Re: Bitcoin in Honduras' new charter cities

[Technomage]

So you're saying that humanity is worse off today than it was in the past?

Anyway, I think Dubai is shit, but the reason for this is that it's based on retarded, backwards, muslim laws and regulations where you can't go bankrupt and also a culture of corruption and racism where companies are allowed and encouraged to discriminate based on race and nationality (I guess I just did that myself). I know many oil-sheikh-kids from UAE and I understand their culture, and basically it's shit and I'm not surprised Dubai is turning it to be a huge "selling sand in a desert" scam.

A charter city would, because of the guarantor/host/source model have different rules and a different culture than the country in which it is created. In the Charter City it won't be the nephews of greedy oil sheikhs that will be in charge of persecuting corruption, it will be Norwegian or Canadian officials.

This is a good response. I haven't actually commented on the OP yet, I will once I have read the blog post.

Your question is a good one as well. I think we're definitely better off than we were 100 years ago or before that. Technology has allowed us to reach higher levels of abundance for regular people, in most places. Living is easier, for sure. The problem is that in the last 40 years or so our technology is continuing to improve at a fast rate, but it's not improving the quality of our lives anymore. The Western world is a good example because it is the most "advanced" culture.

If you look at almost any Western country and check the stats for how people view their own happiness, work stress etc. and then look at the stats for crime, social mobility, education, physical health, mental health, suicides etc. it looks like we're actually declining. The peak was decades ago. One of the reasons for this is inequality and it is shown well in a study made by British sociologists: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

This is just the social side of things, from an environmental perspective we're doing a hell of a lot worse than we have ever done. Humans have only managed to destroy individual societies in the past due to environmental neglect, now we are capable of doing much worse. The whole world is at stake. Not only from environmental issues but we also have the weapons to destroy everything.

It's difficult for Western people to see the big picture because we currently live in a system where our prosperity comes at the expense of people living in poorer countries. They are suffering from environmental degradation and human rights abuse so that we can get our cheap electronics. People don't care much because they are just "random people somewhere far away". And we have a global monetary-market paradigm built to require constant growth and constantly increasing consumption.

We are living in a very unsustainable world right now, all the efforts that are being done are only delaying the inevitable, the big collapse. Unless something more radical is done. Simply printing more money to fix our debt problems won't help but for a short time. It will only make the debt problem worse next time around. Not only that, the money is fueling the perpetual machine of cyclical consumption. And that machine is not only unsustainable, it's utopian.

[MoonShadow]

So you're saying that humanity is worse off today than it was in the past?

Anyway, I think Dubai is shit, but the reason for this is that it's based on retarded, backwards, muslim laws and regulations where you can't go bankrupt and also a culture of corruption and racism where companies are allowed and encouraged to discriminate based on race and nationality (I guess I just did that myself). I know many oil-sheikh-kids from UAE and I understand their culture, and basically it's shit and I'm not surprised Dubai is turning it to be a huge "selling sand in a desert" scam.

A charter city would, because of the guarantor/host/source model have different rules and a different culture than the country in which it is created. In the Charter City it won't be the nephews of greedy oil sheikhs that will be in charge of persecuting corruption, it will be Norwegian or Canadian officials.

This is a good response. I haven't actually commented on the OP yet, I will once I have read the blog post.

Your question is a good one as well. I think we're definitely better off than we were 100 years ago or before that. Technology has allowed us to reach higher levels of abundance for regular people, in most places. Living is easier, for sure. The problem is that in the last 40 years or so our technology is continuing to improve at a fast rate, but it's not improving the quality of our lives anymore. The western world is a good example because it is most "advanced".

If you look at almost any Western country and check the stats for how people view their own happiness, stress etc. and then look at the stats for crime, social mobility, education, disease, depression, suicides etc. it looks like we're actually declining. The peak was decades ago. One of the reasons for this is inequality and this is shown well in a study made by British sociologists: http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence

This is a very biased perspective, and those metrics are highly subjective.  You can't honestly tell me that people today would be happier if thier tech was banned from civil life, now that they have it.  You're more likely to start a riot among the OWS'ers by blocking Internet access on their phones than by razing the park.  If they didn't prefer their technological lifestyles, they wouldn't adopt them in the first place.

This is just the social side of things, from an environmental perspective we're doing a hell of a lot worse than we have ever done. Humans have only managed to destroy individual societies in the past due to environmental neglect, now we are capable of doing much worse. The whole world is at stake. Not only from environmental issues but we also have the weapons to destroy everything.

This is total bullshit.  Modern societies are much better at managing the environment today than in the past, mostly because we are commonly aware of the problem.  There was a time, within living memory, that an American river not only caught on fire, but we were incapable of putting it out!  Just think about that for a minute, the water was so polluted, it was freaking flammable!  And this wasn't even an accidental spill!

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

To this day, there are many local events and groups that mark the event with names like "Burning River Park".

It's difficult for Western people to see the big picture because we currently live in a system where our prosperity comes at the expense of people living in poorer countries. They are suffering from environmental degradation and human rights abuse. So that we can get our cheap iPods. But people don't care much because they are just "random people somewhere far away". And we have a global monetary-market paradigm built to require constant growth, constant consumption, more and more consumption.

Also total bullshit!  Where do you people come up with this crap!  It's people like you who murdered hundreds of thousands of African children over the 'Silent Spring' scam!

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/02/the-green-death-the-silent-spring-legacy/

Honestly, how do you people sleep at night?

We are living in a very unsustainable world right now, all the efforts that are being done are only delaying the inevitable, the big collapse. Unless something more radical is done. Simply printing more money to fix our debt problems won't help but for a short time. It will only make the debt problem worse next time around. Not only that, the money is fueling the machine of cyclical consumption, which is currently at a very unsustainable level.

Money doesn't 'fuel' anything, regardless if the world's work is unsustainable or not.

[genjix]

Also total bullshit!  Where do you people come up with this crap!  It's people like you who murdered hundreds of thousands of African children over the 'Silent Spring' scam!

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/02/the-green-death-the-silent-spring-legacy/

Honestly, how do you people sleep at night?

Nice. Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy.

DDT is toxic. Mosquitoes are immune to DDT now from our indiscriminate overuse trying to wipe the species out. I haven't read that book but here's a quote from that page:

The motivation behind Silent Spring, the suppression of nuclear power, the global-warming scam, and other outbreaks of environmentalist lunacy is the worship of centralized power and authority.

[cbeast]

It's amazing how folks with such different optics can agree on the feasibility of Bitcoin. Too bad those silly others don't really understand why. 

[MoonShadow]

Also total bullshit!  Where do you people come up with this crap!  It's people like you who murdered hundreds of thousands of African children over the 'Silent Spring' scam!

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/02/the-green-death-the-silent-spring-legacy/

Honestly, how do you people sleep at night?

Nice. Guilt by association as an ad hominem fallacy.

DDT is toxic. Mosquitoes are immune to DDT now from our indiscriminate overuse trying to wipe the species out. I haven't read that book but here's a quote from that page:

We really overused DDT in the US during the 50's & 60's, and yes it's toxic.  But no, mosquitoes are not immune to DDT, and modern applications of it use orders of magnitude less actuall DDT to great effect.  One great use of it is to apply it to the inside walls and ceiling of homes, (or tent fabric) which doesn't actually kill mosquitoes, but they stay away from it to such a degree that they wont enter into a home that is coated with it, thus providing a safe haven for children.  There remain video of Americans spraying DDT on schoolchildren while eating their lunch but there remains no conclusive evidence that DDT is particularly toxic to humans, or animals in general, despite being very toxic to mosquitoes.  In fact, it doesn't actually kill adult mosquitoes, it prevents mosquito eggs from developing a fully formed shell.

The motivation behind Silent Spring, the suppression of nuclear power, the global-warming scam, and other outbreaks of environmentalist lunacy is the worship of centralized power and authority.

The article I referenced is highly biased, it's just an example of one that I could find quickly via google.  Yet there is much evidence to support it's conclusions.  The motivation mentioned above is a widely stated goal of the author of the book itself, and the book has since been scientificly debunked by dozens of actual scientists.

[jgarzik]

but there remains no conclusive evidence that DDT is particularly toxic to humans, or animals in general, despite being very toxic to mosquitoes.  In fact, it doesn't actually kill adult mosquitoes, it prevents mosquito eggs from developing a fully formed shell.

Not quite true.  In mega-doses, DDT is lethal to some types of birds.

However, as you observe, DDT tends to be safer and more effective than other treatments, when more measured doses are applied.

[Technomage]

This is a very biased perspective, and those metrics are highly subjective.  You can't honestly tell me that people today would be happier if thier tech was banned from civil life, now that they have it.  You're more likely to start a riot among the OWS'ers by blocking Internet access on their phones than by razing the park.  If they didn't prefer their technological lifestyles, they wouldn't adopt them in the first place.

What..? I'm not advocating going back technologically, in fact I'm advocating the opposite. Technology is the one thing that has improved our lives, our values have gone to shit. We need to use technology MORE to update our society to the next level. Create abundance of basic needs for everyone. And these days basic needs include access to the Internet. What I meant with things being better a few decades ago didn't mean it's because of technology. Technology has been misused though.

One good example is that the US was very close to adopting a 6 hour workweek in the 1920s but the proposal was taken down by the president at the time. The justification was "it would weaken our global competitiveness". Because of decisions like these we are actually doing more work today than we did a few decades ago even though our technology has advanced significantly.

Money doesn't 'fuel' anything, regardless if the world's work is unsustainable or not.

But it does. One of the reasons why the economies are in this kind of situation is because of easy credit. Ever since the 70s the monetary system has systematically changed to a model where taking loans or consuming using credit is easier and easier. Banks have looser and looser reserve requirements etc. Of course it also requires choice from the consumers to take credit and consume but it has been significantly helped by easy money. The money that is printed right now to keep the economy alive is helping the machine of unsustainable consumption to stay alive as well.

There are other things that fuel this consumption though and one of them is manipulation by advertising. Ever since the second industrial revolution the industries needed to find a way to sell more because they were overproducing. The solution to this was aggressive psychological advertising which aims at making people feel they are inadequate. That they don't have enough. That they have old clothes. Old electronics. Make them feel they aren't appreciated. This is one major part of the sickness in our society. And it has spread around to the whole world, no corner in the world is safe from global capitalism. Well, with a few exceptions but those places usually have other, more severe issues.

[MoonShadow]

but there remains no conclusive evidence that DDT is particularly toxic to humans, or animals in general, despite being very toxic to mosquitoes.  In fact, it doesn't actually kill adult mosquitoes, it prevents mosquito eggs from developing a fully formed shell.

Not quite true.  In mega-doses, DDT is lethal to some types of birds.

While true, so is water.  And tablesalt.  And probably just about anything at a "mega-dose" level.  That's pretty much what "mega-dose" means, a dosage that couldn't reasonablely be encountered unless intentional.  Caffine will kill you too, if you take it straight.  Hell, pure oxygen is toxic.

[MoonShadow]

This is a very biased perspective, and those metrics are highly subjective.  You can't honestly tell me that people today would be happier if thier tech was banned from civil life, now that they have it.  You're more likely to start a riot among the OWS'ers by blocking Internet access on their phones than by razing the park.  If they didn't prefer their technological lifestyles, they wouldn't adopt them in the first place.

What..? I'm not advocating going back technologically, in fact I'm advocating the opposite. Technology is the one thing that has improved our lives, our values have gone to shit. We need to use technology MORE to update our society to the next level. Create abundance of basic needs for everyone. And these days basic needs include access to the Internet. What I meant with things being better a few decades ago didn't mean it's because of technology. Technology has been misused though.

I misunderstood your point, then.  Sorry.

One good example is that the US was very close to adopting a 6 hour workweek in the 1920s but the proposal was taken down by the president at the time. The justification was "it would weaken our global competitiveness". Because of decisions like these we are actually doing more work today than we did a few decades ago even though our technology has advanced significantly.

Yes and no, the official working hours of employed Americans has, indeed, gone up somewhat.  Last I heard it was around 44 hours per week before the downturn.  However, such a metric fails on many fronts.  Such as not considering the amount of real work that a housewife contributed to the family due to real 'home econoomic' activities around 1950 that are uncommon in the modern two income household; such as cooking everything from scratch, canning & other forms of common food preservation, and just regular home maintaince that the "employed" husband did not participate in then, but does today.  Those tasks are still required, but are often shared among two working spouses.  Of course, there is also less of that housework to be done today due to modern appliances such as a dishwasher and a Roomba, as well as the economic accessability of resturants tothe modern middle class family, or even Cambel's Soup Company doing your canning.  There is also the little fact that modern employment is physically less demanding, on average, than it used to be, so Americans are more willing to spend time at work.  And the fact that, moreso in the past, even the fullly employed American often did work external to his official employment, such as freinds helping each other build an outbuiling or repair a car/boat.

Money doesn't 'fuel' anything, regardless if the world's work is unsustainable or not.

But it does. One of the reasons why the economies are in this kind of situation is because of easy credit.

Credit is not money.  Credit is a money substitute by it's definition.

[Technomage]

You have some good points. I still see credit as a form of money though and I feel this is mostly a semantic issue. We can call it a substitute if you like, that's fine by me.

[MoonShadow]

You have some good points. I still see credit as a form of money though and I feel this is mostly a semantic issue. We can call it a substitute if you like, that's fine by me.

In agreement with you, however, modern fiat currencies aren't money either.  They are obligations of the government, and thus functionally debt in their own right.  So the expansion of credit/debt by the private sector is practically identical to the literal expansion of the monetary base by government debasement.  I'm just an INTP and prize sematic precision.