Occupy Round Table on Bitcoin

[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.