various movements going on. They talk about blue sky ideas, but have few practical solutions that even they can agree upon. Besides, most of them just don't have a clue. Bitcoin is a fundamental new technology based upon a primary concept in communications. It's like the discovery of how fractal geometry redefines natural sciences. Sure, cryptography has been around for ages to secure the value of ideas, but Bitcoin is the purest extract of the concept and will be like warp drive for global finance.

[Litt]

Yeah, that's why I dropped out of the various movements going on. They talk about blue sky ideas, but have few practical solutions that even they can agree upon. Besides, most of them just don't have a clue. Bitcoin is a fundamental new technology based upon a primary concept in communications. It's like the discovery of how fractal geometry redefines natural sciences. Sure, cryptography has been around for ages to secure the value of ideas, but Bitcoin is the purest extract of the concept and will be like warp drive for global finance.

Although I do support occupy movement simply for the fact that some of them are smart enough to at least know something is going wrong in the global financial market, I completely agree about the fact that many have absolutely no clue about how to go about making things better.

All I can hope is that the awareness brings more knowledge over time and they will find many paths to improving on the current situation. It isn't going to happen over few months, or even few years imo.

[Gabi]

They are just normal people that found themselves jobless and are tired of the government wasting billions of THEIR taxes in bailing out banks

Of course they aren't the most clever people around, they are just NORMAL people.

[evoorhees]

People who say "we need a world without money" are actually saying "we need a world without trading and barter," for the two are the same.

Money is simply the good for which people most commonly barter. Remove any form of money from society and you'll quickly observe people finding other things to trade with.

If trade and exchange are occurring, then goods are being traded between people. Whichever good is most commonly used in trade is given the name of money. Not only is it a silly idea to "remove money" from society, but it is in fact as impossible as removing speech.

[Gabi]

Maybe they just don't want governments able to print as much money they want to keep bailing out banks

[evoorhees]

Maybe they just don't want governments able to print as much money they want to keep bailing out banks

I doubt many of them would advocate removing the monopoly authority of Government (or the Fed) to coin money. I can't imagine them suggesting that money be provided by the marketplace, or even for a Government-money backed by gold.

At the heart of the Occupy protests is an antagonism toward material inequality - they don't want rich people to be rich when poor are poor. The couch it in terms of corruption, yet they do not protest any corruption or cronyism on the left - such as the Solyndra scandal or Soros' influence on prominent politicians.

They're just socialists who don't mind government power and corruption as long as it's used to force people into equality.

[jago25_98]

Bitcoin is a very significant step but it is no panacea.

Bitcoin still behaves like money. Money as a network clumps into areas of excess and poverty.
We will still have large nodes and there is no smoothing algorithim in place to mitigate the effects of money.
The debt based society still exists. That is, you can open a debt against someone just the same.

Still, Bitcoin is a very signifcant fix on money by some decentralisation.

One step at a time.

[evoorhees]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

[jago25_98]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

I'd like to see an algorithim built in to smooth out the network. The problem with money right now is that it collects into the haves and have-nots because all networks naturally form this pattern.
Thus money, because it is a network always takes on a mind of it's own unless we design against this unintended property.

[ineededausername]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

I'd like to see an algorithim built in to smooth out the network. The problem with money right now is that it collects into the haves and have-nots because all networks naturally form this pattern.
Thus money, because it is a network always takes on a mind of it's own unless we design against this unintended property.

Can't tell if serious....

[JusticeForYou]

Hmm... Let's see if distributing the wealth works... Developers: Please write into the code that all BTC be equally distributed among all clients on the network.

Something tells me their will be a whole lot of other instances of clients running... Greedy People... what can you do with them ?

[Explodicle]

A couple days after Occupy LA was shut down, I encountered some now-roaming protestors on my way home. I asked them "what do Occupy people mean when they say 'End the Fed'?"

Although opinions varied, the general consensus was that the federal government should keep printing fiat currency, but it should be under more democratic control. Their issue is with the Fed being run independently like a private bank, not the general monetary system.

I suspect that most Occupiers, being normal people, just want less corruption and more equality but to otherwise keep things the same. I don't think they will support Bitcoin any sooner than the general population.

[jago25_98]

[/quote]

Can't tell if serious....
[/quote]

They say money is the root of all evil right?

I put it to you that money is a flawed technology and Bitcoin only solves some of those flaws.

Already there is some evidence that Bitcoin is owned by a 80/20% divide. We weren't aiming for practically all the Bitcoins to be held by Mt.Gox, yet this is what we have. Why? It's natural, here's why:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
and this pattern can be found again in major internet nodes and in geography with cities.


You might say that the problems money causes is simply a reflection of flaws in human nature. This may be true but that's like an engineer who complains about a user who doesn't read the documentation and then makes a mistake with the design; it would be better to take the Apple iPad attitude that ease of use is as much a part of design of the tool than it is a result of poor user education. I say money as a peer to peer system has inherent flaws that need to be taken into account. I think these have been written about in peer to peer software research... anyone got any links?

---
My brother's an intelligent guy but he argues in favour of money printing and won't listen to Bitcoin ideas.
I think what we have is a situation where people won't accept the quantum leap to accept the idea of Bitcoin because it would mean admitting we've been idiots all along. It seems just too revolutionary, too much in one go.
Take Argentina. Only ~12 years ago they went though a massive run on the banks. Nobody could get money out the banks and so people staved and died as they couldn't get medicene. Also, there has been a long history of 20-30% inflation. If you hold cash in your hands for a month or 2 the next thing you know is you're paying higher prices. So what do people do about this? Buy dollars!
To be fair houses and cars are also used. But you see my point? The average person cannot grasp even the simplest financial concepts.
The only thing they understand is when I logged on and checked my valuation after forgetting for a year... to find I'd made £10,000.

I think what you've got to do is show an example of paying in Bitcoins and earning in Bitcoins because then when they see you are carrying on as normal while they're in Weinmar Republic they'll want to copy you.

There are other things Occupy can do, such as local trading and local currencies. Again it's decentralisation; making the network smaller to lower that networking effect I mention at the tpo of my post.

[Technomage]

People who say "we need a world without money" are actually saying "we need a world without trading and barter," for the two are the same.

Money is simply the good for which people most commonly barter. Remove any form of money from society and you'll quickly observe people finding other things to trade with.

If trade and exchange are occurring, then goods are being traded between people. Whichever good is most commonly used in trade is given the name of money. Not only is it a silly idea to "remove money" from society, but it is in fact as impossible as removing speech.

People here underestimate the intelligence of people who advocate a world without money. I'm one of those people btw, although I see implementing that kind of system as a very long term plan. Bitcoin is a step forwards and it's very practical, which is why I like it. It's something that's happening now, not 50 years in the future.

You are correct to say that people who say they want a world without money mean they want a world without trade and barter. What you don't understand, and I'm not surprised, is that there is technically nothing stopping us from doing just that. Barter could obviously exist for unique items but technically we can produce everything people need in enough abundance for the whole world. The resources are there and the technology level is there.

It would require some changes to way we produce and use things, production would need to be more cyclical, creating products to last and focusing on recycling more. And more than that, private property would have to be rethought. The focus would need to be on access which means that we would make sure people can get conveniently from point A to B, for example by an advanced carpool which could be an automated taxi system and of course with automated mass transit that's already in use, such as subways.

No one would own these transit methods, they would simply be there for everyone to use. This is gargantually more efficient than the disastrous system we use right now where most cars have a single person in them at a time. And even worse, the cars are parked most of the time simply taking huge amounts of space. In an efficient system we would only have a very small percentage of cars parked, for a buffer. This same principle can be used for a number of things, everything that people don't constantly need can be "pooled". With these efficiency changes we can provide basic needs to all 7+ billion people if we want to.

It isn't straightforward to remove money even if this was chosen as the proper direction, money has radically corrupted our incentive systems which is one of the main obstacles for a different kind of system. But I think that it won't take very long anymore for automation to get cheap enough that companies don't have any cheap country to go to for cheap labor, they will simply build robots. That is the breaking point for our current system, because there won't be enough work for people anymore.

Then we are forced to give people the purchasing power they need, which changes the game entirely. This development could eventually lead to a system with no money because the incentives to do stuff would be based on creativity and intrinsic motivations. Extrinsic incentives and rewards based on them are on their way out, once the breaking point is reached the type of system we have now is simply over.

[Technomage]

I don't really have a complete picture of what the Occupy movement thinks, but I know for a fact that there are a lot of people there who think like me. I do think that they could embrace Bitcoin much easier than the regular folk. I did and I'm not exactly pro capitalism. I do think that the original free market that Adam Smith proposed is something much saner than the global cancer of centralized corporate/government dictatorship and I see Bitcoin as a way to build a fairer market paradigm. It's definitely a step forward.

But at the same time it will never be enough for me. Any kind of market system will always be inefficient compared to a system that's designed for efficient use of our resources and meeting the needs of human populations. The opposite might have been true in the past but our technological capabilities are starting to be at a level where we can simply automate everything (with some limits, of course) and let people apply themselves, be creative, without the burden of being forced to get the money to pay the bills every month.

[ineededausername]

I don't really have a complete picture of what the Occupy movement thinks, but I know for a fact that there are a lot of people there who think like me. I do think that they could embrace Bitcoin much easier than the regular folk. I did and I'm not exactly pro capitalism. I do think that the original free market that Adam Smith proposed is something much saner than the global cancer of centralized corporate/government dictatorship and I see Bitcoin as a way to build a fairer market paradigm. It's definitely a step forward.

But at the same time it will never be enough for me. Any kind of market system will always be inefficient compared to a system that's designed for efficient use of our resources and meeting the needs of human populations. The opposite might have been true in the past but our technological capabilities are starting to be at a level where we can simply automate everything (with some limits, of course) and let people apply themselves, be creative, without the burden of being forced to get the money to pay the bills every month.

Well, in a post-scarcity scenario, I have to agree with you.  Fuck property rights, when things are abundant, eh?

[Technomage]

Well, in a post-scarcity scenario, I have to agree with you.  Fuck property rights, when things are abundant, eh?

I wouldn't put it quite like that but the fact is that private property is not much else than a burden in a world with enough abundance. No one has incentive to steal or hoard if there is enough for everyone. I admit we're not quite there yet but we are technically closer than people realize. But for such a scenario to actually come about I think we still need some more time to develop both technologically and as a society.

[cbeast]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money. Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources. Money was probably created to make the weekly sacrifice to the gods easier. No worries that the small size of your fatted calf will anger the gods.  Money allowed wealth to aggregate for the institution of temples and palaces. Sure, money makes barter easier just as dogma makes thinking easier. Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

[Technomage]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money. Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources. Money was probably created to make the weekly sacrifice to the gods easier. No worries that the small size of your fatted calf will anger the gods.  Money allowed wealth to aggregate for the institution of temples and palaces. Sure, money makes barter easier just as dogma makes thinking easier. Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

+1

From an efficiency standpoint nothing beats sharing. Most of the waste we have in our current system happens because we don't share. Everyone must have their own, even if they use it only occasionally. I do see the convenience of having exactly what you're used to, when you need it, but especially with the technology we have today, that excuse is getting old. For example we could create a cloud network where you have all your files and everything you need to personalize a device. This way you could log in from any device anywhere and have all you need.

Moving from one home to another would be much more convenient in a society based on access. There would not be much that you'd need to take with you, except perhaps some unique items that have sentimental value. Just imagine a world where everyone has access and no one has the incentive to steal or hoard. That's not utopian, it's a very real future scenario. The technology level to create that is already here and the resources are here, it's only a matter of growing out of our outdated social, economic and political paradigms.

[cbeast]

Atlas, your fictional scenario is entertaining, but absurd. I have advocated for people to actually write fan fiction to support a valid RBE. Sadly, there seems to be little effort to do so. I do not wish to continue this discussion because it is much easier to let the world choke to death on pollution. Your libertarian dream is even easier to ridicule than one based on actual science.

[cbeast]

I have advocated for people to actually write fan fiction to support a valid RBE.

It's called 1984.

like this
http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Backward-2000-1887-Edward-Bellamy/dp/1420925709

[Harvey]

I am going to read this. Expect an intelligent, effortful critique in the coming days. I will go into this open-minded.

All assumptions are going into the trash.

[o]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

[Harvey]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know.  

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

[o]

It isn't straightforward to remove money even if this was chosen as the proper direction, money has radically corrupted our incentive systems which is one of the main obstacles for a different kind of system. But I think that it won't take very long anymore for automation to get cheap enough that companies don't have any cheap country to go to for cheap labor, they will simply build robots. That is the breaking point for our current system, because there won't be enough work for people anymore.

The real problem needed to be solved is the situation with limited resource, but not the situation with abundance resources. Robotics and other technologies does not solve this problem.

For example, after an Earthquake, there are no food, no medcine and no doctors, someone have to die, so what do you do?

For a more realistic situation, if everyone sudden want the same stuffs, then the sharing mechanism break and we need to produce a large number of same stuff. In this sense, advertisement is devils because it creates a huge demands for the same stuff in a short time. Even more, people can change mind in a matter of minutes. Everything produced by robots in the previous minutes are wasted then. So how to solve it?

Suppose now we have technology travelling to and from Mars. But the fact that everyone go to Mars every year can consume more energy that the Earth absorb, so how would you solve the problem. Remember, in the world without money, you are restricting my freedom to move!

I always think that it is more important to change our mind and take some sacrifice. We must deal with the situation that lacking resource. Hoping that we have abundance resources is just bullshit. Hope so is the same situations that governments do nothing in "good economy" period.

[o]

Bitcoin still behaves like money.

In what way would you prefer it to behave?

Money forces everyone to assign a positive real number to every exchangeable stuff. Even more, the real number line in everyone's mind are forced to match with the real number line with each other. But in reality, the real number lines match very poorly because stuff A have larger values than stuff B in one person mind can have the opposite ordering in another person mind.

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know.  

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

I do not believe there is such objective value on everything. It has such price points because money are at the center linking everything. When you need to exchange stuff with other and convert it to money first, you must go through that price. The price may differ by the number in your mind, but you have to deal with it.

But in fact, if you bypass the money at the center and directly exchange it will others, and both of you agree with the exchange stuff. It is very likely that you two get more value in your own "real number line". In this sense, I do think there is any objective value.

Barter in today is much more convenient than years before, but still not yet any sophisticated, so lets see what will happen on ti

[the joint]

People who say "we need a world without money" are actually saying "we need a world without trading and barter," for the two are the same.

Money is simply the good for which people most commonly barter. Remove any form of money from society and you'll quickly observe people finding other things to trade with.

If trade and exchange are occurring, then goods are being traded between people. Whichever good is most commonly used in trade is given the name of money. Not only is it a silly idea to "remove money" from society, but it is in fact as impossible as removing speech.

No.  I think this is wrong and that it's important to say why it's wrong.

Forgoing the legal definitions of what fiat currency is, money, generally speaking, is something of value.  And, as you said, it is the most commonly traded good.

But a world without money is NOT the same as a world without barter.

The thing about money is that it displaces value away from all other objects and redistributes it according to the value of the accepted currency.  I'm a musician.  I love instruments because I can play them; playing them is intrinsically beneficial to me.  I'd much rather have my guitar than, say, a watch.  But because money exists, if that watch happens to be a Rolex, you better believe I'd rather have the watch.

One of my first posts I made was about this same idea.  I still believe it to be true, and, unfortunately, I believe BTC does nothing to escape it.  In my opinion, an all-barter world is ideal, ignoring all of the psychological and other considerations that make it currently impossible (e.g. bye-bye global economics and mass production.  "Yeah, we'll give you 10 million plastic spoons for 50,000 boxes of Captain Crunch.").  Still, I think it's money's ultimate negative effect on society and people in general.

[Harvey]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

[cbeast]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

Muggers would love for folks to start carrying around gold again instead of plastic.

[the joint]

Gold has the same problem.  It's money.  It's not just "a stupid rock."

[cbeast]

What's stopping a person from using gold to trade for any good he desires?

Muggers would love for folks to start carrying around gold again instead of plastic.

Heh, I bet they would love my P90 strapped to my back as well unless your ideal society has a government monopoly on guns and the like.

Beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0C0dmGeE4MI

It's called the element of surprise. Unless of course you can afford bodyguards.

[evoorhees]

But a world without money is NOT the same as a world without barter.

Yes, it is. In a world wherein people barter, you would find them inevitably tend to barter with common goods that were marginally more universally desired. If you want the wheat I'm selling, and I want something from you, I will tend to desire a good that you have which I know I can trade to someone else. That means, I'll pay you a higher quantity of wheat in return for, say, some lumber planks as opposed to your collection of paintings. Why? Because the lumber planks are more easily tradeable to someone else.

As this process happens, a natural price-differential occurs favoring those items which are more easily traded. Eventually, a few of these items become so universally traded (whether lumber planks or rice or seashells or gold) that BOOM they are now the money of that society.

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy. It is thus impossible to remove "money" from society without removing trade entirely.

[cbeast]

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy.

So far. Something better will come along as only technology will provide.

[evoorhees]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money.

OMG

Neither do animals need computers, vehicles, agriculture, electricity, chairs and tables, and ski resorts. Shall we do away with all benefits unique to humans because lesser creatures have been unable to produce them as well? Perhaps you'll bless humanity by ridding it of running water, for animals seem quite happy without it.

Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources.

Many families in the animal kingdom also eat each other. You look to curious places for behavioral guidance.

For resources to be shared among a family, they must first be produced. Will each family produce all the things it needs? Who among your family knows how to produce a ballpoint pen - remembering to drill for iron, smelt into steel, procure and prepare plastics and inks and molds. Who among your family has the skills to conjure up the LCD screen upon which you read this message? Who among them can produce penicillin or even soap? What narrow diet will you enjoy having only a few people, unable to engage in food production for they are busy trying to decipher the instructions for the penicillin? And how did you acquire those instructions?

Animals do share resources with each other - among tiny groups of families. And, consequently, they live in poverty, like animals. There is nothing stopping you from restraining your trade to only those within your family. You can start today, why wait?

Money was probably created to make the weekly sacrifice to the gods easier.

Money wasn't "created." It evolved organically via barter over time. That thing most commonly bartered for was given a name - money. It was not "decided" by a church or government or some wise tribal leader. Just as nobody "created" language as a tool of humanity, neither did anyone create money.

Money allowed wealth to aggregate for the institution of temples and palaces.

Actually, deceit, lies, and coercion allowed wealth to aggregate at temples and palaces.

Sure, money makes barter easier just as dogma makes thinking easier.

That's a pretty disingenuous comparison. More accurate: money makes barter easier just like language makes communication easier.

Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

[cbeast]

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

I already have within the limits that people with guns have allowed me. Resist. Their game is one of diminishing returns.

[edit]
I would debate you face to face anytime.

[Cryptoman]

Maybe we can soon put money to rest and learn to go back to sharing resources smartly.

You first, there's absolutely nothing stopping you.

This is what has turned me off to the OWS movement.  They have all the resources they need at their disposal to start creating the world they dream of.  Don't like big corporations?  Then don't buy name-brand products, trade with your fellow OWSers and start a new web site exposing the travesties of corporations.  Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.  Can't get a loan from a bank?  Make your spiel on a crowdfunding site.  Don't like banks at all?  Then get behind Bitcoin, or fork it if you don't like some aspects of it.  Can't get a job?  Try one of the many freelancing sites on the web.

In spite of sharing many of the concerns of OWS members, I don't see them accomplishing anything by "occupying" any longer.  The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

[mrdavis]

This is what has turned me off to the OWS movement.  They have all the resources they need at their disposal to start creating the world they dream of.  Don't like big corporations?  Then don't buy name-brand products, trade with your fellow OWSers and start a new web site exposing the travesties of corporations.  Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.  Can't get a loan from a bank?  Make your spiel on a crowdfunding site.  Don't like banks at all?  Then get behind Bitcoin, or fork it if you don't like some aspects of it.  Can't get a job?  Try one of the many freelancing sites on the web.

In spite of sharing many of the concerns of OWS members, I don't see them accomplishing anything by "occupying" any longer.  The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

+1

[Red Emerald]

Angry about your student loans?  Then don't pay them back, or, better yet, don't sign up for a degree if you aren't sure it will pay for itself.

That way only the rich get college level educations?  Sounds ideal...

The only way we are going to move forward is for people to start implementing positive, new ideas so that we can find out what works and what doesn't.

I agree that we need to build and start using alternatives.  But I think many of those systems aren't fully ready to replace the "norm" yet.  Nothing to but keep trying though.

[LightRider]

Money isn't a network, it's a loop. It originates in a bank and must return to a bank, causing fraud, waste, abuse, destruction and death along the way. Bitcoin is a web, in which all nodes are equal, and promotes peer relationships among those who engage in its operation. Unfortunately, it exists in the context of our current corrupt monetary system, promoting theft, abuse and concentration in its operation as well. This is not a result of human nature, but the corrupting influence of our environment, that promotes contrived competition, excess in accumulation and the inequality in value of one's own life over another. When we finally outgrow the traditional appeals to false authority and contrived scarcity, using our technology, ability and knowledge for the betterment of all people, then we will stop acting like animals and become human beings worthy of any distinction from the animal kingdom.

[bb113]

Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[2] Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Even if the 150 person estimate is off, most people would agree that there must be some limit, after which the stereotyping begins. This is one reason that it is unreasonable to expect large human societies to naturally function like a big, happy family (sharing, good will, altruism, etc). Since it is not going to happen naturally, you will need some centralized authority to enforce the "sharing". The problem with this is that no one would know how to avoid the corruption of this authority, so it would become corrupted eventually... leading to inequality of some sort (even if it was a post-scarcity society). Even in star trek, the ensigns were always allowed to just die while the officers got the best medical treatment the future could offer.

[ctoon6]

i wont go into why i think bitcoin should not be the worlds currency as it is now, but i dont think the current money management system is the sole problem.

the disparity of wealth makes people frustrated and angry, "why does he have so much and we have so little, yet we expend 3x more energy to get less than him?." if this becomes too unbalanced things like russia form, where the current gov collapses and certain characters find their way into office. this is almost never good. and taking another persons wealth is almost never the long term solution.

i advocate worker cooperatives and decentralization, as seen in Capitalism: A Love Story (really the only good part in the movie, a lot of the rest of it is rubbish). i like it because it incorporates socialism and "laissez-faire" into one. its not complete socialism because companies are privately owned by the workers, and it is laissez-faire because the government should have little to do with it once its set up (government involvement is almost required to get it started big). it should be encouraged by government through cheap loans and low taxes at first. once success is verified, people will see how great it is and do it willingly. a final note, not everyone in the cooperatives would get exactly equal pay and power inside the company would not be exactly equal. however it should not be extreme, say no more than 200% than the average and no less than 25% than the average. so if the average employee salary was about 50k, then the highest paid employees would make no more than 100k and no less than 37k. of course this is extremely generalized and there is a lot not mentioned. but one way a worker could make a lot more money would be if for example that worker worked twice as many hours or had more units of output than another worker. this would not scale exactly, but it should also be about a little less than 1:1, close to 8-9:1, more than enough reward, and it has the very small effect of benefiting everyone else inside the cooperative.

Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[2] Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Even if the 150 person estimate is off, most people would agree that there must be some limit, after which the stereotyping begins. This is one reason that it is unreasonable to expect large human societies to naturally function like a big, happy family (sharing, good will, altruism, etc). Since it is not going to happen naturally, you will need some centralized authority to enforce the "sharing". The problem with this is that no one would know how to avoid the corruption of this authority, so it would become corrupted eventually... leading to inequality of some sort (even if it was a post-scarcity society). Even in star trek, the ensigns were always allowed to just die while the officers got the best medical treatment the future could offer.

i would suggest again worker cooperatives, and splitting populations into smaller more spread out groups. additionally "sharing" does not work. i believe in working for what you get and getting paid for how much you worked, and the current system does not do that. some people get paid a lot for little work, some get paid little for a lot of work, and some get paid for doing nothing.

and you bring up a very interesting thought, medical care. i would suggest this video. it illustrates indirectly the idea of a lack of competition in the medical field. and usually competition brings down prices, and according to the video, there is very little because "somebody else pays". im not saying there should be no insurance, but i definitely think insurance should not cover silly things like flu shots, useless and socially controversial procedures. useless would be things like cosmetic surgery (besides birth defects and accidental injuries like burns and such). socially controversial would be things like sex changes and abortions. at heart medical insurance should be just that, insurance that if/when you do get majorly hurt or sick, you will be covered, not for an ER trip for the sniffles.

[freequant]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money. Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources.

You have a very idealized image of nature. Please go spend a few months in the jungle without weapons and tell us if that still flies for you (if you ever come back).
You are just forgetting one point : in nature, animals not only share resources, they ARE resources themselves. Are you sure you want such a human society?

[cbeast]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money. Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources.

You have a very idealized image of nature. Please go spend a few months in the jungle without weapons and tell us if that still flies for you (if you ever come back).
You are just forgetting one point : in nature, animals not only share resources, they ARE resources themselves. Are you sure you want such a human society?

I said nothing about society, only families. Our society is a jungle. Go spend a few months in Somalia with weapons and tell us if that still flies for you (if you ever come back). You are just forgetting one point : WE have evolved to use TECHNOLOGY and don't need to depend on the laws of nature. If you think this is the best society we can ever invent, I pity you.

[reg]

No one has incentive to steal or hoard if there is enough for everyone.

sorry do not accept that. the utopian ideas i have read so far are just that. ypu have to realise you are fighting nature here (human nature) and there is a no win senario.  BTC will I believe revolutionise the way we interact as the internet did and that is good. It will regain freedom for individuals that the state  has taken for its own purpose of control. However individuals will still be greedy and hoard but not to the extent they can subjugate whole populations for decades ,as they can now. that is the benefit and why I hope it will become more widespred . reg.

[freequant]

Animals don't need money. Humans are animals. Therefore humans don't need money. Families take care of one another throughout most of the animal kingdom. They share resources.

You have a very idealized image of nature. Please go spend a few months in the jungle without weapons and tell us if that still flies for you (if you ever come back).
You are just forgetting one point : in nature, animals not only share resources, they ARE resources themselves. Are you sure you want such a human society?

I said nothing about society, only families. Our society is a jungle. Go spend a few months in Somalia with weapons and tell us if that still flies for you (if you ever come back). You are just forgetting one point : WE have evolved to use TECHNOLOGY and don't need to depend on the laws of nature. If you think this is the best society we can ever invent, I pity you.

You are totally right, humans do not need to depend on the laws of nature, which makes any comparition with animals totally vain. Thank you for making my point.
Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

[westkybitcoins]

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy.

So far. Something better will come along as only technology will provide.

I can't tell what that even means. Yet it seems to be the entire basis behind this whole "resource-based economy" stuff.

Evoorhees' statement is just a description of what money is. Almost anything, in the right conditions, can be money.

"Something better will come along". Something better than money? OK. Then that will be the new money. Something better than trade? BS. Even in a world of unlimited energy and StarTrek-level replicators, there will still be trade, for storytelling, massages and new fashion designs if nothing else. And that trade will, on it's own, as a natural consequence of human nature, prompt a search for convenience--a medium of exchange.

Little kids on playgrounds get this. A generation or two ago, those colorful little glass balls made an excellent currency for trading sandwiches, favors, etc. A while back, it was colorful pieces of paper displaying fictional anime creatures. No one told these kids to do this. Most probably didn't even have examples of how to do it "properly." But if you don't think even children can continually re-invent this concept, and master it to the point they have a fully functional marketplace with detailed valuations and exchange rates, then you seriously don't understand human nature.

Money is NEVER going away. The fact that some seem to see it's absence as desirable (or even possible, for that matter) is beyond baffling.

[evoorhees]

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy.

So far. Something better will come along as only technology will provide.

I can't tell what that even means. Yet it seems to be the entire basis behind this whole "resource-based economy" stuff.

Evoorhees' statement is just a description of what money is. Almost anything, in the right conditions, can be money.

"Something better will come along". Something better than money? OK. Then that will be the new money. Something better than trade? BS. Even in a world of unlimited energy and StarTrek-level replicators, there will still be trade, for storytelling, massages and new fashion designs if nothing else. And that trade will, on it's own, as a natural consequence of human nature, prompt a search for convenience--a medium of exchange.

Little kids on playgrounds get this. A generation or two ago, those colorful little glass balls made an excellent currency for trading sandwiches, favors, etc. A while back, it was colorful pieces of paper displaying fictional anime creatures. No one told these kids to do this. Most probably didn't even have examples of how to do it "properly." But if you don't think even children can continually re-invent this concept, and master it to the point they have a fully functional marketplace with detailed valuations and exchange rates, then you seriously don't understand human nature.

Money is NEVER going away. The fact that some seem to see it's absence as desirable (or even possible, for that matter) is beyond baffling.

Brilliantly stated

[jjiimm_64]

agreed.  the child playground analogy is brilliant.

[bb113]

i wont go into why i think bitcoin should not be the worlds currency as it is now, but i dont think the current money management system is the sole problem.

the disparity of wealth makes people frustrated and angry, "why does he have so much and we have so little, yet we expend 3x more energy to get less than him?." if this becomes too unbalanced things like russia form, where the current gov collapses and certain characters find their way into office. this is almost never good. and taking another persons wealth is almost never the long term solution.

i advocate worker cooperatives and decentralization, as seen in Capitalism: A Love Story (really the only good part in the movie, a lot of the rest of it is rubbish). i like it because it incorporates socialism and "laissez-faire" into one. its not complete socialism because companies are privately owned by the workers, and it is laissez-faire because the government should have little to do with it once its set up (government involvement is almost required to get it started big). it should be encouraged by government through cheap loans and low taxes at first. once success is verified, people will see how great it is and do it willingly. a final note, not everyone in the cooperatives would get exactly equal pay and power inside the company would not be exactly equal. however it should not be extreme, say no more than 200% than the average and no less than 25% than the average. so if the average employee salary was about 50k, then the highest paid employees would make no more than 100k and no less than 37k. of course this is extremely generalized and there is a lot not mentioned. but one way a worker could make a lot more money would be if for example that worker worked twice as many hours or had more units of output than another worker. this would not scale exactly, but it should also be about a little less than 1:1, close to 8-9:1, more than enough reward, and it has the very small effect of benefiting everyone else inside the cooperative.

Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.[1] Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.[2] Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

Even if the 150 person estimate is off, most people would agree that there must be some limit, after which the stereotyping begins. This is one reason that it is unreasonable to expect large human societies to naturally function like a big, happy family (sharing, good will, altruism, etc). Since it is not going to happen naturally, you will need some centralized authority to enforce the "sharing". The problem with this is that no one would know how to avoid the corruption of this authority, so it would become corrupted eventually... leading to inequality of some sort (even if it was a post-scarcity society). Even in star trek, the ensigns were always allowed to just die while the officers got the best medical treatment the future could offer.

i would suggest again worker cooperatives, and splitting populations into smaller more spread out groups. additionally "sharing" does not work. i believe in working for what you get and getting paid for how much you worked, and the current system does not do that. some people get paid a lot for little work, some get paid little for a lot of work, and some get paid for doing nothing.

and you bring up a very interesting thought, medical care. i would suggest this video. it illustrates indirectly the idea of a lack of competition in the medical field. and usually competition brings down prices, and according to the video, there is very little because "somebody else pays". im not saying there should be no insurance, but i definitely think insurance should not cover silly things like flu shots, useless and socially controversial procedures. useless would be things like cosmetic surgery (besides birth defects and accidental injuries like burns and such). socially controversial would be things like sex changes and abortions. at heart medical insurance should be just that, insurance that if/when you do get majorly hurt or sick, you will be covered, not for an ER trip for the sniffles.

What is preventing any of this from happening in the US right now?

[LightRider]

"Money" is simply the most successful barter-good in an economy.

So far. Something better will come along as only technology will provide.

I can't tell what that even means. Yet it seems to be the entire basis behind this whole "resource-based economy" stuff.

Evoorhees' statement is just a description of what money is. Almost anything, in the right conditions, can be money.

"Something better will come along". Something better than money? OK. Then that will be the new money. Something better than trade? BS. Even in a world of unlimited energy and StarTrek-level replicators, there will still be trade, for storytelling, massages and new fashion designs if nothing else. And that trade will, on it's own, as a natural consequence of human nature, prompt a search for convenience--a medium of exchange.

Little kids on playgrounds get this. A generation or two ago, those colorful little glass balls made an excellent currency for trading sandwiches, favors, etc. A while back, it was colorful pieces of paper displaying fictional anime creatures. No one told these kids to do this. Most probably didn't even have examples of how to do it "properly." But if you don't think even children can continually re-invent this concept, and master it to the point they have a fully functional marketplace with detailed valuations and exchange rates, then you seriously don't understand human nature.

Money is NEVER going away. The fact that some seem to see it's absence as desirable (or even possible, for that matter) is beyond baffling.

Children are influenced by their environment. They develop in world that values money, so they develop methods for mimicking and engaging in that kind of activity. The only reason you behave the way you do is because of the environment that produced you, notwithstanding the genetic code that produced your physical body and hence your physical needs and to a limited extent your physical ability. Human behavior is learned, human nature is the fiction we tell ourselves to feel comforted by the obscene status quo.

[cbeast]

This is why I quit trying to explain RBE to people. Every time you try to explain one fallacy they make, they make two more fallacies trying to refute you.

[cbeast]

This is why I quit trying to explain RBE to people. Every time you try to explain one fallacy they make, they make two more fallacies trying to refute you.

Name them.

There are many fallacies. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fallacy+types If you are asking about people, I don't even bother here. I gave that up awhile ago. I would willingly debate a person live. It's much easier that way.

[Technomage]

This is why I quit trying to explain RBE to people. Every time you try to explain one fallacy they make, they make two more fallacies trying to refute you.

+1

I used to debate a lot on certain forums and got tired of it eventually. But I haven't done this in a while so I'm willing to give it a shot. Not that I expect outside the box thinking to emerge easily. It's difficult even in person, but definitely easier than in some Internet forum.

I'm going to respond to multiple posts now, it'll be a wall of text.

[cbeast]

The only way you are going to get a unilateral human culture that meets your desires is through violence. This RBE is a pipe-dream. You're going to need to stick a state in the homes of families and perform eugenics on people that don't meet your criteria.

Feel free to stand by your beliefs but don't pretend to be peaceful.

I agree. The people in this world are too brainwashed and willfully ignorant. Fear not, RBE will not happen in your lifetime. You have a lifetime of violence and fear based culture to enjoy. Their children's children are who I wish to educate.

[cbeast]

The only way you are going to get a unilateral human culture that meets your desires is through violence. This RBE is a pipe-dream. You're going to need to stick a state in the homes of families and perform eugenics on people that don't meet your criteria.

Feel free to stand by your beliefs but don't pretend to be peaceful.

I agree. The people in this world are too brainwashed and willfully ignorant. Fear not, RBE will not happen in your lifetime. You have a lifetime of violence and fear based culture to enjoy. Their children's children are who I wish to educate.

No, they are only ignorant of your preferences. Don't honor yourself with an objective moral truth.

I would love to debate this over beers. You claim that people are not willfully ignorant. Priceless. What moral truth do you posit that I have declared? I posit only science that is testable, verifiable, reproducible, and predictive. Learn to distinguish hypotheses from theories. You will then find your platform more solid.

[Technomage]

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know.  

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

This is what I call the "price mechanism is perfect" speech. You are right that it's much more efficient than barter, I do not advocate that we go back to barter. Imagine international trade using only barter... I can imagine it and it would be much less efficient than what we have now.

But what the so called resource-based economy means is not going back to barter but basically automating the entire production chain. From mining natural resources to creating the final product for your use. It does not eliminate choice. You could go to a market, which would simply be a distribution center, and pick what you want. Just like people do now, but without price tags. This raises many questions and I'll try to answer some of them in advance.

First question usually is related to some need based on "human nature", "wouldn't people just empty the place in an instant?". That's an entirely valid question and this would definitely happen if a market decided today to just give everything for free. There would be a riot. This behaviour is 100% the product of living in a world like this. If you were born to a world without price tags and there were enough products to go around, no one would have incentive to hoard anything. You wouldn't have advertising either.

Now the second question is "how does it work?" and this is where it gets a bit more complex for someone who can only think in terms of prices. But it's really not that complex. There are other ways besides price that we can use to find out what needs to be produced for a certain area, a certain distribution center etc. The core of this is simple tracking of demand. We can use a combination of survey and actual data from the distribution centers to analyze the demand and then keep a supply based on this. We would put more value on less waste though, instead of keeping every product available in the shelfs at all times regardless of waste (because the approach is resource-based). We can then apply advanced trend analysis to predict changes in demand so the shortages are minimal.

After this there is a third question which is "how do we decide what kind of televisions we produce?". Television is just an example. We would value things a little differently than today. We are aiming for intelligent usage of our resources, which means that instead of making products that get broken easily, can not be fixed, can not be recycled, we make products that last longer, can be fixed much easier and can be recycled as well as is technologically possible.

We would have no need to create hundreds of different models that have minor differences, we could create the best model possible and if there's disagreement on this, we could create two models. Or three. Using human resources and technological resources and natural resources to develop hundreds of models which are all made from the cheapest materials to last just enough so people can buy more, is not very efficient.

Then there is the question about "who would do this?" "what is the incentive for people to work?". This is possibly the fundamental issue. There are many directions we can take with this question, but first I have to say that extrinsic rewards are inefficient. They are scientifically proven to do more harm than good. It's obvious that people need money as a reward because money is required for people to live but as a reward and as an incentive to do something intrinsic incentives are much more powerful.

People want to be autonomous in their work. They want to do something interesting and something that's challenging enough but not too challenging. Something they can get better at. And finally, something that matters. These are the ultimate incentives and a saner system would get rid of all the jobs that don't offer these rewards and give people the possibilities to find something that they really like. I suggest reading this book to understand this a little better: http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/0143145088 (there is a short video about this but it only scratches the surface: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc)

I can debate and go further in any of these basic questions because I only gave the short version of each. And if there is some other question, I'm happy to tackle it.

[JusticeForYou]

The only way you are going to get a unilateral human culture that meets your desires is through violence. This RBE is a pipe-dream. You're going to need to stick a state in the homes of families and perform eugenics on people that don't meet your criteria.

Feel free to stand by your beliefs but don't pretend to be peaceful.

I agree. The people in this world are too brainwashed and willfully ignorant. Fear not, RBE will not happen in your lifetime. You have a lifetime of violence and fear based culture to enjoy. Their children's children are who I wish to educate.

No, they are only ignorant of your preferences. Don't honor yourself with an objective moral truth.

I would love to debate this over beers. You claim that people are not willfully ignorant. Priceless. What moral truth do you posit that I have declared? I posit only science that is testable, verifiable, reproducible, and predictive. Learn to distinguish hypotheses from theories. You will then find your platform more solid.

My hypothesis is that I can drink more beers than you, Lets see if it supports the theory...

  btw: currently already had a few

[bb113]

The only way you are going to get a unilateral human culture that meets your desires is through violence. This RBE is a pipe-dream. You're going to need to stick a state in the homes of families and perform eugenics on people that don't meet your criteria.

Feel free to stand by your beliefs but don't pretend to be peaceful.

I agree. The people in this world are too brainwashed and willfully ignorant. Fear not, RBE will not happen in your lifetime. You have a lifetime of violence and fear based culture to enjoy. Their children's children are who I wish to educate.

No, they are only ignorant of your preferences. Don't honor yourself with an objective moral truth.

I would love to debate this over beers. You claim that people are not willfully ignorant. Priceless. What moral truth do you posit that I have declared? I posit only science that is testable, verifiable, reproducible, and predictive. Learn to distinguish hypotheses from theories. You will then find your platform more solid.

Yes because there is an objective value on everything and people just don't know it. People don't know what they want. They don't know what's best for themselves. We should assign specialized technocrats to decide such values and how we should lead our lives. There is a real number and only the wise and virtuous technocrats know. 

Now, back to reality: The numbers match up perfectly because they are the culmination of asks and bids of the people who own said "stuff". Nobody knows better than the person who had to make the choices and actions necessary to produce and possess said product and/or service. Now, of course, there is not only one individual that can produce a good or service; there are many and the prices will adjust to competing bids and asks. The spot price is the "real" number. Just because somebody is willing to pay more than you are, it doesn't mean the price is wrong. It just means you don't value the object as much and you will have to pay just as much with whatever goods if you can only barter. Actually, bartering will only make it more expensive with the time you have to spend trading to get it.

Individual desires differ. We are all unique and special in our own way. Didn't they teach you that in preschool? I'm sorry everybody doesn't think and desire the same. We are called sentient individual human beings for a reason. If we all acted and thought unilaterally in unison, guess what: We would be a single individual. Sorry, we are not.

At the least, I am my own organism.

This is what I call the "price mechanism is perfect" speech. You are right that it's much more efficient than barter, I do not advocate that we go back to barter. Imagine international trade using only barter... I can imagine it and it would be much less efficient than what we have now.

But what the so called resource-based economy means is not going back to barter but basically automating the entire production chain. From mining natural resources to creating the final product for your use. It does not eliminate choice. You could go to a market, which would simply be a distribution center, and pick what you want. Just like people do now, but without price tags. This raises many questions and I'll try to answer some of them in advance.

First question usually is related to some need based on "human nature", "wouldn't people just empty the place in an instant?". That's an entirely valid question and this would definitely happen if a market decided today to just give everything for free. There would be a riot. This behaviour is 100% the product of living in a world like this. If you were born to a world without price tags and there were enough products to go around, no one would have incentive to hoard anything. You wouldn't have advertising either.

Now the second question is "how does it work?" and this is where it gets a bit more complex for someone who can only think in terms of prices. But it's really not that complex. There are other ways besides price that we can use to find out what needs to be produced for a certain area, a certain distribution center etc. The core of this is simple tracking of demand. We can use a combination of survey and actual data from the distribution centers to analyze the demand and then keep a supply based on this. We would put more value on less waste though, instead of keeping every product available in the shelfs at all times regardless of waste (because the approach is resource-based). We can then apply advanced trend analysis to predict changes in demand so the shortages are minimal.

After this there is a third question which is "how do we decide what kind of televisions we produce?". Television is just an example. We would value things a little differently than today. We are aiming for intelligent usage of our resources, which means that instead of making products that get broken easily, can not be fixed, can not be recycled, we make products that last longer, can be fixed much easier and can be recycled as well as is technologically possible.

We would have no need to create hundreds of different models that have minor differences, we could create the best model possible and if there's disagreement on this, we could create two models. Or three. Using human resources and technological resources and natural resources to develop hundreds of models which are all made from the cheapest materials to last just enough so people can buy more, is not very efficient.

Then there is the question about "who would do this?" "what is the incentive for people to work?". This is possibly the fundamental issue. There are many directions we can take with this question, but first I have to say that extrinsic rewards are inefficient. They are scientifically proven to do more harm than good. It's obvious that people need money as a reward because money is required for people to live but as a reward and as an incentive to do something intrinsic incentives are much more powerful.

People want to be autonomous in their work. They want to do something interesting and something that's challenging enough but not too challenging. Something they can get better at. And finally, something that matters. These are the ultimate incentives and a saner system would get rid of all the jobs that don't offer these rewards and give people the possibilities to find something that they really like. I suggest reading this book to understand this a little better: http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/0143145088 (there is a short video about this but it only scratches the surface: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc)

I can debate and go further in any of these basic questions because I only gave the short version of each. And if there is some other question, I'm happy to tackle it.

Do you guys think human society is more complex, or less complex, than an individual human brain?

[cbeast]

Do you guys think human society is more complex, or less complex, than an individual human brain?

To be honest, I don't know. Complexity is the science of chaos. We are mapping the brain and can actually program computers to mimic thought to a degree. The signal to noise ratio is higher in the brain than society. Society is really pretty simple if you filter out statistically insignificant error. I prefer to think of us as family. After all, we all evolved from the same ancestors. We're just a very dysfunctional family.

[Technomage]

The real problem needed to be solved is the situation with limited resource, but not the situation with abundance resources. Robotics and other technologies does not solve this problem.

For example, after an Earthquake, there are no food, no medcine and no doctors, someone have to die, so what do you do?

For a more realistic situation, if everyone sudden want the same stuffs, then the sharing mechanism break and we need to produce a large number of same stuff. In this sense, advertisement is devils because it creates a huge demands for the same stuff in a short time. Even more, people can change mind in a matter of minutes. Everything produced by robots in the previous minutes are wasted then. So how to solve it?

Suppose now we have technology travelling to and from Mars. But the fact that everyone go to Mars every year can consume more energy that the Earth absorb, so how would you solve the problem. Remember, in the world without money, you are restricting my freedom to move!

I always think that it is more important to change our mind and take some sacrifice. We must deal with the situation that lacking resource. Hoping that we have abundance resources is just bullshit. Hope so is the same situations that governments do nothing in "good economy" period.

It's important that I address this post. When referencing scarcity and abundance, I'm usually talking about the scarcity of products and services that people need to live on this planet. I claim that we have the capability, combined with intelligent use of our resources and moving from ownership to access, to provide enough abundance to give everyone what they need. This is entirely possible.

I have never said we have unlimited resources. One of the main reasons why our current system is so flawed, is that it's based on unsustainable thinking. To think that we can just grow endlessly and consume more and more resources is ridiculous because we have in fact scarce and very limited resources. The price mechanism and innovation can battle this problem to a certain extent but we are closer and closer to a total collapse of our civilization, mainly because of this kind of thinking.

What resource-based economy is about is using our scarce resources in an intelligent way to produce what people need in the most unwasteful and clean way possible. Make sure everyone has access to basic needs and then wants as well. The assumption that people have unlimited wants is a total fallacy. Everything people want is fed to them by the environment. Go ask an Eskimo what he wants if he could have anything he wanted, I bet he doesn't say he wants a Lamborghini.

It is not needed that we somehow find a way to produce gold plated helicopters and 10000 square foot mansions for everyone, which is clearly impossible. Anyone who actually wants something like that is absolutely corrupted. This is a challenge because there are people in the world who think that kind of bling bling lifestyle is something they need and they'll want to keep it. It's one of the many reasons why RBE is a long term project.

And one note related to the Mars mission. I imagine that even in a RBE you would need some kind of democratic decisions to be made when mankind wanted to do a mega-project of some sort. When the scarcity of resources sets a really strong limit you have to just ask people what they want to do, computers can't solve that for you.

[cbeast]

Do you guys think human society is more complex, or less complex, than an individual human brain?

To be honest, I don't know. Complexity is the science of chaos. We are mapping the brain and can actually program computers to mimic thought to a degree. The signal to noise ratio is higher in the brain than society. Society is really pretty simple if you filter out statistically insignificant error. I prefer to think of us as family. After all, we all evolved from the same ancestors. We're just a very dysfunctional family.

A human can only maintain intimate social connections up to 150 people. Also, what happens if I don't want to care for a certain person? What if I want to discriminate in who I give my love and labor to?

150? Source? What's love got to do with anything? If you ever (God forbid) procreate, what will you charge your children for their breakfast if you don't want to care for them? Will you just sell them for medical experiments?

[bb113]

hes referring to a post I made elsewhere about dunbars number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

[cbeast]

hes referring to a post I made elsewhere about dunbars number:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number

That's at one time. People come and go. Kareem claimed 10,000 women, heh.

[cbeast]

Do you guys think human society is more complex, or less complex, than an individual human brain?

To be honest, I don't know. Complexity is the science of chaos. We are mapping the brain and can actually program computers to mimic thought to a degree. The signal to noise ratio is higher in the brain than society. Society is really pretty simple if you filter out statistically insignificant error. I prefer to think of us as family. After all, we all evolved from the same ancestors. We're just a very dysfunctional family.

A human can only maintain intimate social connections up to 150 people. Also, what happens if I don't want to care for a certain person? What if I want to discriminate in who I give my love and labor to?

150? Source? What's love got to do with anything? If you ever (God forbid) procreate, what will you charge your children for their breakfast if you don't want to care for them? Will you just sell them for medical experiments?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number

I won't have children if the love ever comes into question like that. Anyways, surely somebody else will CHOOSE to love them if I ever have to abandon them. No force is required.

Let's say in certain cultures its acceptable to sell your children? I guess you're going to conquer them with guns, eh, and convert them to RBE?

I can almost hear the steam blasting from Atlas' ears.

[cbeast]

What if I only want to care for myself and my family? Do I need to be sent to a re-education camp for awhile?

Forget the "re." Back of the class.

[Technomage]

sorry do not accept that. the utopian ideas i have read so far are just that. ypu have to realise you are fighting nature here (human nature) and there is a no win senario.  BTC will I believe revolutionise the way we interact as the internet did and that is good. It will regain freedom for individuals that the state  has taken for its own purpose of control. However individuals will still be greedy and hoard but not to the extent they can subjugate whole populations for decades ,as they can now. that is the benefit and why I hope it will become more widespred . reg.

Think again. It's not human nature to be greedy or to hoard things. It's human nature to the extent that we are all capable of that. This way we are all killers as well. But as with killing, greed and hoarding doesn't just magically come about by itself. The reason why greed and hoarding is thought as universal is that we've lived for thousands of years in a world with scarcity and pricing. This creates entire cultures of greedy people because it's how you survive and succeed.

Build a different kind of system where success is not dependent on your wealth and you don't work to gain wealth or livelihood but you work to do something meaningful and to better yourself. A system where you simply get what you need without a price tag. And there is enough for everyone. The mindset of greed and hoarding does not come in if you have a society like this.

I have to agree that in the short term this is utopian because you can't simply take people who are used to living in this sick environment and put them in a RBE environment, they wouldn't know how to behave. It would be a disaster. That is why change to this type of system is so difficult.

[cbeast]

What if I only want to care for myself and my family? Do I need to be sent to a re-education camp for awhile?

Forget the "re." Back of the class.

Resource Based Economy = Stalinism with robots

Gotcha.

I wrote a different book. Don't put words in my mouth. BTW, did you read Bellamy yet?

[cbeast]

I would be imprisoned and likely killed in this society. That's a fact. I want unilateral claim to my labor and everything I produce. You guys won't have that.

I would probably end up committing suicide if I found myself in a RBE.

Heh, what would you produce that anyone would want?

[Technomage]

Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

Technology doesn't need money. Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money. Real science doesn't advance because of money, there are more meaningful incentives. Go ask any famous scientist why they do what they do and you will understand that money is a false motivator. Money is only needed today because people's livelihoods are dependent on it. And there's also the fame and success factors of owning a lot of wealth. And the actual power that comes with it, because in this system you vote with your money.

The world of open source and freeware applications/services that are created in the computer world is one good example of different type of motivations. And when you automate all the monotone jobs, which is possible btw, all we are left with are jobs where monetary rewards do more harm than good. This is proven.

[bb113]

Do you guys think human society is more complex, or less complex, than an individual human brain?

To be honest, I don't know. Complexity is the science of chaos. We are mapping the brain and can actually program computers to mimic thought to a degree. The signal to noise ratio is higher in the brain than society. Society is really pretty simple if you filter out statistically insignificant error. I prefer to think of us as family. After all, we all evolved from the same ancestors. We're just a very dysfunctional family.

"The signal to noise ratio is higher in the brain than in society"

What makes you say that? Also, what do you mean by "signal" and "noise" with respect to each? Further, what are you referring to when you say statistically insignificant error?

[Technomage]

"Something better will come along". Something better than money? OK. Then that will be the new money. Something better than trade? BS. Even in a world of unlimited energy and StarTrek-level replicators, there will still be trade, for storytelling, massages and new fashion designs if nothing else. And that trade will, on it's own, as a natural consequence of human nature, prompt a search for convenience--a medium of exchange.

Little kids on playgrounds get this. A generation or two ago, those colorful little glass balls made an excellent currency for trading sandwiches, favors, etc. A while back, it was colorful pieces of paper displaying fictional anime creatures. No one told these kids to do this. Most probably didn't even have examples of how to do it "properly." But if you don't think even children can continually re-invent this concept, and master it to the point they have a fully functional marketplace with detailed valuations and exchange rates, then you seriously don't understand human nature.

Money is NEVER going away. The fact that some seem to see it's absence as desirable (or even possible, for that matter) is beyond baffling.

This is a prime example of inside-the-box thinking. No one would ban barter in a resource-based and it's perfectly possible that there would be trade for certain items and services, but the main bulk of the economy would work without money or trade. I see it as beyond baffling that people can't even imagine this happening, when it is actually technically possible anytime we want.

We have gotten very far from the days where economists claimed resources can't be distributed with computers as efficiently as the price mechanism can. This argument is still used but I think it is a very outdated view. Questionable to say the least. As someone with IT knowledge, I don't find it at all impossible to computerize and automate the entire process of international trade. And the numbers we base everything on would be more advanced than price, instead of a one-dimensional model (price) we would have a multi-dimensional model where we take account things that price is incapable of telling us.

[bb113]

>attempts to automate international trade and all laborous systems

>fails and people die due to violence and starvation

>blames the capitalists

I actually feel the same way. "Your plan is too complicated, therefore, it will fail." That is why I asked for the comparison between the complexities of the human brain and society.

[cbeast]

I would at the very least have to take a job in this society but I would have little say in what I could do and how I could do it. I would probably end up not working at all due to this dissatisfaction. I wouldn't be the only one. I hope you enjoy your society full of bums.

Maybe their will be willfully ignorant people. My friends an I would (hypothetically) be proposing scientifically supportable designs for some extraordinary capitalist* venture. We would be adding great value to society by developing useful tools that benefit everyone. My friends would have excellent track records for such successful ventures in peer reviewed communication channels. If you properly educate yourself, perhaps you can participate in such ventures. BTW, RBE is not much different from the capitalism you understand, but industry is managed by logic, not nepotism and corruption.

*Capital as in aggregated material resources

[LightRider]

Children are not private property. They are new members of society to which you contributed genetic material and space for incubation. Treating them as private property, allowing only parents to be responsible for them, is largely the reason we have the society we have today. A society and a culture that cared for all children and nurtured them as citizens and participants in society would have a better understanding of what it means to care for each other and be responsible to all others who share the same planet. It would not allow children to be warehoused in child prisons, being taught useless irrelevant information and be indoctrinated to support false authority. Forcing parents to separate from children and seek employment for monetary gain in a contrived competitive environment that promotes artificial scarcity allows for the "re-education" that some here so easily deride. Start looking at the fundamental assumptions in your society and realize that it is not in your best interest to continue in our current direction.

[bb113]

Science is based off data. Most data is noisy. So noisy that most of the time even if you get stat significance and did it yourself you still don't trust it 100% until multiple other groups have replicated it. There is no replication in sociology or economics (and this is the noisiest data of them all). So there is no way to be confident in your science-based decision in the same way you would in an experiment involving a simpler system. Every time a government employs a political or economic policy it is basically experimenting on its citizens. Think about it that way.

[cbeast]

Science is based off data. Most data is noisy. So noisy that most of the time even if you get stat significance and did it yourself you still don't trust it 100% until multiple other groups have replicated it. There is no replication in sociology or economics (and this is the noisiest data of them all). So there is no way to be confident in your science-based decision in the same way you would in an experiment involving a simpler system. Every time a government employs a political or economic policy it is basically experimenting on its citizens. Think about it that way.

Exactly. But try telling this to a physicist. All science has chaos. We are barely beginning to understand the fractal universe. However, we are developing algorithms to filter the noise and find useful data to make predictions.

[bb113]

Science is based off data. Most data is noisy. So noisy that most of the time even if you get stat significance and did it yourself you still don't trust it 100% until multiple other groups have replicated it. There is no replication in sociology or economics (and this is the noisiest data of them all). So there is no way to be confident in your science-based decision in the same way you would in an experiment involving a simpler system. Every time a government employs a political or economic policy it is basically experimenting on its citizens. Think about it that way.

Exactly. But try telling this to a physicist. All science has chaos. We are barely beginning to understand the fractal universe. However, we are developing algorithms to filter the noise and find useful data to make predictions.

Try doing sociology and economics at the 5-sigma level. It is not feasible for the foreseeable future.

[Technomage]

How do you expect to achieve a post-scarcity situation without force nor without using free-market capitalism to achieve such a scenario?

Technically I could imagine this happening by voluntary work but I see it as unrealistic in the large scale. One possibility is that resource-based communities and ways of life start to pop up independently. Self-sufficient villages are a good example of this, it's resource-based thinking in a smaller scale. This could eventually lead to larger scale changes. I also think that capitalism will eventually lead to this type of system because of two things, it gets so cheap to produce everything and there's not enough payed work for people anymore. Unless we destroy the world before that, which I see as a very real possibility.

What if I want a custom product that none of your technocrat distribution centers have? Am I just a evil capitalist?

No, you are a human being. I'd imagine a lot of the products would have very advanced customization features because it wastes less resources than creating 100 different products to satisfy every need. If the kind of product you're looking for is still missing, you can take part in the designing process of products. All production would be done in an open source, patentless environment. Anyone can take part and if you input the design of a smart, clean product into the system and it calculates that there is expected demand for such a product, then the production and distribution of such a product would start immediately, no questions asked.

What if I want a steak but none of the distribution centers condone to animal killing? Can I start my own?

Again, because the culture has different values the educational system would make sure that everyone knows it takes 10 times more resources to produce a steak than it takes to produce vegetables of similar energy value. This does not mean that there wouldn't be meat on the menu, it wouldn't be banned. But the system would have to put some kind of limit on meat usage if the resource usage of meat production compromises the supply of food in a way that there wouldn't be enough food for everyone.

As I explained before, needs go before wants in RBE. We would first make sure everyone has the basic needs covered, this includes food, before we start taking into account the special demands of what kind of food. But I really can't imagine meat being a problem. We eat WAY too much meat right now not only from resource perspective but HEALTH perspective. Our diet as cavemen is the one our body is meant for and we didn't eat meat every day back then, it was a rare treat. Education would also have a strong focus on healthy eating habits, because that reduces the cost the society has to endure from diseases based on a wrong kind of diet.

What if I want a television that is disposable and only lasts for a month or two? What if a television that lasts forever would be too expensive for my intended use?

There is no money so it can't be too expensive to you, but it can be too expensive for the system to produce. Expense would be resource usage and energy usage etc. Creating a TV that lasts forever would probably be inpractical for many reasons, but we would try to find the perfect balance to achieve the best resource efficiency for the long term. I'm pretty sure it would be a hell of a lot efficient compared to how we produce televisions today.

What if the "best model" doesn't meet my needs? What happens if my daughter wants a Hello Kitty television? What happens if I want to create a new television protocol that doesn't work with your systems? What happens if I want to charge for this service?

As I said, the products would be highly customizable so it would not be a problem to get a Hello Kitty television. Only one model needed for this, the surface of the TV could be made in a way that it can be anything you want. This is much more efficient than creating different models for everyone. If you want to create a new kind of television you can take part of the designing process, I explained this earlier.

The whole society would be built on sharing, including the information related to production. Everything would be open source and without patents. I imagine this would help innovation quite a bit because nobody would need to start developing from scratch, the current state of science and technology would always be there for everyone to use. The reason people would actually like this and accept that their inventions are shared "for free", is that everyone else does the same and it benefits everyone. You give to others and they will give back to you, someone can develop something even greater using your invention as a start.

[cbeast]

Science is based off data. Most data is noisy. So noisy that most of the time even if you get stat significance and did it yourself you still don't trust it 100% until multiple other groups have replicated it. There is no replication in sociology or economics (and this is the noisiest data of them all). So there is no way to be confident in your science-based decision in the same way you would in an experiment involving a simpler system. Every time a government employs a political or economic policy it is basically experimenting on its citizens. Think about it that way.

Exactly. But try telling this to a physicist. All science has chaos. We are barely beginning to understand the fractal universe. However, we are developing algorithms to filter the noise and find useful data to make predictions.

Try doing sociology and economics at the 5-sigma level. It is not feasible for the foreseeable future.

5-sigma? Cleanliness? Not following.

[Serge]

This is a prime example of inside-the-box thinking. No one would ban barter in a resource-based and it's perfectly possible that there would be trade for certain items and services, but the main bulk of the economy would work without money or trade. I see it as beyond baffling that people can't even imagine this happening, when it is actually technically possible anytime we want.

We have gotten very far from the days where economists claimed resources can't be distributed with computers as efficiently as the price mechanism can. This argument is still used but I think it is a very outdated view. Questionable to say the least. As someone with IT knowledge, I don't find it at all impossible to computerize and automate the entire process of international trade. And the numbers we base everything on would be more advanced than price, instead of a one-dimensional model (price) we would have a multi-dimensional model where we take account things that price is incapable of telling us.

For a change we should start from computerizing and automating most of governmental tasks; the more we could optimize it, less it will cost us to run it, less taxes, everyone's happy.

[Technomage]

This is where force comes in. You are going to need a state to extort money from the populace for certain "democratic" projects. Lovely.

It still seems hard for you to imagine there being no money. You can't extort money from the populace if there is no money. No one owns anything either, all the resources would be the common heritage of all people. This does not eliminate personal possession though, you could still have and keep whatever you need as long as you need it. But possessing a lot of things that you don't need at the time is simply a burden in this kind of environment, but it's your burden if you want it.

[Technomage]

I would at the very least have to take a job in this society but I would have little say in what I could do and how I could do it. I would probably end up not working at all due to this dissatisfaction. I wouldn't be the only one. I hope you enjoy your society full of bums.

On the contrary, you would have complete freedom in what you choose to work on. With SOME limits of course, if what you want to do requires so much resources or energy that it's a problem for the sustainability of the system. For most imaginable things that you'd want to do this limitation is not an issue and in any case the limitation is very understandable, what we don't have the resources to do, we simply can't do. The natural world sets some limits, this has to be understood before we can build a sustainable society.

[LightRider]

Regarding Dunbar's number, I would assume that the number of people a person interacts with at an extremely early age conditions the brain to only recognize and relate to a small number of other people. Early childhood has become one of the most overly protected periods of time in a person's life today, and so a child would be limited in the number of people that have substantial and significant interactions with. If children were not treated as property and society at large actually started caring for all children, then the people that they relate to would likely increase. It is only my assumption, however.

[Technomage]

Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money.

Yes because the advancements mean nothing to you personally, they are useless.

My point was that over 90% of the so called technological advancements in our current society are there because a company has calculated that they can create sufficient demand for that product. Regardless of 1) if there are any actual life improving or resource-efficiency improving qualities in the product and 2) the fact that the demand for the product will be artificially created, by mass advertising.

Real advancements that actually improve things are a different story, but it's obvious as hell that people have natural incentives to improve the products they themselves use. For example, Linus Torvalds created Linux because he wanted a better operating system. But he wanted to give it to others as well. Then others started developing it, leading to a much more advanced product. Real technological development does not necessarily require money as an incentive.

[cbeast]

I acknowledge all that has been said. Pardon any rudeness on my part. I think all of you guys are nice people. I just hope you don't cease my property and businesses in the future.

I may consider building a Walmart where you live and will simply invoke eminent domain. You will be evicted, but with reasonable remuneration, of course. Talk to my lawyer. Capitalism Rulez!  

[Technomage]

For a change we should start from computerizing and automating most of governmental tasks; the more we could optimize it, less it will cost us to run it, less taxes, everyone's happy.

I agree. Massive changes do not happen just like that but we can slowly attempt to nudge the world in the right direction, one baby step at a time. Governments are so massively inefficient that it makes sense to start there. The best way to improve things is to simply make current structures obsolete. Bitcoin is one step forward, it makes a lot of things obsolete. Self-sufficient communities make even more things obsolete. There is a lot we can do to go forward.

[bb113]

Science is based off data. Most data is noisy. So noisy that most of the time even if you get stat significance and did it yourself you still don't trust it 100% until multiple other groups have replicated it. There is no replication in sociology or economics (and this is the noisiest data of them all). So there is no way to be confident in your science-based decision in the same way you would in an experiment involving a simpler system. Every time a government employs a political or economic policy it is basically experimenting on its citizens. Think about it that way.

Exactly. But try telling this to a physicist. All science has chaos. We are barely beginning to understand the fractal universe. However, we are developing algorithms to filter the noise and find useful data to make predictions.

Try doing sociology and economics at the 5-sigma level. It is not feasible for the foreseeable future.

5-sigma? Cleanliness? Not following.

Sigma refers to standard deviations from the expected value. Science is all about generating data and seeing if you find more than the expected amount of hits further away than an arbitrary number of standard deviations away from the expected value. In the social sciences, as well as biology (which I do), most people will have their results accepted by their peers if they are significant to p<.05  ( 1 in 20 chance of being wrong, which corresponds to about 2 sigma). Physicists are good at math so they use 5-sigma events, which are very rare (1 in 3,488,555). A 5-sigma event (Russian gov't defaulting) is what destroyed LTCM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management by the way.
.

[bb113]

My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.

[Technomage]

If you guys can accomplish this without guns, I am all for it.

...

I acknowledge all that has been said. Pardon any rudeness on my part. I think all of you guys are nice people. I just hope you don't cease my property and businesses in the future.

I approve this message. I want to confirm that the whole RBE scenario is first and foremost an educational paradigm. I don't blame capitalists nor do I want to seize anything, I just want to explain to people that the whole system is fundamentally flawed. After we experience sufficient value change and achieve critical mass, the society will start changing by itself. The society I would like to live in would be one where we maximize personal freedom while acknowledging that the natural world sets some limits on our activities. And it would be a world with more equality than this one, a world where no one has to live in poverty. This is not utopian, it's achievable. The biggest challenge is overcoming the value system disorder that we are all experiencing, some more than others.

[bb113]

Yes, everyone would love that. Why do you claim it is based on science though?

[cbeast]

My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.

Brain science is allowing us to understand how we think. Psychology is becoming well researched. Sociology and economics are less useful predictors of behavior.

[Technomage]

Yes, everyone would love that. Why do you claim it is based on science though?

Clarify, please. RBE applies scientific method to the whole economy. But science doesn't give us values. The values are sustainability, equality and freedom. I guess there are more values than that, happiness and health apply as well. Based on these values we can choose the indicators that matter and then let science handle the rest.

[bb113]

My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.

Brain science is allowing us to understand how we think. Psychology is becoming well researched. Sociology and economics are less useful predictors of behavior.

I am not sure what this means... Please answer my earlier questions about why you believe human society is less complex than the human brain.

Yes, everyone would love that. Why do you claim it is based on science though?

Clarify, please. RBE applies scientific method to the whole economy. But science doesn't give us values. The values are sustainability, equality and freedom. I guess there are more values than that, happiness and health apply as well. Based on these values we can choose the indicators that matter and then let science handle the rest.

I guess just show me your data (not a youtube video or philosophical essay) and I'll try to find something wrong with it. If I can't then I will also be about RBE. Worst case scenario is I give my critique and we are both better off for it.

[Technomage]

I guess just show me your data (not a youtube video or philosophical essay) and I'll try to find something wrong with it. If I can't then I will also be about RBE. Worst case scenario is I give my critique and we are both better off for it.

I understand what you're getting at and I have to admit that as far as I know, there are no scientific papers on RBE. If you look at it this way, it's true that the model is not scientific. The only excuse I can offer is that the general idea of an RBE has only really been talked about for a few years.

It hasn't reached the stage yet where we have scientific papers or an actual computer model for such a system. There have been plans for this but this type of development is slow. The best I have to offer is lectures or essays on this, or information on the latest technology (http://www.zeitnews.org/).

I have no doubt though that eventually the idea of an RBE will be put to the test, at least as a real computer model. And in real life as well, in form of a RBE village or city. It needs to be self-sufficient to not be reliant on trade, but even with some trading it can be done if there is funding for such a project. As long as we live in a world that uses money, we need it to create a RBE prototype.

[cbeast]

My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.

Brain science is allowing us to understand how we think. Psychology is becoming well researched. Sociology and economics are less useful predictors of behavior.

I am not sure what this means... Please answer my earlier questions about why you believe human society is less complex than the human brain.

Human society is unpredictable. It's like asking why electrical theory is less complex than ToE. There is no sense on postulating theories with little more than correlative data. When we understand ourselves, we can begin to find a ToE for human behavior. That's a long way off. It's simpler to use accepted axioms. Society isn't really complex because it doesn't really even exist. Society is a reification. Religion makes society simple, even if the religion is science.

[Technomage]

What if your idea of sustainability, equality and freedom is wrong?

The whole idea is that the system is designed to improve itself automatically. The indicators we use today to see how an economy is doing are false, such as GDP. In RBE the indicators would be very different. We would of course have sustainability as one indicator and this includes a lot of things such as resource efficiency, energy efficiency, resource scarcity levels etc. But on top of this we would have population happiness, physical health, mental health, crime, education, innovation etc. These would be the guidelines we would use to improve the system. The things that really matter. If you don't agree that these things matter, then RBE is not for you.

[LightRider]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

If you are unwilling to change your beliefs when you acquire new information and data, then they are ultimately irrelevant. Reality does not persist based on your beliefs.

[Technomage]

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

No one knows what is best for other people. But we can find out using science. Ask people, track their consumption and predict. It's not that different from the methods companies use today. They use science to create the products and distribution methods that best meet the demand of their customers. RBE is not all that different but one major difference is that in RBE there are no incentives to create demand for products artificially (by marketing and advertising). This would radically reduce consumption and improve both our lives and our sustainability as a species.

[cbeast]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

You then believe desires are real things that you can put in a container.
Mirror Neuron Receptors.

[bb113]

I guess just show me your data (not a youtube video or philosophical essay) and I'll try to find something wrong with it. If I can't then I will also be about RBE. Worst case scenario is I give my critique and we are both better off for it.

I understand what you're getting at and I have to admit that as far as I know, there are no scientific papers on RBE. If you look at it this way, it's true that the model is not scientific. The only excuse I can offer is that the general idea of an RBE has only really been talked about for a few years.

It hasn't reached the stage yet where we have scientific papers or an actual computer model for such a system. There have been plans for this but this type of development is slow. The best I have to offer is lectures or essays on this, or information on the latest technology (http://www.zeitnews.org/).

I have no doubt though that eventually the idea of an RBE will be put to the test, at least as a real computer model. And in real life as well, in form of a RBE village or city. It needs to be self-sufficient to not be reliant on trade, but even with some trading it can be done if there is funding for such a project. As long as we live in a world that uses money, we need it to create a RBE prototype.

So you have an hypothesis and would like to test it scientifically, but it costs a shitload (in money and mental activity) to actually do so. The majority of people with the money/power have no incentive in changing the status quo, so it is difficult to make happen. That is why it hasn't been done yet. Ok, so stop saying it is based on science then. Logic is also a good basis for making decisions. Just call it what it is. Hopefully, eventually someone with the ability to access the necessary resources will attempt to test the viability of a RBE.

My point is not to equate sociology or economics with physics. Beyond striving to utilize the scientific method, they aren't the same. The systems under study are many orders of magnitude different in complexity.

Brain science is allowing us to understand how we think. Psychology is becoming well researched. Sociology and economics are less useful predictors of behavior.

I am not sure what this means... Please answer my earlier questions about why you believe human society is less complex than the human brain.

Human society is unpredictable. It's like asking why electrical theory is less complex than ToE. There is no sense on postulating theories with little more than correlative data. When we understand ourselves, we can begin to find a ToE for human behavior. That's a long way off. It's simpler to use accepted axioms. Society isn't really complex because it doesn't really even exist. Society is a reification. Religion makes society simple, even if the religion is science.

Even if we accept that people will act how their religion tells them to under normal circumstances, what about when something goes wrong?

What if your idea of sustainability, equality and freedom is wrong?

The whole idea is that the system is designed to improve itself automatically. The indicators we use today to see how an economy is doing are false, such as GDP. In RBE the indicators would be very different. We would of course have sustainability as one indicator and this includes a lot of things such as resource efficiency, energy efficiency, resource scarcity levels etc. But on top of this we would have population happiness, physical health, mental health, crime, education, innovation etc. These would be the guidelines we would use to improve the system. The things that really matter. If you don't agree that these things matter, then RBE is not for you.

Personally I 100% agree with this. I have just cannot think of a way to create an uncorruptable state, and have never heard/read a feasible idea by anyone else either. For that reason, I think any plan that relies upon centralized power will fail.

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

No one knows what is best for other people. But we can find out using science. Ask people, track their consumption and predict. It's not that different from the methods companies use today. They use science to create the products and distribution methods that best meet the demand of their customers. RBE is not all that different but one major difference is that in RBE there are no incentives to artificially create demand for products. Which will radically reduce consumption and improve both our lives and our sustainability as a species.

How will we test these methods without hurting people if something goes wrong? I.e if this were to be a funded experiment you would need an IRB to approve it. If you did it on your own it would piss people off and if you didn't have dudes with guns backing you up (IRB approval) you and your family could be harmed.

*edited grammar

[bb113]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

You then believe desires are real things that you can put in a container.
Mirror Neuron Receptors.

what???

[cbeast]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

You then believe desires are real things that you can put in a container.
Mirror Neuron Receptors.

what???

Is imagination real? Maybe so in Imaginationland.
Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

[bb113]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

You then believe desires are real things that you can put in a container.
Mirror Neuron Receptors.

what???

Is imagination real? Maybe so in Imaginationland.
Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

Receptors are proteins found in the membrane (boundry) of your cells, one type of cell is a neuron. receptors are there to tell the cell about its external environment such as when neurotransmitters and shit like that are around. This could lead to stuff happening within the neuron, for example, causing a neuron releasing its own transmitters to the next neuron in the network. A mirror neuron is one that is hooked up to your sensory organs to fire when you observe someone doing something... and that also fires when you do it yourself. I hope that makes sense.

[cbeast]

I acknowledge all that has been said. Pardon any rudeness on my part. I think all of you guys are nice people. I just hope you don't cease my property and businesses in the future.

I may consider building a Walmart where you live and will simply invoke eminent domain. You will be evicted, but with reasonable remuneration, of course. Talk to my lawyer. Capitalism Rulez!  

That isn't capitalism. That's state corporatism.

Harvey, you will never win this argument but I salute you for trying. Every time you refute a point, they refuse to acknowledge it and move on to something else crazy. Like the example I chose here, confusing corporatism with capitalism in an attempt to demonize capitalism. Bravo cbeast you crazy RBEer.

You can't have RBE without hivemind or force.

Your opinion. I missed the section on state corporatism in Macroeconomics. Eminent domain has been law long before Walmart.

[Harvey]

Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

This is when I begin to get really scared of you people.

[Technomage]

Personally I 100% agree with this. I have just cannot think of a way to create an uncorruptable state, and have never heard/read a feasible idea by anyone else either. For that reason, I think any plan that relies upon centralized power will fail.

RBE is not based on centralized power. It's a protocol we would use for arriving at decisions. The actual development and coding would all be done in an open way with everything open source. This way it's very hard for people to screw other people because everything is out in the open. It is a form of central planning but it's not a top-down system where certain people decide things for others, it's a system where the hierarchy is flat instead of top-down.

This means that people contribute based on what their qualifications are and what project they want to contribute to. No one is superior to one another but different skills would lead to different responsibilities. I do not claim that there could not be corruption in a system like this. No system is, and never will be, perfect. But I do claim that it could be much better than what we have now.

Getting the right qualifications for certain type of work would be more straightforward than it is now. All education is free of course and there would be a lot of flexibility. One could simply self-study and then pass the required tests and receive a certificate and then you would have the qualifications to participate in a project you like.

How will we test these methods without hurting people if something goes wrong? I.e if this were to be a funded experiment you would need an IRB to approve it. If you did it on your own it would piss people off and if you didn't have dudes with guns backing you up (IRB approval) you and your family could be harmed.

This is a good point, there are many obstacles to overcome. In case of a real life town experiment it would have to be done in a country where it's safe and legal to do so.

[cbeast]

Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

This is when I begin to get really scared of you people.

Science is hard, not scary.

[cbeast]

What if I believe that the only that matters is what an individual desires?

What if I believe I don't know what is best for other people?

You then believe desires are real things that you can put in a container.
Mirror Neuron Receptors.

what???

Is imagination real? Maybe so in Imaginationland.
Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

Receptors are proteins found in the membrane (boundry) of your cells, one type of cell is a neuron. receptors are there to tell the cell about its external environment such as when neurotransmitters and shit like that are around. This could lead to stuff happening within the neuron, for example, causing a neuron releasing its own transmitters to the next neuron in the network. A mirror neuron is one that is hooked up to your sensory organs to fire when you observe someone doing something... and that also fires when you do it yourself. I hope that makes sense.

Thanks for the tl;dr

[bb113]

I keep thinking cbeast is a troll. They keep talking about things they clearly know nothing about. Sorry cbeast.

[cbeast]

Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

This is when I begin to get really scared of you people.

Science is hard, not scary.

Yeah, that's what you say when you shove SCIENCE up everybody's ass without their consent.

RBE in a nutshell:

When you turn 40, your doctor will probably do the same. Just hope he studied science first.

[bb113]

Personally I 100% agree with this. I have just cannot think of a way to create an uncorruptable state, and have never heard/read a feasible idea by anyone else either. For that reason, I think any plan that relies upon centralized power will fail.

RBE is not based on centralized power. It's a protocol we would use for arriving at decisions. The actual development and coding would all be done in an open way with everything open source. This way it's very hard for people to screw other people because everything is out in the open. It is a form of central planning but it's not a top-down system where certain people decide things for others, it's a system where the hierarchy is flat instead of top-down.

This means that people contribute based on what their qualifications are and what project they want to contribute to. No one is superior to one another but different skills would lead to different responsibilities. I do not claim that there could not be corruption in a system like this. No system is, and never will be, perfect. But I do claim that it could be much better than what we have now.

Getting the right qualifications for certain type of work would be more straightforward than it is now. All education is free of course and there would be a lot of flexibility. One could simply self-study and then pass the required tests and receive a certificate and then you would have the qualifications to participate in a project you like.

How will we test these methods without hurting people if something goes wrong? I.e if this were to be a funded experiment you would need an IRB to approve it. If you did it on your own it would piss people off and if you didn't have dudes with guns backing you up (IRB approval) you and your family could be harmed.

This is a good point, there are many obstacles to overcome. In case of a real life town experiment it would have to be done in a country where it's safe and legal to do so.

Ok, so is this in a post-scarcity society or not?

[cbeast]

Mirror Neuron Receptors are what invoke physiological emotional responses to what others appear to be experiencing.

This is when I begin to get really scared of you people.

Science is hard, not scary.

Yeah, that's what you say when you shove SCIENCE up everybody's ass without their consent.

RBE in a nutshell:

When you turn 40, your doctor will probably do the same. Just hope he studied science first.

I've refused designer vaccines for over 2 years now. I think I can do my own prostrate exams as well.

I don't need you. I don't need my doctor. I don't need your resource-based economy. I can take goddamn care of myself.

[Technomage]

To be able to imagine what kind of political system would be used in a RBE, one should consider p2p politics. Decision making would be something everyone can contribute to. Based on what you want to contribute to and what your qualifications are. All education would be completely free, so everyone can study and get the qualifications if they want to contribute to a certain project or job that requires it.

[bb113]

Will it be anonymous? Will you verify people's age somehow? What role would someone like cbeast be able to play your society?

[cbeast]

Will it be anonymous? Will you verify people's age somehow? What role would someone like cbeast be able to play your society?

What do you mean "be able to." There will be no government or police to stop anyone from doing anything. There will be no government to make anyone do anything. This is ridiculous. If you want to criticize RBE, go read the literature. Then maybe you can do something useful so our descendants don't choke on our poisonous waste. If you really don't give a damn, then I won't waste my time with you.

[Technomage]

Will it be anonymous? Will you verify people's age somehow? What role would someone like cbeast be able to play your society?

I don't know everything. Think about it yourself, how would you like it to be? RBE is not some fixed concept, it has certain core ideas that all RBE advocates agree on, such as using the scientific method, the importance of certain values and certain indicators as the core of an economic system etc. But none of the details are set in stone. RBE is supposed to use whatever technologies can at the time best help us reach our goals.

The point of the scientific method is that nothing is set in stone. It can always change when we get new data. It's all about experimenting, finding out what works. This is why it's important to be able to put RBE to the test, eventually.

[bb113]

Will it be anonymous? Will you verify people's age somehow? What role would someone like cbeast be able to play your society?

I don't know everything. Think about it yourself, how would you like it to be? RBE is not some fixed concept, it has certain core ideas that all RBE advocates agree on, such as using the scientific method, the importance of certain values and certain indicators as the core of an economic system etc. But none of the details are set in stone. RBE is supposed to use whatever technologies can at the time best help us reach our goals.

The point of the scientific method is that nothing is set in stone. It can always change when we get new data. It's all about experimenting, finding out what works. This is why it's important to be able to put RBE to the test, eventually.

I stated earlier that my issue with it is the need for centralized authority and that I do not know how to avoid the corruption of that authority. I have thought about these things long and hard and come to the conclusion that it would be more difficult to make such a system work than anything attempted by man thus far. So, while I am interested in discussing the concept, I would not want to take part in the experiment because I think the failure scenario could be really horrific.

[Technomage]

What happens when I don't agree with the decisions made? That's the part that concerns me. I'm all for an RBE as long as I can opt-out.

The decision making in a RBE is not the same thing as we're used to. We would use scientific method to arrive at decisions so no one is actually making a decision. The people are there to make sure the process is followed correctly. I've explained a lot of the process already in my previous posts. What needs people have as individuals are automatically taken into account in "decision making". It's one attribute among others.

If you don't like the decisions then that's too bad, it's doing the best it can. If you think the process itself is flawed, this can be fixed. Anyone can start a discussion or investigation into the functionalities of the system, just like Wikipedia editors can start a discussion on the validity of a Wikipedia article. It's no different.

But I have the feeling I won't be permitted to opt-out. Hey, at least you people will feed me though? And uhh... I'll be able to participate in the predetermined procreation periods with my recommended gene pairing partner, right?

Nothing is forced upon you. Sustainable breeding practices are an educational issue. This is evident even in the world today. Less educated countries tend to have a much higher population growth. In a RBE I would think that the population growth would be sustainable by itself, good education is all that's needed.

[deltanine]

Will it be anonymous? Will you verify people's age somehow? What role would someone like cbeast be able to play your society?

What do you mean "be able to." There will be no government or police to stop anyone from doing anything. There will be no government to make anyone do anything. This is ridiculous. If you want to criticize RBE, go read the literature. Then maybe you can do something useful so our descendants don't choke on our poisonous waste. If you really don't give a damn, then I won't waste my time with you.

I'll have to read up on this RBE stuff.  Do you have a good link that gives me an easy rundown?  If there is no gov't, what will this society be governed by?  Science?  I'm not getting it.

[bb113]

Using what you've described earlier: The centralized authority is the most outspoken people amongst the ones who plan ahead for the future democratically.

[bb113]

Decentralized republics is possibly how this would work, though. As long as there was a fall back for people who didn't want to opt-in

[Technomage]

I'll have to read up on this RBE stuff.  Do you have a good link that gives me an easy rundown?  If there is no gov't, what will this society be governed by?  Science?  I'm not getting it.

I have something. There are many lectures on the concept, this one explains the system fairly well in my opinion: http://vimeo.com/7857584 & http://vimeo.com/7938805

Part one of the lecture is mostly a rundown on the problems of our society and where we're heading if we do nothing, the second part goes into the details of a RBE. But I don't recommend skipping part one. An important part of understanding the solutions is to understand the problems. Many think they understand the problems, but in reality they don't.

[cbeast]

Here is one possible scenario for an RBE "authority."
Try this as a thought experiment. Imagine being connected to a lie detector that measured respiration, heart rate, blood flow, etc. You do this voluntarily along with many other well educated experts on particular issues. You were then to engage in conversation with your peers on how to solve some societal problems. How trustworthy would the results of this discussion be? Would this method help eliminate corruption?

I suppose you will say that they will all be trained to deceive all of these tests by going through super spy training. Ok, we'll up the ante. If they are caught lying, they will be further tested and if they fail or refuse, they will be eliminated from the process. It's possible this will be done in error, but they may appeal to volunteer for deeper examination including brain scan.

All I'm saying is that there are solutions to problems and that I'm sick and tired of people who criticize with nothing to add to the conversation.

[cbeast]

I'll have to read up on this RBE stuff.  Do you have a good link that gives me an easy rundown?  If there is no gov't, what will this society be governed by?  Science?  I'm not getting it.

I have something. There are many lectures on the concept, this one explains the system fairly well in my opinion: http://vimeo.com/7857584 & http://vimeo.com/7938805

Part one of the lecture is mostly a rundown on the problems of our society and where we're heading if we do nothing, the second part goes into the details of a RBE. But I don't recommend skipping part one. An important part of understanding the solutions is to understand the problems. Many think they understand the problems, but in reality they don't.

Here's a transcript. It's not formatted. http://dotsub.com/view/dd83d532-7fcd-4a5c-a7f5-58f245ab4fe6/viewTranscript/eng

[freequant]

Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

Technology doesn't need money. Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money. Real science doesn't advance because of money, there are more meaningful incentives. Go ask any famous scientist why they do what they do and you will understand that money is a false motivator. Money is only needed today because people's livelihoods are dependent on it.

Can you give me an example of how you can achieve the design and construction of an aircraft, an Airbus A380 for instance, without using money at any stage? Are you gonna do barter for any parts, IP, material, labour? So buy RollsRoyce engines with camels? And you sell the A380 to a collective of farmers in exchange for a couple tons of corn? I am really looking forward to reading a non silly explanation of how such a thing as a A380 would happen without money...

[deltanine]

I'll have to read up on this RBE stuff.  Do you have a good link that gives me an easy rundown?  If there is no gov't, what will this society be governed by?  Science?  I'm not getting it.

I have something. There are many lectures on the concept, this one explains the system fairly well in my opinion: http://vimeo.com/7857584 & http://vimeo.com/7938805

Part one of the lecture is mostly a rundown on the problems of our society and where we're heading if we do nothing, the second part goes into the details of a RBE. But I don't recommend skipping part one. An important part of understanding the solutions is to understand the problems. Many think they understand the problems, but in reality they don't.

Thanks for the links.  I can't wait to get to part 2 as I'm 30 minutes into the first part and am finding myself disagreeing with most of the conclusions the speaker has drawn.  I'll try to give this whole idea a fair shake as I'm no friend of the "status quo" but I have a feeling that the solutions offered in part 2 may be worse than what we already have.

[cbeast]

Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

Technology doesn't need money. Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money. Real science doesn't advance because of money, there are more meaningful incentives. Go ask any famous scientist why they do what they do and you will understand that money is a false motivator. Money is only needed today because people's livelihoods are dependent on it.

Can you give me an example of how you can achieve the design and construction of an aircraft, an Airbus A380 for instance, without using money at any stage? Are you gonna do barter for any parts, IP, material, labour? So buy RollsRoyce engines with camels? And you sell the A380 to a collective of farmers in exchange for a couple tons of corn? I am really looking forward to reading a non silly explanation of how such a thing as a A380 would happen without money...

Many things are built purely on spec. What you get afterward depends on what you value.

[freequant]

Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

Technology doesn't need money. Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money. Real science doesn't advance because of money, there are more meaningful incentives. Go ask any famous scientist why they do what they do and you will understand that money is a false motivator. Money is only needed today because people's livelihoods are dependent on it.

Can you give me an example of how you can achieve the design and construction of an aircraft, an Airbus A380 for instance, without using money at any stage? Are you gonna do barter for any parts, IP, material, labour? So buy RollsRoyce engines with camels? And you sell the A380 to a collective of farmers in exchange for a couple tons of corn? I am really looking forward to reading a non silly explanation of how such a thing as a A380 would happen without money...

Many things are built purely on spec. What you get afterward depends on what you value.

in other words, you can't answer my question...

[bb113]

cbeast is a moron or trolling. Seems like a com major to me though...

[westkybitcoins]

Well, I have time to spare, so I'll try once again.

Let's presume an idealized RBE. Practically unlimited energy. Star Trek replicators. Everyone has their own. Forget how we get here... the discussion isn't that interesting (mostly speculation,) and since it's theoretically plausible, it's not really relevant how we get here.

Assuming that background, three questions to the RBE community as a whole:

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

(2) As a highly sought-after masseur, what would incentivize me to give massages to anyone besides close friends or loved ones? (I'm being precise; not "why would I", but "what would incentivize me.")

(3) What stops someone from quantifying the incentive (even in a crude, vague fashion) and then accumulating more of the incentive and making an industry out of that incentive?

[julz]

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

What have you got against the masseuse-bots? They can look after your *every* need you know.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here - as I tend to think money will always exist.. but if you're going to go as far as postulating star-trek style replicators,
why would you want anything at all from another human which wasn't given out of pure willingness to give/please?

Couldn't it be that in a society awash with replicators and robots, the very idea of accepting any good or service from a person who 'expected' some reward would seem 'ugly' or 'perverse'?

[Harvey]

Heh, this made me think of what kind of porn they would have in a RBE society:

Citizen TC-834, you've been volunteered by the people's desire initiative subsection 7 to fulfill your fellow humans sexual desires. You will be coupled with a female comrade who will assist you in meeting our community's sexual needs. Please proceed to the bedding chambers in 5 time units.

The senior Zeitgeist did an about-face and headed down the right corridor and saluted a passing scientist looking for any psychological traits that implied "irrationality".

TC-834, began to scowl. He had been taught from birth to take kindly to such "voluntary" transactions or such will imply willful ignorance of the scientific method. The last time he was punished for his irrationality, he was sentenced to reeducation. He had traded lunch with his friend Kenneth and was labeled with ignorant capitalistic tendencies. Reeducation camp was long and tedious and consisted of cleaning toilets and massaging the backs of the many senior scientists. At least this time he could experience sex with a half-way decent partner. This is far better than the time he was assigned to the disabled...

Such negative thoughts about others is considered irrational by the Zeitgeist Commission since unconditional love is expected of all citizens, yet TC-834 cringed in disgust every single time he was assigned to sexual duty with partners he did not prefer. If found of this crime, TC-834 could be sentenced to re-education for another decade.

Heh, I should really write a book on this.

[LightRider]

Heh, this made me think of what kind of porn they would have in a RBE society:

Citizen TC-834, you've been volunteered by the people's desire initiative subsection 7 to fulfill your fellow humans sexual desires. You will be coupled with a female comrade who will assist you in meeting our community's sexual needs. Please proceed to the bedding chambers in 5 time units.

The senior Zeitgeist did an about-face and headed down the right corridor and saluted a passing scientist looking for any psychological traits that implied "irrationality".

TC-834, began to scowl. He had been taught from birth to take kindly to such "voluntary" transactions or such will imply willful ignorance of the scientific method. The last time he was punished for his irrationality, he was sentenced to reeducation. He had traded lunch with his friend Kenneth and was labeled with ignorant capitalistic tendencies. Reeducation camp was long and tedious and consisted of cleaning toilets and massaging the backs of the many senior scientists. At least this time he could experience sex with a half-way decent partner. This is far better than the time he was assigned to the disabled...

Such negative thoughts about others is considered irrational by the Zeitgeist Commission since unconditional love is expected of all citizens, yet TC-834 cringed in disgust every single time he was assigned to sexual duty with partners he did not prefer. If found of this crime, TC-834 could be sentenced to re-education for another decade.

Heh, I should really write a book on this.

Interesting to hear you say that.

[julz]

Heh, this made me think of what kind of porn they would have in a RBE society:

Citizen TC-834, you've been volunteered by the people's desire initiative subsection 7 to fulfill your fellow humans sexual desires. You will be coupled with a female comrade who will assist you in meeting our community's sexual needs. Please proceed to the bedding chambers in 5 time units.

The senior Zeitgeist did an about-face and headed down the right corridor and saluted a passing scientist looking for any psychological traits that implied "irrationality".

TC-834, began to scowl. He had been taught from birth to take kindly to such "voluntary" transactions or such will imply willful ignorance of the scientific method. The last time he was punished for his irrationality, he was sentenced to reeducation. He had traded lunch with his friend Kenneth and was labeled with ignorant capitalistic tendencies. Reeducation camp was long and tedious and consisted of cleaning toilets and massaging the backs of the many senior scientists. At least this time he could experience sex with a half-way decent partner. This is far better than the time he was assigned to the disabled...

Such negative thoughts about others is considered irrational by the Zeitgeist Commission since unconditional love is expected of all citizens, yet TC-834 cringed in disgust every single time he was assigned to sexual duty with partners he did not prefer. If found of this crime, TC-834 could be sentenced to re-education for another decade.

Heh, I should really write a book on this.

because why?  you think a strawman wrapped in bad fiction might be less obvious?

[cbeast]

Technology needs money, humans need technology, therefore humans need money.

Technology doesn't need money. Inventing a new razor, toothbrush or a vacuum cleaner with no meaningful advancements needs money. Real science doesn't advance because of money, there are more meaningful incentives. Go ask any famous scientist why they do what they do and you will understand that money is a false motivator. Money is only needed today because people's livelihoods are dependent on it.

Can you give me an example of how you can achieve the design and construction of an aircraft, an Airbus A380 for instance, without using money at any stage? Are you gonna do barter for any parts, IP, material, labour? So buy RollsRoyce engines with camels? And you sell the A380 to a collective of farmers in exchange for a couple tons of corn? I am really looking forward to reading a non silly explanation of how such a thing as a A380 would happen without money...

Many things are built purely on spec. What you get afterward depends on what you value.

in other words, you can't answer my question...

Um. Building on spec means building something without being paid up front. Not at any stage up front. What does that not answer?

[westkybitcoins]

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

What have you got against the masseuse-bots? They can look after your *every* need you know.

I'm only playing devil's advocate here - as I tend to think money will always exist.. but if you're going to go as far as postulating star-trek style replicators,
why would you want anything at all from another human which wasn't given out of pure willingness to give/please?

Couldn't it be that in a society awash with replicators and robots, the very idea of accepting any good or service from a person who 'expected' some reward would seem 'ugly' or 'perverse'?

At the risk of this heading down a path that was NOT intended... some people just want the human contact. Whether they know it or not, this is one of the main reasons people visit masseuses today.

And that being the case... it seems clear to me that demand for this will always exceed the supply of people willing to just massage everyone for free out of charity. But that won't make the demand go away, despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

So, again, for someone seeking this service today, they just visit a spa, ask for the service, and pay some form of money for it.

How would one acquire a massage in a RBE?

[Technomage]

Can you give me an example of how you can achieve the design and construction of an aircraft, an Airbus A380 for instance, without using money at any stage? Are you gonna do barter for any parts, IP, material, labour? So buy RollsRoyce engines with camels? And you sell the A380 to a collective of farmers in exchange for a couple tons of corn? I am really looking forward to reading a non silly explanation of how such a thing as a A380 would happen without money...

I don't know what qualifies as a non silly explanation of a society where things such as the A380 are produced without money or barter, because that probably is silly to you. But I will explain it regardless.

The design of the aircraft would be done just like it is done now, by the efforts of scientists and engineers. These are people who want to work in designing aircrafts, their livelihoods are provided automatically as is for everyone else. This is just something they like to do.

The actual design of the aircraft and the parts used could differ because price wouldn't be an issue. What would be an issue is the resource efficiency of a certain part and the system would assign a number to this, based on all the relevant indicators. Keep in mind that this system would know the exact scarcity levels of every known raw material on Earth, its depletion rate, pollution potentials etc. It would obviously also know all the information related to the technical strength of that material and would help the engineers in choosing the right materials for the plane.

Now this system does not know these things just like that, we need scientists to gather that data. That is why the first step of RBE is always survey. It means that scientists of different fields must actually input all the data in the computer before the computer can actually do anything with it. We can build a computer model of RBE but as long as we don't have real data (which is mostly protected by individual corporations today) it's not a real model.

Continuing with this exercise, the aircraft itself would be built in the same way as it is built know, by machines. The materials would be mined by machines, refined by machines and transported by automated transport vehicles to the factory where it is finally assembled. A small amount of humans are needed to supervise the production and fix the machines in case of issues. These are again people who both want to do it and are qualified to do it.

This is not very different from how it is done now. Most production is done by machines. In RBE there would naturally be more machinery because of one of the goals in the society would be to get rid of unwanted human jobs as fast as possible. We have so many jobs today that can be automated with the level of technology we have now, if we just wanted to. The biggest obstacle for this is money, which causes corporations to often choose cheap human labor instead of machines. It has nothing to do with our actual technology and resources. But this will change soon even in this system.

Finally, there is a bigger question here. Do we even want to build A380's? Is aircraft the most efficient way to travel, long term? These would have to be calculated. Maybe we decide to start building tunnels for very high speed maglev trains instead. All transit systems would be re-evaluated and one thing is for sure, traffic based on private cars is the first thing to go. It's so inefficient it sickens me.

[Technomage]

Let's presume an idealized RBE. Practically unlimited energy. Star Trek replicators. Everyone has their own. Forget how we get here... the discussion isn't that interesting (mostly speculation,) and since it's theoretically plausible, it's not really relevant how we get here.

We don't need to think Star Trek to talk about RBE. It does not need any Star Trek technologies, in fact RBE can be applied to a society of any level of technology. There have been tribes and communities in the past that had RBE mindset, they shared what they had and they knew that overfishing etc. is unsustainable, so they didn't do it. Of course if we apply RBE to the whole economy of the modern world, we need advanced technology. But unlimited energy and replicators is not a necessary part of it, the point of the whole system is the intelligent use of our scarce resources.

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

This is a good question. I think that in transition to a RBE type system you would need transitional methods. One of these methods could be timebanks, which are essentially a bartering system but they work perfectly for services such as massage. I've never claimed that it's a straightforward path to remove barter, it will be a very slow process and perhaps we never get rid of all barter. But I think that even this can change if we live in a type of "gift economy" for long enough, people just give you massages without expecting anything in return.

(2) As a highly sought-after masseur, what would incentivize me to give massages to anyone besides close friends or loved ones? (I'm being precise; not "why would I", but "what would incentivize me.")

Possibly nothing and no one could force you to do it either, because it's unlikely that anyone has anything that you necessarily need. If they do, then there could be trade. Regardless, I see this direction as the right way to go. A lot of the bad jobs today are still there because the employees are forced to do something to secure their livelihoods. With an RBE type mindset we would try to solve the issue in other ways.

(3) What stops someone from quantifying the incentive (even in a crude, vague fashion) and then accumulating more of the incentive and making an industry out of that incentive?

I see a need for timebanks in the beginning but in general it's hard for any trading system to become anything but a small part of the society. It's important to remember that even stuff such as drugs would be 100% legal, all of them, so no black market can be born out of it. There are only a few niche markets where such a market could be born, and it's okay if it does.

[Technomage]

A lot of the preferences people have are based on what they are used to. This has been proven regarding taste, people from different cultures value different tastes in food because they have been eating certain kind of food ever since they were children.

To me it's simply a matter of getting used to different kind of service. No longer would you have a human barber, or a human at the cash register or a human serving at the bar. Possibly most massage would be machine based as well. I doubt people would kill one another if they don't have a willing human masseur as their close friend.

None of this takes away from socialising with other human beings, in fact it enhances it. The socialising would be with other people using the service, with your friends and members of the community. People would simply get used to the fact that you don't talk to the bartender because there isn't one anymore. This is exactly the same as the disappearence of the elevator man. People have gotten used to that pretty well, I'd say.

The fact is that by doing this we remove the need for wage slavery, people can become so much more than the mundane jobs most are forced to do today. It's a relief of massive proportions. I'd like to note that there would be no force in this, if someone wants to be a bartender or a barber even though we offer a machine instead, they can continue to do it. The point is to automate jobs that people don't want to do and jobs that machines are a lot better at.

[Explodicle]

I'm not an economist or financier, just an engineer. I helped a teensy bit with engines intended for the A380.

From MY perspective, the design and build of the A380 would have been easier in a RBE. No intellectual property in my way (that's a big one), no export control laws, no union conflicts, no "financial quarters" driving due dates instead of going straight back from the build schedule, no one working the project who isn't personally interested in flight... It's not like the A380 was made within a perfectly functional capitalist system.

Not to say the econ works out for everyone, but it's certainly not hard to imagine doing my part without the money stuff. Right now I've got everything I "need". So long as I don't miss out on too much fun stuff, I wouldn't mind the technocracy and would probably appreciate fewer corporatist roadblocks. The an-cap utopia so many propose here would be nice too; let's start both and then I'll decide who deserves my services more.

[westkybitcoins]

Ok. First, thanks for the direct response. It's appreciated; I'm not just trying to slam RBE, rather I'm trying to scrutinize the one aspect that seems most out-of-place to me.

Let's presume an idealized RBE. Practically unlimited energy. Star Trek replicators. Everyone has their own. Forget how we get here... the discussion isn't that interesting (mostly speculation,) and since it's theoretically plausible, it's not really relevant how we get here.

We don't need to think Star Trek to talk about RBE. It does not need any Star Trek technologies, in fact RBE can be applied to a society of any level of technology. There have been tribes and communities in the past that had RBE mindset, they shared what they had and they knew that overfishing etc. is unsustainable, so they didn't do it. Of course if we apply RBE to the whole economy of the modern world, we need advanced technology. But unlimited energy and replicators is not a necessary part of it, the point of the whole system is the intelligent use of our scarce resources.

Oh, I understand that. But I think the various forms of possible, less-than-ideal RBEs are a distraction. I want to avoid the more trivial issues surrounding that, plus I want your arguments to be coming from the strongest possible base. Since I think replicators, to some degree, are theoretically possible (maybe a few thousand years down the road) and I agree that we can keep getting closer to this ideal, I have no problem starting my discussions about RBEs with the presumption that the ideal has been achieved. It makes things easier for you, and I have no issues with it.

(1) How do I acquire all-natural done-by-a-human oil massages? (Yes, I'm serious.)

This is a good question. I think that in transition to a RBE type system you would need transitional methods. One of these methods could be timebanks, which are essentially a bartering system but they work perfectly for services such as massage. I've never claimed that it's a straightforward path to remove barter, it will be a very slow process and perhaps we never get rid of all barter. But I think that even this can change if we live in a type of "gift economy" for long enough, people just give you massages without expecting anything in return.

Timebanks... is this similar to things such as the LETS system? Or possibly bitcoin-denominated Ripple?

Personally, that's kind of what I envisioned. Once material goods are truly abundant, the most valuable things will become human services/performances and new ideas. The only way to keep track of those things is a simple accounting setup of some sort... possibly Bitcoin-like. So this makes sense.

I don't think there will be enough people gifting massages (at least, excluding creepy, over-eager masseurs no one wants to go to) to meet the demand of people wanting them though; I could see timebanks hanging around just to deal with this sort of excess demand. We'll probably have to agree to disagree over whether machine massages would be more desirable than human contact.

(2) As a highly sought-after masseur, what would incentivize me to give massages to anyone besides close friends or loved ones? (I'm being precise; not "why would I", but "what would incentivize me.")

Possibly nothing and no one could force you to do it either, because it's unlikely that anyone has anything that you necessarily need. If they do, then there could be trade. Regardless, I see this direction as the right way to go. A lot of the bad jobs today are still there because the employees are forced to do something to secure their livelihoods. With an RBE type mindset we would try to solve the issue in other ways.

Actually, if there were timebanks, and I could trade the credits for massages for myself, personal entertainment from singers, etc., I'd find them valuable and could be incentivized by them.

Lacking incentive though ("I've given you three massages this week already Jim, I'm done for now,") it's good to hear no methods would be used to force one to provide a service.

(3) What stops someone from quantifying the incentive (even in a crude, vague fashion) and then accumulating more of the incentive and making an industry out of that incentive?

I see a need for timebanks in the beginning but in general it's hard for any trading system to become anything but a small part of the society. It's important to remember that even stuff such as drugs would be 100% legal, all of them, so no black market can be born out of it. There are only a few niche markets where such a market could be born, and it's okay if it does.

Now, here's where I kinda get to my point. If timebanks are around, and I'm incentivized by them, likely others would be as well. This essentially would turn timebank credits into a form of money, and even if it's small, some sort of market (complete with exchange rates, etc.) would likely develop around it. ("Oh, honey! Five timebank credits! What a great birthday present!")

And, humans being human, a certain level of status or prestige would also likely become associated with accumulated credits. ("Man, that guy has a million credits! He could provide some pretty sweet services for himself and his kids for decades!") And of course, gifting credits or transferring them to ones descendants would be possible unless there was some deliberate attempt to prevent it (which, like today, would be worked around.)

If this market is allowed to function, even if socially frowned upon, then I guess that's the end of my questions. Essentially, money could crop up in a RBE, and those wanting to make use of it wouldn't be stopped from doing so. In which case, provided getting to this ideal is completely voluntary, I don't think I have any issues with RBEs.

Good luck.

[julz]

At the risk of this heading down a path that was NOT intended... some people just want the human contact. Whether they know it or not, this is one of the main reasons people visit masseuses today.

And that being the case... it seems clear to me that demand for this will always exceed the supply of people willing to just massage everyone for free out of charity. But that won't make the demand go away, despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

So, again, for someone seeking this service today, they just visit a spa, ask for the service, and pay some form of money for it.

How would one acquire a massage in a RBE?

You'd cultivate a relationship with someone.  The answer is most probably that one wouldn't 'acquire' one from strangers.
Is that a black mark against RBE?
"Respect from one's peers" will always be 'in demand' too... but (in most circles) you can't buy it. Same with genuine love. The demand outstrips the supply and money hasn't solved it.  
Is that a black mark against capitalism?

despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

Where on earth does that notion come from?

I rather think the RBE will fail if one of it's main goals is to eliminate 'poverty' because the natural currency that would arise, without people even realizing it at first, would be 'reputation' & 'popularity'.
People would be sucking up to each other left right and center to 'put a good word in for me' with someone else.. to be part of the 'in' group etc.
That's how you'd get your massage. "hey.. get me invited to that party all the cool folk are going to.... I'll give you a nice back rub!"
There would still be social lepers - and they would be the new poor, but this time there isn't some other currency they can use to alleviate the suffering their social ineptitude might cause them.

[Rassah]

This whole RBE thing is still way too greatly dependent on the false assumption that we as a human species are not lazy. We are practically genetically programmed to collect as many resources as possible while doing as little as possible, since "doing" wears us out and makes us die faster. I am unconvinced that anyone would voluntarily go through the extremely grueling work of obtaining an advanced degree/education in any subject without knowing there will be a major payout at the end of it, which would give you an advantage over your peers. Why bother studying engineering, software development, biology, or resource allocation (economics), including all the parts you are guaranteed to have absolutely no interest in, but which are still essential in your field of interest, when you are already provided everything you need, and "someone else will just do that work for you"? From personal experience, I can tell you that brilliant people would much more likely end up slacking of, spending their days playing videogames, reading random books, or just debating random things on forums for hours rather than do any inventing work for the rest of you. Or they would end up forming an exclusive community where they can competitively to compare their levels of brilliance, use it as reputation, and invent their own barter and money system, exchanging their ideas only amongst each other, as a sort of a game to see who can collect the most "smart" points. Brilliant people are quite arrogant and competitive after all. And then the rest of you would be screwed.

[westkybitcoins]

At the risk of this heading down a path that was NOT intended... some people just want the human contact. Whether they know it or not, this is one of the main reasons people visit masseuses today.

And that being the case... it seems clear to me that demand for this will always exceed the supply of people willing to just massage everyone for free out of charity. But that won't make the demand go away, despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

So, again, for someone seeking this service today, they just visit a spa, ask for the service, and pay some form of money for it.

How would one acquire a massage in a RBE?

You'd cultivate a relationship with someone.  The answer is most probably that one wouldn't 'acquire' one from strangers.
Is that a black mark against RBE?

I think it would be, if it were true that strangers wouldn't perform the service. But I really don't see that being the only way to acquire one in a RBE. Why would it be? Plenty of people would just want a massage, minus the time and effort required to get into a relationship. People already pay for sex with strangers today, despite the social discouragement. I don't see why such things would stop happening just because physical goods were abundant.

"Respect from one's peers" will always be 'in demand' too... but (in most circles) you can't buy it. Same with genuine love. The demand outstrips the supply and money hasn't solved it.  
Is that a black mark against capitalism?

True respect and love can't be a service. It's simply not something you can buy.

Massages, storytelling, a juggling performance, etc. All those can be bought, and such things are already being bought today. People naturally swap services, it's a very primal behavior. The only way I can see it not happening at some point in the future would be through force or through totalitarian levels of thought control.

despite the (monstrous, totalitarian) re-education that would be so desperately focused on to try to change human nature.

Where on earth does that notion come from?

From the idea that somehow people won't be wanting to swap services. As I said above, it's a primal instinct; the only way to consistently prevent it is through force or totalitarian levels of thought control.

I rather think the RBE will fail if one of it's main goals is to eliminate 'poverty' because the natural currency that would arise, without people even realizing it at first, would be 'reputation' & 'popularity'.
People would be sucking up to each other left right and center to 'put a good word in for me' with someone else.. to be part of the 'in' group etc.
That's how you'd get your massage. "hey.. get me invited to that party all the cool folk are going to.... I'll give you a nice back rub!"
There would still be social lepers - and they would be the new poor, but this time there isn't some other currency they can use to alleviate the suffering their social ineptitude might cause them.

Well, I agree with all that. There will always be disparities of outcome, and those at the bottom will always be our baseline for "poor." Eliminating the idea of people not having access to their basic needs is a fair enough goal, although I'm of the belief most people who focus on that have no idea how to actually achieve it. But eliminating the concept of "poverty" is a waste of time because it's a totally subjective measurment.

[westkybitcoins]

This whole RBE thing is still way too greatly dependent on the false assumption that we as a human species are not lazy. We are practically genetically programmed to collect as many resources as possible while doing as little as possible, since "doing" wears us out and makes us die faster. I am unconvinced that anyone would voluntarily go through the extremely grueling work of obtaining an advanced degree/education in any subject without knowing there will be a major payout at the end of it, which would give you an advantage over your peers. Why bother studying engineering, software development, biology, or resource allocation (economics), including all the parts you are guaranteed to have absolutely no interest in, but which are still essential in your field of interest, when you are already provided everything you need, and "someone else will just do that work for you"? From personal experience, I can tell you that brilliant people would much more likely end up slacking of, spending their days playing videogames, reading random books, or just debating random things on forums for hours rather than do any inventing work for the rest of you. Or they would end up forming an exclusive community where they can competitively to compare their levels of brilliance, use it as reputation, and invent their own barter and money system, exchanging their ideas only amongst each other, as a sort of a game to see who can collect the most "smart" points. Brilliant people are quite arrogant and competitive after all. And then the rest of you would be screwed.

Hmm. I disagree and agree.

I think it's mostly twelve years of government education that stomps out most people's natural curiosity and desire to learn. Despite that, plenty of people put in a lot of time and effort about a lot of useful things just out of interest. I'm certainly spending plenty of time learning about Bitcoin, gathering useful info I can share with others. I know people who learn about and tinker with cars, constantly improving their knowledge and skills, including the parts they don't like as much, just for the sheer joy of it, and to be able to say, "Yeah, I made this." Even those who waste their brilliant potential can unlearn their state-ingrained habits. Check out Montessori schools for an interesting look at this.

Now, as far as the idea of someone wanting to suck off my long hours of learning and hard hours of labor for free? Yeah, that's totally unacceptable, and most people will balk when that gets brought up. In fact, if it's insisted upon, you'll eventually find many people refusing to study, learn and develop themselves, even for their own enjoyment, simply because they know others will come by and take the fruits of their labor from them.

Incentives will always be needed to get people to perform at their best consistently, in a way that benefits others. Personally, I see positive, voluntary incentives (prime example: free trade) as the ideal kind.

[Rassah]

westkybitcoins, note how many people here have spent hours discussing and learning about Bitcoin, for month, and yet who still don't understand economics or the basics of how money/investment/lending works. To learn a field, not only do you need to learn a lot of background and seemingly unrelated topics to understand the whole picture, topics you may find boring or tedious, but very often unless you are taught by a professional, you won't even know what topics to study, since many of these topics you won't even know exist. This likely goes for every field of study out there.

[westkybitcoins]

westkybitcoins, note how many people here have spent hours discussing and learning about Bitcoin, for month, and yet who still don't understand economics or the basics of how money/investment/lending works. To learn a field, not only do you need to learn a lot of background and seemingly unrelated topics to understand the whole picture, topics you may find boring or tedious, but very often unless you are taught by a professional, you won't even know what topics to study, since many of these topics you won't even know exist. This likely goes for every field of study out there.

Yes, I agree that that is often the case.

I just think the evidence shows that naturally, given the opportunity, many people would learn such things and even seek out appropriate instructors, all on their own, in their particular area of interest. Provided they were free to keep the fruits of their learning and do with it as they see fit. And of course, if they just seek to reinforce their own beliefs, rather than honestly and sincerely choosing to seek truth itself, they'll hit a wall of their own making at some point too--we already have that today, I don't see it changing anytime soon.

(As an aside, sometimes it's social customs which squash this too. I imagine most parents find the idea of their child becoming "obsessed" with some obscure field that the parents find useless to be a horrifying idea. They would be quick to break their child of such a habit. Yet some have speculated Leonardo DaVinci was somewhat autistic, had OCD and was quick to ignore social customs whenever his curiosity found it convenient. It seems clear it would have been these very traits which enabled him to explore the things he did and be the genius that he was--his knowledge of anatomy being a prime example. I suspect that if the speculation is correct, then had he been born in the modern era, he wouldn't have been anything other than a frustrated oddity, not due so much to intellectual laziness, but rather because the extreme expression and pursuit of his interests wouldn't have been considered acceptable.)

[Technomage]

Wow. First of all I have to say that this is something new, I was expecting this thread to descend into chaos but it has done the opposite. Some very deep discussions going on here. I thank everyone for having an open mind. It proves that the Bitcoin community is full of fairly intelligent people.

[Harvey]

The whole discussion is easily refuted:

"He who is infatuated with Man leaves persons out of account so far as that infatuation extends, and floats in an ideal, sacred interest. Man, you see, is not a person, but an ideal, a spook."

[Technomage]

Timebanks... is this similar to things such as the LETS system? Or possibly bitcoin-denominated Ripple?

Personally, that's kind of what I envisioned. Once material goods are truly abundant, the most valuable things will become human services/performances and new ideas. The only way to keep track of those things is a simple accounting setup of some sort... possibly Bitcoin-like. So this makes sense.

I don't think there will be enough people gifting massages (at least, excluding creepy, over-eager masseurs no one wants to go to) to meet the demand of people wanting them though; I could see timebanks hanging around just to deal with this sort of excess demand. We'll probably have to agree to disagree over whether machine massages would be more desirable than human contact.

Timebanks are indeed similar to LETS. In a timebank the currency is time, meaning that when someone gives you a 1-hour massage 1 time credit is transferred from your account to his/her account. It allows people to have negative balances as well, this is seen as being in debt to the community and it's perfectly okay as long as it isn't clearly exploited.

Ripple is something that I just found out about recently and I see potential there. It's sort of a LETS system on steroids. Might be the next big thing as far as organizing human services is concerned.

Now, here's where I kinda get to my point. If timebanks are around, and I'm incentivized by them, likely others would be as well. This essentially would turn timebank credits into a form of money, and even if it's small, some sort of market (complete with exchange rates, etc.) would likely develop around it. ("Oh, honey! Five timebank credits! What a great birthday present!")

And, humans being human, a certain level of status or prestige would also likely become associated with accumulated credits. ("Man, that guy has a million credits! He could provide some pretty sweet services for himself and his kids for decades!") And of course, gifting credits or transferring them to ones descendants would be possible unless there was some deliberate attempt to prevent it (which, like today, would be worked around.)

If this market is allowed to function, even if socially frowned upon, then I guess that's the end of my questions. Essentially, money could crop up in a RBE, and those wanting to make use of it wouldn't be stopped from doing so. In which case, provided getting to this ideal is completely voluntary, I don't think I have any issues with RBEs.

There are some good points here and I do agree that something like this could happen. Timebanks do not allow trading or selling the time credits in general but there are ways around it if people see a need for it. But I happen to have some experience with this and as far as I know this doesn't happen much in small scale at least. But if timebanks were used more, it's definitely possible.

[Technomage]

I rather think the RBE will fail if one of it's main goals is to eliminate 'poverty' because the natural currency that would arise, without people even realizing it at first, would be 'reputation' & 'popularity'.
People would be sucking up to each other left right and center to 'put a good word in for me' with someone else.. to be part of the 'in' group etc.
That's how you'd get your massage. "hey.. get me invited to that party all the cool folk are going to.... I'll give you a nice back rub!"
There would still be social lepers - and they would be the new poor, but this time there isn't some other currency they can use to alleviate the suffering their social ineptitude might cause them.

I agree with this. Reputation and popularity are not really going anywhere even in a RBE. I have a hard time imagining a human society where these attributes would be eliminated. But what would change is what kind of people are admired. That is for sure. These days people seem to admire people who are famous, with no regard to how this person has actually contributed to the society. I see being a scientist or an engineer a much more popular position simply because people would see them as major contributors.

In my opinion the first goal for a RBE is to achieve sustainability both ecologically and socially. This does not mean a perfect society, that will never be possible. But if we aim for this I'm fairly certain the result will be closer than if we're not even trying. Even the Star Trek RBE is less utopian than to think that our current society will be able to continue without a major civilizational collapse. This is inevitable unless we make big changes.

[Harvey]

I rather think the RBE will fail if one of it's main goals is to eliminate 'poverty' because the natural currency that would arise, without people even realizing it at first, would be 'reputation' & 'popularity'.
People would be sucking up to each other left right and center to 'put a good word in for me' with someone else.. to be part of the 'in' group etc.
That's how you'd get your massage. "hey.. get me invited to that party all the cool folk are going to.... I'll give you a nice back rub!"
There would still be social lepers - and they would be the new poor, but this time there isn't some other currency they can use to alleviate the suffering their social ineptitude might cause them.

I agree with this. Reputation and popularity are not really going anywhere even in a RBE. I have a hard time imagining a human society where these attributes would be eliminated. But what would change is what kind of people are admired. That is for sure. These days people seem to admire people who are famous, with no regard to how this person has actually contributed to the society. I see being a scientist or an engineer a much more popular position simply because people would see them as major contributors.

You just don't get it, do you? The INDIVIDUAL desires who she prefers regardless of your preferences. You cannot couple all people under the ideal of Man. It is simply irrational for who we stand for in the end is only ourselves. We only act because it brings us pleasure. You cannot have people enjoy things indiscriminately or under a different discrimination entirely.

Is a man not entitled to love how he wishes? Is this choice not what defines a man in the first place? If I choose to revere sluts over scientists, am I not entitled to do so?

I hold that it is absolute choice that defines a sentient being. To me it is through choice that one is free.

[Technomage]

This whole RBE thing is still way too greatly dependent on the false assumption that we as a human species are not lazy. We are practically genetically programmed to collect as many resources as possible while doing as little as possible, since "doing" wears us out and makes us die faster.

This is incorrect. It's exactly this attribute in humans that has been one of the most important incentives driving our technological development. We are lazy therefore we are motivated in making our lives easier. Technology is all about making our lives easier. RBE does not change this, in fact it takes away the restrictions we have today. No longer is your free, creative time conflicting with the need to do some mundane job to get money. Not that all jobs are mundane, some of us are lucky to have a dream job, but that is not very common.

Even though we have a massive conflict between what we want to do and what we have to do, people still contribute massive amounts of time to voluntary work and things like open source software projects where they do not get any kind of monetary incentive. In fact they get a negative monetary incentive, they could be working a payed job instead of doing that.

I am unconvinced that anyone would voluntarily go through the extremely grueling work of obtaining an advanced degree/education in any subject without knowing there will be a major payout at the end of it, which would give you an advantage over your peers. Why bother studying engineering, software development, biology, or resource allocation (economics), including all the parts you are guaranteed to have absolutely no interest in, but which are still essential in your field of interest, when you are already provided everything you need, and "someone else will just do that work for you"?

Maybe because it's interesting to learn new things? Maybe because I happen to like a certain field and thus would like to work on it in my free time? This is a prime example of what I call corrupted incentives. When people need a monetary payout at the end for doing something, it's a sad situation. The natural curiosity and creativity of a human being has all but died at that point. This is not in "human nature", it's something that happens when you grow in the kind of society we live in. It's not a coincidence that small children are very interested in everything and once they get a bit older they start (usually) hating school etc. One of the reasons for this is that our whole educational system is not feeding the intrinsic incentives people have, it's killing them.

From personal experience, I can tell you that brilliant people would much more likely end up slacking of, spending their days playing videogames, reading random books, or just debating random things on forums for hours rather than do any inventing work for the rest of you. Or they would end up forming an exclusive community where they can competitively to compare their levels of brilliance, use it as reputation, and invent their own barter and money system, exchanging their ideas only amongst each other, as a sort of a game to see who can collect the most "smart" points. Brilliant people are quite arrogant and competitive after all. And then the rest of you would be screwed.

Well, I claim that the main reason why this happens is that there is nothing better to do. The creativity of these people is not being tapped which is why they spend their time doing something unproductive. This happens to me all the time, but the problem is not that I don't want to do something more productive, I just don't know what it could be. I've studied quite a lot of things completely voluntarily simply to find a profession that gives me high autonomy, the right kind of challenge, and does something that I find helpful to society. This has proven to be VERY HARD in a monetary system. To compensate for this I've been forced to do unproductive work to get money and use my free time as productively as I can.

People in general are not happy to just slack off. They do that if they are either tired or have nothing better to do. One prime example of this are people who work long hours doing mundane jobs and then they come home, can you really expect them to do anything but lay on the couch watching TV and eat? The fact that people slack off so much is not because of some fault in human nature, there are many things that can negatively affect this. For example corrupted incentives, lack of challenging activities or excess amount of tiring work.

One more thing, from my experience a lot of people do work in a field they are actually interested in. In this case the problem is usually with the job itself, not the work. It can be a number of things, no autonomy, crappy boss, too long hours etc. If people had more choice in what way they want to contribute to the field they like, I definitely see people wanting to work even without an extra monetary incentive.

[Harvey]

This whole RBE thing is still way too greatly dependent on the false assumption that we as a human species are not lazy. We are practically genetically programmed to collect as many resources as possible while doing as little as possible, since "doing" wears us out and makes us die faster.

humans, We are lazy therefore we are motivated, our lives easier, we have today, we have a massive conflict between what we want to do and what we have to do, People in general, human nature, from my experience a lot of people do work, If people could have...

He owns humanity, everybody. Listen to this guy. He owns you, he knows what you want before you know it. All of your desires are his. Submit.

[Technomage]

I think it's mostly twelve years of government education that stomps out most people's natural curiosity and desire to learn. Despite that, plenty of people put in a lot of time and effort about a lot of useful things just out of interest. I'm certainly spending plenty of time learning about Bitcoin, gathering useful info I can share with others. I know people who learn about and tinker with cars, constantly improving their knowledge and skills, including the parts they don't like as much, just for the sheer joy of it, and to be able to say, "Yeah, I made this." Even those who waste their brilliant potential can unlearn their state-ingrained habits. Check out Montessori schools for an interesting look at this.

Now, as far as the idea of someone wanting to suck off my long hours of learning and hard hours of labor for free? Yeah, that's totally unacceptable, and most people will balk when that gets brought up. In fact, if it's insisted upon, you'll eventually find many people refusing to study, learn and develop themselves, even for their own enjoyment, simply because they know others will come by and take the fruits of their labor from them.

Incentives will always be needed to get people to perform at their best consistently, in a way that benefits others. Personally, I see positive, voluntary incentives (prime example: free trade) as the ideal kind.

+1

I agree with this. Incentives are obviously needed, my view is that we should really nurture the natural creativity and curiosity children have. With that approach I believe it would be possible to organize work based on real interest, as long as people get enough pay to have a decent livelihood (or in the case of RBE, simply the livelihood). It's very important though that this is the approach from the start. Scientific studies on motivations have proven that the original interest people have in any subject lessens once you put monetary reward in the picture. Even if you remove the monetary reward later, people will never be as interested as they originally were, because they are expecting a monetary reward.

Also it's interesting that for any job that requires advanced problem solving (the jobs that can't easily be automated), monetary rewards, especially predictable ones, cause people to perform worse. Thinking about the money takes away from our brain capacity to solve the problem and for any advanced work people will actually be more productive if you can provide different incentives. For people working at a factory line this is different and monetary incentives have been proven to work but that kind of jobs are on their way out.

[Harvey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

Just answer one question of mine: Is this what you want?

[Technomage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

Just answer one question of mine: Is this what you want?

Your posts of late seem to lack content. But the answer is no. I want to maximize the personal freedom people have, I advocate an anarchistic society. The difference is that I see the need to acquire purchasing power to be able to live as a very archaic approach to society. It's very limiting and causes a wide variety of problems. I do not see it as a true 21st century approach. This is why I advocate RBE.

I also advocate Bitcoin but not because it's ideal, I like it because it's a concrete solution that at least solves some problems and gives people the ability to not have to rely on outdated structures such as the governments and banks of today. RBE is more of a vision of the future and less of a practical solution at this point.

[Harvey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeboqg4t9vs

Just answer one question of mine: Is this what you want?

Your posts of late seem to lack content. But the answer is no. I want to maximize the personal freedom people have, I advocate an anarchistic society. The difference is that I see the need to acquire purchasing power to be able to live as a very archaic approach to society. It's very limiting and causes a wide variety of problems. I do not see it as a true 21st century approach. This is why I advocate RBE.

I also advocate Bitcoin but not because it's ideal, I like it because it's a concrete solution that at least solves some problems and gives people the ability to not have to rely on outdated structures such as the governments and banks of today. RBE is more of a vision of the future and less of a practical solution at this point.

I don't like to make generalizations about the human species especially when it comes down to using shallow science.

Anyways, very well. I see where this is coming from.

[eldentyrell]

It's like the discovery of how fractal geometry redefines natural sciences.

Somewhat ironic choice of analogy... most scientists do not take Mandelbrot's claims seriously.

[cbeast]

It's like the discovery of how fractal geometry redefines natural sciences.

Somewhat ironic choice of analogy... most scientists do not take Mandelbrot's claims seriously.

True, because Benoit Mandelbrot himself made no such claims. What's your point?

[Rassah]

Also it's interesting that for any job that requires advanced problem solving (the jobs that can't easily be automated), monetary rewards, especially predictable ones, cause people to perform worse. Thinking about the money takes away from our brain capacity to solve the problem and for any advanced work people will actually be more productive if you can provide different incentives. For people working at a factory line this is different and monetary incentives have been proven to work but that kind of jobs are on their way out.

The fact that we have cool gadgets like iphone and android phones, or even just PCs and operating systems, which were designed by brilliant people with competitive monetary incentives, kind of goes against that theory.