The changing the world thread

[Naudian]

Dear reader, I'd like you to maintain an open mind in this thread. Don’t be too quick to label & dismiss things without actually discussing them. Present specific or hypothetical problems, not vague accusations. Use your imagination. Be kind, please unwind. Thanks HL2.net, you’re awesome.

Main topic question: What do want to see happen in your lifetime regarding the evolution of humanity?

Naudian’s answer: I want to see a lot happen. I want people around the world to come together over this question and make something happen. If this were to occur, their goal should be to identify the root causes of the problems they want to eliminate. I can say with some confidence that, in this situation, they would discover that the causes of their problems relate to fundamental flaws within their current socioeconomic systems, and perhaps their very way of thinking. They should then try to develop solutions or completely alternative systems that the people concede to actually make sense. If people can agree that a proposed solution is reasonable, it should be put to test in reality, by whatever means available. In today’s world, this process would conceivably require the cooperation of experts, engineers, rich powerful dudes willing to give up their shit, and a huge number of intelligent like-minded people.

So I’ve been checking out something that resembles the above. It’s called The Zeitgeist Movement, and befor-
*audience groans*
*person throws marxism tomato at naudian*
*sensible people continue reading*

Ok look, I consider myself a reasonable bloke and I’m not about to throw myself at some movement on the internet. I ask myself constantly: is this a foolish utopian dream, or is there something feasible here? I’m not entirely convinced either way. However, I do hope that whatever it is now, this cute little ‘movement’ can mature and turn into something really beautiful. Also, please note that the movement is more or less separate from the stupid zeitgeist movies. I applaud Peter Joseph’s efforts, but his movies aren’t very reliable. They do present ideas worth discussion, let’s leave them at that.

Naudian will now bore you with clichés while he expresses himself. Naudian is a sensitive guy, be gentle with his opinion:

We humans exhibit an ever-evolving, multi-colored understanding of our cosmic interrelationship. We truly are capable of anything within the limits of our collective imagination, if we could just get along. We should consider the things that are holding us back, prolonging war and suffering, and clearly perpetuating detrimental shades of our behavioural palette. We should carefully understand ourselves and each other, and we should strive to unite ourselves under values that we can agree upon. Historically we’ve relied on competition and acquisition for survival. I don’t think we have to do that anymore, if people could just get on the same page. But it’s not easy to get 7 billion people on this page, especially when so much power lies in the hands of a small few who aren't going to let it go. As for the others, sometimes they just need to be shown what's possible.

The history of humanity is amazing and so much has happened, yet we are still struggling to achieve a sense of peace, sustainability, and understanding as a whole. I don't blame us, shit's complicated. I think small communities have achieved this kind of harmony (to a degree) throughout history– there are probably many in existence today [citation needed]. I can understand why someone might believe that the whole of humanity will never reach this stage. What I can’t understand is why people actually default on the notion that it is impossible. Why limit yourself like that? Shit, I think it’s possible within my lifetime. Isn’t it worth aiming for? Is it the possibility of failure that turns one away? Is it a feeling of dependence on what you have now? Do you just believe that people are shit? I’m sure there are a thousand reasons to shelve the notion of world unification. I’m still waiting to be convinced by one.

Holy math, Carl Sagan quote:
“A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed.”

After much checking-it-out, I think a "resource based economy" is a very sensible thing to aim for. The Venus Project is an example, maybe you've heard of it or even dismissed it in the past (there is a thread from 2009). It's Jacque Fresco's attempt to design a sustainable and ecological way of living and interacting with the planet. It’s not perfect, I don’t agree with every aspect of his vision, but it’s a shot in the right direction in my opinion. The Venus Project happens to be the basis for the Zeitgeist Movement.

Naudian stresses: Instead of calling this out for being idealistic or having resemblance to some political ideology, let’s talk about actual problems, actual reasons why something won't work.

Here's an FAQ that kinda leaves much to be answered:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcq3Wr4Thjw

TZM/TVP is not part of some agenda for a world government. It’s not a cult, although I’m sure some treat it like one. The way I see it, TZM is not pushing some kind of static doctrine. It is a flexible consensus on how to achieve our goals as a united species and it can be improved with your insight and criticism. That’s right, if you don’t like it, speak up and call it out for what you believe is wrong with it. Go to the forums and give them something to chew on: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=listcat
Keep in mind that your concern may have already been addressed, so maybe have a look around first.

Sigh, it’s not communism, marxism, or any other political ideology. Perhaps it borrows elements that make sense, like equality and effective distribution of resources. If you have to label the RBE as anything, call it a democratic-emergent-scientific-system. Or DEMESS. De-mess, haha yes the world needs to be de-messed. No don’t call it a DEMESS I just made that up.

Value systems are always emerging, changing, and resisting change. You have to think carefully about what you value and why. There will always be something to fix, something to improve, or something to learn from. An RBE is not a utopia. It’s just an idea about a better way of interacting with the world and each other. Again, the idea still requires input from everyone, check it out if you're interested.


Ok, so the biggest mind-block? TRANSISTION. How the heck do you get anything like this rolling in the world we have now? Some think it will take world-wide economic collapse before people are willing to try it. Maybe it will, but what about the dudes with tanks and bombs? They're gonna **** shit up. This is the hardest part for me thatswhatshesaid.

I try to imagine a sort of “transitional resource based economy” existing and trading alongside the monetary one. If it were to prove successful, it would gain support and hopefully become the norm. But honestly, I'm not a social engineer, I don't know the answer. I only hope that if enough people can agree that this is feasible, then they will make it happen.

Well, that's the kind of thing I want to see in my lifetime. Maybe I'm just a fool. What do you think?


Oh and hey, I know I said the Zeitgeist movies are crap, but to be honest the second and third movies are worth watching. The latest one talks about human behavior, nature vs nurture shit, rants about the economy, and outlines the Venus Project:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w

EDIT: Here's Jacque Fresco, he's a pretty cool guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK1TvwGhMGY

 

[Raziaar]

The world united under one vision is impossible because people do not share the same vision and they probably never will. Simple enough really.

That's not an excuse however to continue letting our poorly realized world society remain as it is under the guise that humans will be humans. Gotta solve all the undue hardships and stuff in the world... the diseases, the starvation, the genocide and persecutions, but beyond that there's not really a lot you can do to unite the world or really even in my opinion should do.

I possibly just don't understand what you're talking about based on your post.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

FTL travel. To get away from this madness (Society in general, not you Naughty Ann).

 

[Naudian]

The world united under one vision is impossible because people do not share the same vision and they probably never will. Simple enough really.

I possibly just don't understand what you're talking about based on your post.

As if I know what I'm talking about.

I agree, not everyone shares the same ideals or hopes for the future. My line of thinking is that if enough people get on-board a similar vision, they can create an alternative social system, prove it works, and the rest of the world will either follow, let it be, or try to destroy it. Whatever happens I think it's worth starting a movement over.

Edit: FTLT FTW I'm with you Deathbby

 

[Remus]

As ridiculous as it sounds I am one of those people that is convinced we are living at the start of a second renaisaance period. Sure, for the betterment of mankind things have to change: mentalities, economic infrastructure etc. However, I am not a supporter of the "one world governemt TM" idea.

That being said, like most people, I'm a selfish bastard, so if you're asking me what do I truly want to see realised in my lifetime, my answer would be, indefinite life extension technology. Everything else I'm sure will become reality eventually, however what good would that do if I'm too busy being dead to enjoy it.

And no, I'm not one of those nuts that would resort to cryonics in the false hope of being revived later.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

But I want to die eventually

 

[Naudian]

I am not a supporter of the "one world governemt TM" idea.

Agreed on all points, but just to be clear TZM doesn't advocate any kind of world-government.

I can't say for sure if I want to die. We'll probably end the universe by accident anyway.

 

[Avoidist]

We'll probably end the universe by accident anyway.

Sorry, can't do that. This isn't Doctor Who. Anything humanity could try to do to the universe has been done quinitillions of times before in the most outlandish of astrophysical environments to absolutely no effect what-so-ever.

On a side note, if a black hole could be created under switzerland, it would have also happened about every second in our upper atmosphere.


Anyway, with regards to this whole resource thing: yes, it's sensible. Our economy needs to be concerned with the finite amount of resources we are consuming and get the hell out of this "go for growth" mentality. With developing countries coming into their own and the western world constantly demanding more, we are set to rightly screw over absolutely everything, and if we can't change, we need to find a way to kill off as much of the human population as possible and start over with a much, much smaller population.

Yes, you heard me.

Edit: Of course, it would never happen and we will spiral down into resource wars and living conditions around the world will steeply decrease until somebody cracks fusion power. Come to think of it, fusion power's the only other viable way out of this mess. Maybe I should switch to nuclear physics.

Double Edit: And that video has the problem of being rather stupid. Huge dependence on magical technology that monitors everything, thinks geothermal is a magic bullet, has a very, very poor understanding of human nature and a whole bunch of other problems. Still, at least it gets people thinking.

 

[Naudian]

Some kind of holy grail energy technology would do a lot of good, indeed. I've put off going to school for about 3 years now, but that's the direction I want to study. I'm not even sure where to start other than nuclear physics, particle physics or summat. Come to think of it, I believe it was a .netter, clarky, who first got me interested in alternative energy technology.

Edit:

Double Edit: And that video has the problem of being rather stupid. Huge dependence on magical technology that monitors everything, thinks geothermal is a magic bullet, has a very, very poor understanding of human nature and a whole bunch of other problems. Still, at least it gets people thinking.

Yes the videos do come off as stupid. Supposedly the technology that Fresco has implemented into his vision already exists, but you have to wonder how much of this shit he's just making up. As for human nature, I'd definitely like to see some more studies or opinions - PJ's movies just feel so damn biased.

 

[Warped]

1) instead of making bombs, making food to drop into people's backyards
2) wars to transition into the digital realm. We can all duke it out online and call it a day
3) FTL travel and spreading humanity far away from here

 

[dfc05]

1. Transition to renewable energy
2. Clean water in developing countries (because it's kinda lame that we haven't accomplished this already) -- currently people are working on distributing clay pots painted with anti-bac colloidal silver. All we need to do is give these people clay pots and/or presses to make clay pots and we haven't done this yet.

 

[Naudian]

1. Transition to renewable energy
2. Clean water in developing countries (because it's kinda lame that we haven't accomplished this already)

Realistic goals. It's incredibly lame what simple things we haven't accomplished.

 

[morgs]

There has never been world wide prosperity, and probably never will be, I know it sounds bad but things seem to be getting worse as the human race continues.

 

[VirusType2]

I don't think humanity will truly see its potential until it is merged with computer technology so that you can do a complete 'knowledge dump', effectively dumping the entire learned knowledge of one person's brain into the mind of another... perhaps a child, thereby giving the child the knowledge of an old man. We need to be able to pinpoint the knowledge and separate it from memories and preferences. If the limit of knowledge capacity is reached, then we will also need to develop an auxiliary storage for knowledge/ information.

You can see where this kind of technology would become an unfathomable multiplier for knowledge among people, giving humans the potential to compete with any other advanced alien races for control and dominion over the entire universe.

Further, isn't it possible to clone dead people to rebirth them in a surrogate mother? Take for example someone like Einstein. He would be raised differently of course, but would have the same potential.

This is all just a recent thought I had, that I haven't really fleshed out. Just take it as an idea.

 

[Naudian]

There has never been world wide prosperity, and probably never will be, I know it sounds bad but things seem to be getting worse as the human race continues.

That does seem like a likely scenario, and some things are getting worse. But come on, you don't actually accept that as the future, do you?
Technology CAN provide world-wide prosperity, if given the chance to really develop. I believe the concern of profit is what is truly getting in the way.


Virus, I've pondered about artificial knowledge transfer too. It would be a pretty big leap for education and evolutionary potential...unfathomable indeed. Our brains are so complex though, it's hard to imagine this happening within our lifetime. I won't say it's impossible.
Maybe we should take it one step at a time. Let's try to solve the humans-are-dicks problem first
Also I think more people are 'potential' einsteins than you may realize.

 

[VirusType2]

Also I think more people are 'potential' einsteins than you may realize.

We have true geniuses. I don't mean to put him on a pedestal because of that, but he did have a unique brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein's_brain

Harvey noticed immediately that Einstein had no parietal operculum in either hemisphere. Photographs of the brain show an enlarged Sylvian fissure; clearly Einstein's brain grew in an interesting way. In 1999, further analysis by a team at McMaster University in Hamilton Ontario, Canada revealed that his parietal operculum region in the inferior frontal gyrus in the frontal lobe of the brain was vacant. Also absent was part of a bordering region called the lateral sulcus (Sylvian fissure). Researchers at McMaster University speculated that the vacancy may have enabled neurons in this part of his brain to communicate better.

One famous part of the operculum is Broca's area which plays an important role in speech production. To compensate, the inferior parietal lobe was 15 percent wider than normal.[5] The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement.

Einstein himself claimed that he thought visually rather than verbally.

 

[Remus]

With all this talk of the future I think it's worth posting a link to this site again:

http://www.futuretimeline.net/

Welcome to the future! Here you will find a speculative timeline of future history. Part fact and part fiction, the timeline is based on detailed research that includes analysis of current trends, projected long-term environmental changes, known advances in computing such as Moore's Law, the latest scientific advances, and the evolving geopolitical landscape. Where possible, references have been provided to support the predictions. FutureTimeline.net is intended to be an ongoing, collaborative project that is open for discussion - we welcome ideas from scientists, futurists, inventors, writers and anyone else interested in the future of our world.

 

[Naudian]

Thanks for that, Virus, interesting stuff. We definitely do have true savants and geniuses, it's curious to wonder why their brains developed the way they did, whether it was just genetics or environment as well.

 

[Viperidae]

Einstein himself claimed that he thought visually rather than verbally.

I do that for a lot of things. Am I a genius?

For $5000 I'll tell you how to change the world.

 

[Naudian]

Nuh-uh you tell me first.

 

[VirusType2]

I do that for a lot of things. Am I a genius?

No, you were supposed to say, "But I'm a genius".

I think everyone does it for some things, but I get the impression he meant for many, many things.

Reminds me: There was this 80's movie with a jet fighter that could read your mind, but it only understood Russian. So the pilot had to think in Russian to pilot the stolen top secret jet, but he was an American! OMG

EDIT: Firefox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0zzz3f9VpI
Now you understand why the FF browser is so cool.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Because it can... read my thoughts in russian? No wonder it was such a memory hog.

 

[Bob_Marley]

2) wars to transition into the digital realm. We can all duke it out online and call it a day

Haven't you played Wargasm? Such things only end in corruption and chaos across the world economy!

 

[VirusType2]

Because it can... read my thoughts in russian? No wonder it was such a memory hog.

You are forgiven for that unbearable pun earlier.

 

[The Monkey]

I want to see the transistion to a post-materialistic society, where values relating to art, love, kindness and humanity dominate people's lives, rather than the accumulation of wealth.

 

[Bad^Hat]

On topic, I'd like to see the continued emergence of "morality" as a tool to reduce suffering and promote mutual kindness/respect between people, rather than as a way to serve some perceived sense of virtue or goodness or whatever you want to call it. Naturally, religion has a role in this, but I don't think the buck stops there. Society has to re-examine itself and root out any pervasive views that are based more on superstition or stigma than on reason or practicality. Any human has the right to find something repugnant or offensive or wrong, it's when you begin treading on others' rights in order to protect yourself from such things that I begin to question how much good is truly being done.

Oh, and maybe sort out world hunger. That's kind of a big one.

 

[Krynn72]

I think science as a measure of morality needs to replace religion and societal influences on it. Frankly, it would solve most of the world's problems if we understood morality scientifically.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

I would like to see a cap on the amount of children couple's can have. Possible benefits from this are the reduction of costs to child benefits, which could allow the lowering of tax, inject that money into other benefit schemes or to provide funding for education. The injection for education could come in the form of construction of more facilities to limit overcrowding or to uplift education in certain areas.

There are benefits of doing this in the future, as long as immigration becomes balanced with the number of people leaving the country. The number of vehicles on the road may climb at a lower rate.

 

[Naudian]

I'm gonna be vague and say morality is more or less a matter of understanding systems within nature. The better you understand the systems you're living in, the better you can make decisions for your benefit, and hopefully for others. Science is a given necessity here. I love just making stuff up I don't even know what I'm talking about.

As for birth control, all I can say is it will become increasingly necessary if we can't get our act together in other ways.


Anyway, I'm gonna answer my own thread question again:

I firmly want to see the transition to a resource-based economy take place. I don't want to keep dancing around whether it is right or wrong or achievable or hopeless. I am convinced enough that it's the best direction we can possibly steer towards at the moment, so I'm going to support this movement. I'd like to see it grow, and see this kind of attitude emerge around the world. I'd be thrilled to see .netters taking interest as well.

I'm going to check out more on the various transition approaches floating around, and I'll post a summary of what I find reasonable.

 

[Solaris]

I don't see the difference between a resource based economy and socialism.

Could someone tell me what it is?

 

[Mr Stabby]

Capitalism and mercantilism are resource based. Markets are the most efficient method of allocation of resources.

Socialism is just silly.

 

[Naudian]

I don't see the difference between a resource based economy and socialism.

Could someone tell me what it is?

You're right actually, in essence, it's the same idea. *See edit...

Some people discuss it in this thread: http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...na&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=230&id=314272

People say "Oh but the RBE uses the technology and eliminates the money and the governments." They understandably want to avoid the terms communism/socialism because no one cares to see it past that. I haven't finished reading that thread yet so maybe I'll edit this in a while.

Capitalism and mercantilism are resource based. Markets are the most efficient method of allocation of resources.

Socialism is just silly.

The argument goes that they're not the most efficient at all, not even in theory. It's just what we have today.
If profit incentives were removed, we could actually focus on leap-advances in technology, rather than carefully spreading out the advance to maximize profit, which is raping the planet yada yada. So these technological solutions would soon be able to make allocation a piece of cake.

Socialism has just never been successful, and TZM seems to have it all figured out.

There are boatloads of threads to wade through on the forums. I'll try to find some things to link/quote from.

EDIT: lol Avatar forums - good post though. Please to be reading all of it.

So "No property - Universal Access" is merely a component of an RBE, not derived from a political ideology but just plain logic, and is not the sum of The Venus Project's goals.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Firstly, markets =/= profiteering. Profiteering is due to human nature; greed. Markets are just a mechanism for allocating value from supply and demand. Truly free markets suffer from the problem of speculators, but regulated markets, where speculation is illegal are far superior to any other system that has been tried.

I've never heard of RBE before but from what I've read it sounds like utopian communism with robots.

Its funny how describe this neo-communism to be based on pure logic, because Ayn Rand said the exact same thing about her bat shit crazy system. There is even and objectivist think tank called the reason foundation.

How would the RBE system handle the world's oil supplies?

 

[Naudian]

Thanks for the question Mr. Stabby, I’ll have to do my homework if I am to give you a sufficient answer. For now, here is my half-assed response :\

Firstly, markets =/= profiteering. Profiteering is due to human nature; greed. Markets are just a mechanism for allocating value from supply and demand.

Thanks for clarifying your point.

Ok so how to manage supply/demand and allocate 'valuable' resources?
Let’s not say oil, but instead x scarce resource. We can even assume that there is no alternative to x, that it needs to be taken from the earth and can't be artificially produced, and that it is widely in demand. Now if the whole world was using this RBE system, it would simply be a democratic/scientific matter – surveying & discussion about what is available, who wants x for what purpose, and finally who can put it to the best use. People would have to submit a proposal to this allocation system in order to gain access to x scarce resource. Slow process? Maybe, maybe not. Ok, what about if only a portion of the world was a RBE? I suppose the same process would take place within this transitional RBE, and then they'd have to use their funds to buy x resource from the market.

Stupidly simplified I know, but I basically came up with that on the spot. If you want detailed answers, you may have to do some searching or asking, since unfortunately I don’t know of any document that goes over every problem with detailed solutions. These things are still being or have been discussed by people much more knowledgeable than myself.

Profiteering is due to human nature; greed

Human nature AND social/environmental influence. There's no denying that we may have greed or whatever behavior in our blood, but a monetary/possession based system just helps to fuel these instincts.
I see your point that markets != greedy profiteering, and I guess my point is that in a RBE there is no incentive to profiteer, and no need for trade.

far superior to any other system that has been tried.

Nobody has attempted this particular RBE concept. It's probably superior

utopian communism with robots

Call it that if it you like, I don't disagree, but that sounds pretty dismissive. If you've never heard about it, you should spend some time on it. Clearly I need to as well. Also no such thing as utopia etc.

Its funny how describe this neo-communism to be based on pure logic, because Ayn Rand said the exact same thing about her bat shit crazy system. There is even and objectivist think tank called the reason foundation.

Sorry, I didn't mean just pure logic, obviously. I don't know the details of Ayn Rand's bat shit crazy system, just the name of her philosophy. Funnily enough I just started reading The Fountainhead, maybe I'll read more about her.

Anyway, more questions/criticisms are welcome, but I think I might let this thread die and come back when I have more info.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Ok so how to manage supply/demand and allocate 'valuable' resources?
Let’s not say oil, but instead x scarce resource. We can even assume that there is no alternative to x, that it needs to be taken from the earth and can't be artificially produced, and that it is widely in demand. Now if the whole world was using this RBE system, it would simply be a democratic/scientific matter – surveying & discussion about what is available, who wants x for what purpose, and finally who can put it to the best use. People would have to submit a proposal to this allocation system in order to gain access to x scarce resource. Slow process? Maybe, maybe not. Ok, what about if only a portion of the world was a RBE? I suppose the same process would take place within this transitional RBE, and then they'd have to use their funds to buy x resource from the market.

Stupidly simplified I know, but I basically came up with that on the spot. If you want detailed answers, you may have to do some searching or asking, since unfortunately I don’t know of any document that goes over every problem with detailed solutions. These things are still being or have been discussed by people much more knowledgeable than myself.

This is what I was expecting, central planning. Even when done by the brightest scientific minds and not a bunch of bolshevik thugs, it's still a bad system. Even if the bureaucrat in charge of the allocation X appreciated all the uses of X and there was a streamlined application process for the X, it would not be as effcient as a man of wants X buying it from a man who has some X. While the soviet union did a shitty job of managing its mineral resources, it was a 1000x better than its management of luxury items. I can't even wrap by head around how you would manage Ipods, Xboxs, Porsches without money(which even the SU had).


There is also the issue of more abstarct resources like human labour and ingenuity. Austrian economists refer to it as the economic calculation problem.

Human nature AND social/environmental influence. There's no denying that we may have greed or whatever behavior in our blood, but a monetary/possession based system just helps to fuel these instincts.
I see your point that markets != greedy profiteering, and I guess my point is that in a RBE there is no incentive to profiteer, and no need for trade.

I personally think equality of outcome is immoral, I don't think we should be striving to cut the pie equally six billion ways, Bill Gates earned a larger share of the pie than I did. The fact is there are too many peoplle on the planet and not enough resources, if we did share the resources equally our decadent western lifestyles would be adversly affected. Greed in a non market system is called corruption, and it will be rampant, though I suppose there could be a Commissars to monitor such things.

Call it that if it you like, I don't disagree, but that sounds pretty dismissive. If you've never heard about it, you should spend some time on it. Clearly I need to as well. Also no such thing as utopia etc.

everything I've read on so far sounds just like communism, also a lot of crackpot conspiracy theories, is this connected to the zeitgeist movies?

Sorry, I didn't mean just pure logic, obviously. I don't know the details of Ayn Rand's bat shit crazy system, just the name of her philosophy. Funnily enough I just started reading The Fountainhead, maybe I'll read more about her.

Ayn Rand essentially thought that everyone should be as greedy as possible and somehow things would be better, its Adam Smith taken to the point of absurdity.

 

[Naudian]

This is what I was expecting, central planning. Even when done by the brightest scientific minds and not a bunch of bolshevik thugs, it's still a bad system. Even if the bureaucrat in charge of the allocation X appreciated all the uses of X and there was a streamlined application process for the X, it would not be as effcient as a man of wants X buying it from a man who has some X. While the soviet union did a shitty job of managing its mineral resources, it was a 1000x better than its management of luxury items. I can't even wrap by head around how you would manage Ipods, Xboxs, Porsches without money(which even the SU had).

Let's not get carried away with my amateur example. I was focusing on a hypothetical scarce resource to try and reach a solution to your oil question. Oil of course wouldn’t be a problem as we wouldn’t rely on it nearly as much, effectively making it abundant enough for anyone who needs it. But anyway, I hear your point that central planning seems inefficient, but I believe there are ways to make it extremely efficient, and it just hasn't been attempted yet. You have not necessarily seen it at work in a well-designed way. A common TZM response regarding scarcity is “But technology will enable us to create abundance of anything. We can make our own resources by building them with atoms herp.” As far as I know, we’re not quite there yet, but I do believe it’s not so far off. So perhaps allotting scarce stuff in some strategic, organized fashion, even if inefficient, will only be a temporary drawback while technology improves and the world recovers? Those are just my thoughts, so here, listen to a bit from Peter Joseph in his address to Stephan Molyneux. Skip to around 20 mins to hear about centralized planning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozy52bZ6JTw
Molyneux doesn’t really strike me as very thoughtful, he’s not giving much of a challenge tbh. Peter sounds so spittingly fed up He keeps bringing up "conditioning" which is true but he relies on it a bit much...

I agree that man buying from man is a fast, smooth system, but it’s not the most economic or intelligent.

Further babble: For most products, there’s already earthly abundance to supply demand. Of course we have to wonder how demand would differ from today. It gets fuzzy here, but you have to admit that we can’t keep thinking about what consumers desire today - people’s demands may change along with this shift in attitude. So what about one-of-a-kind items? There will be a minority that still want THEIR OWN antique car or THEIR OWN original work of art. Even if it’s irrational or “conditioned behaviour,” you can’t just tell them to stop valuing that old car. So perhaps people would create a market for these kinds of things…perhaps markets are necessary at times. But we don’t. need. money. to manage. resources. Am I making any sense to you? Are you imagining how it could work rather than how it hasn’t in the past?

Basic survival needs would be trivial to supply, as would tools like transportation and computers because they can be made from abundant/recyclable materials. Items would have “luxury” built into them since people wouldn’t need to make cheap shit to save costs or resources.

When we recognize the earth and humans as being part of one system, I think that “central planning,” if it can be implemented well (big if), is a sane way to make use of scarce resources, whether it was efficient in the USSR or not.

Also there would be no need to ration for most products. Would people hoard things? Yeah, maybe if they’re sick and need help.

I personally think equality of outcome is immoral, I don't think we should be striving to cut the pie equally six billion ways, Bill Gates earned a larger share of the pie than I did. The fact is there are too many peoplle on the planet and not enough resources, if we did share the resources equally our decadent western lifestyles would be adversly affected. Greed in a non market system is called corruption, and it will be rampant, though I suppose there could be a Commissars to monitor such things.

No cutting the pie here. You want pie you can go after it within reason, but you don’t get a monopoly over it, and yes there will be pie monitoring. I think there ARE enough resources for everyone to have indulgent lifestyles! Though, it depends on what you mean. No one gets 50 acre properties with 10 houses and 50 cars all to themselves, because that’s simply f*cked. It doesn’t work like that (for everyone) today because it can’t, and it wouldn’t work like that in an RBE because it can’t and should not. Not while we're restricted to living on one ball. I don't think corruption would be rampant if we have some transparency.

Hmm, a thought about property: Some places are much nicer to occupy than others. Who get's to have their house way up on the cliff overlooking the islands or the mountain range? Such vistas are not abundant enough for everyone to reside at. Wouldn't people get jealous? This is a tricky one, all I can say is I hope people can share the scenery peacefully. I'll see what others have to say too.

everything I've read on so far sounds just like communism, also a lot of crackpot conspiracy theories, is this connected to the zeitgeist movies?

I thought I addressed the commie similarities, what are you reading exactly? Search for your concern on google or the TVP forums and find some good discussions. The main site's articles are a bit lacking. It's embarrassing at this point.

Peter Joseph’s movies are basically propaganda to “get people thinking,” aimed at a largely ignorant western mentality. They are not reliably factual, and are only related to the movement as a means to get people interested in it. Unfortunately they make it very easy to dismiss because the films don’t go into detail about all things TZM. He should really make an in-depth 5-hour video so people can get the whole picture. Maybe he’s working on it, iuno. I dislike the first Zeitgeist.

Ayn Rand essentially thought that everyone should be as greedy as possible and somehow things would be better, its Adam Smith taken to the point of absurdity.

Somehow I think that’s not all there is to it, but that certainly sounds absurd.

Thoughts?

 

[Mr Stabby]

The RBE looks like its a knee jerk reaction to our unsustainable planet wrecking society we have today. The zeitgeist guy IMO sounds like a ****ing nutter. He talks of markets as carefully contrieved systems of cyclic consumption, no doubt orchestrated by the same people who blew up the WTC with thermite.

Most of the stuff I find on it, are as ridiculous as this http://resourcebasedliving.com/commentary/rbe-vs-communism-socialism/. Where the author flippantly brushes off the biggest problems we face today, as not being an issue for and RBE.

I was cynical toward RBE from the moment I heard about, and TBH I'm finding it difficult to take it seriously, nothing I've seen convinces me that the RBE has any realistic solutions to the flaws in central planning, infact a lot of it is fanciful talk of AI supercomputers, and zero point energy machines. Issues like peak oil and energy secrurity are dismissed as easily solved, something our current system is struggling with.

I want to believe that there could be a system, where humanity can live in peace and prosperity in a sustainable way, but there are so many problems to overcome before that is possible, I'd have to see it to believe it.

EDIT: I think its worth watching Milton Freidman's TV series free to choose, he's a hardcore libertarian. I don't agree with everything he says, but worth noting that the market has some merits over central planning. http://www.freetochoose.tv/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

EDIT2: Is RBE meant to be stateless, the zeitgeist guy sounds like a fascist, how exactly does the strategic mangement happen without strategic overseers in charge of everyone? Also there is a lot of talk of re-education, which historically leads to gulags.

 

[Naudian]

The RBE looks like its a knee jerk reaction to our unsustainable planet wrecking society we have today. The zeitgeist guy IMO sounds like a ****ing nutter. He talks of markets as carefully contrieved systems of cyclic consumption, no doubt orchestrated by the same people who blew up the WTC with thermite.

He's not just talking about markets. He's referring to the actual, observable, contrived systems that exist today, and he's basically right. I haven't made my mind up on WTC, but obviously the "official story" is bullshit.

Most of the stuff I find on it, are as ridiculous as this http://resourcebasedliving.com/commentary/rbe-vs-communism-socialism/. Where the author flippantly brushes off the biggest problems we face today, as not being an issue for and RBE.

How unfortunate. Good thing you can recognize the authors bias and think for yourself. To me that author seems to be focusing on the end goals of Fresco's Venus project compared with communism.

I was cynical toward RBE from the moment I heard about, and TBH I'm finding it difficult to take it seriously, nothing I've seen convinces me that the RBE has any realistic solutions to the flaws in central planning, infact a lot of it is fanciful talk of AI supercomputers, and zero point energy machines. Issues like peak oil and energy secrurity are dismissed as easily solved, something our current system is struggling with.

The layman may appear to shrug things off as easily solvable, because he has faith in the technician and the engineer, and human ingenuity. I agree that nothing is so simple, and this will be a worthy challenge for all who accept the responsibility. I don't expect you to be convinced, but I hope you will agree that it is doable and just makes sense, at least to try.

I want to believe that there could be a system, where humanity can live in peace and prosperity in a sustainable way, but there are so many problems to overcome before that is possible, I'd have to see it to believe it.

You know I have to concede that we're probably capable of fixing much of our mess without eliminating the world's markets, that is if we can stick to a true regulated free market, and encourage/reward honest economical behavior. It's probably more realistic to go that route too, in the short term, as people won't have such a hard time understanding it.
However, I hope you're starting to see how a RBE world is superior, and not impossible. It's almost as if we would be taking a shortcut, because even if we improved today's economic model to the point of 0% world poverty, monetary/ownership thinking will likely continue to fuel our competitive and acquisitive instincts, which will result in stifling humanity's collective potential.

When I think of corrupt, uncaring power seekers and an economic model that basically gives them an excuse, an incentive to step on each other and f*ck the world over...when I think of nukes and big red buttons. Why do these things exist? Because we are still coming out of the womb, kicking and screaming, holding onto the behavior that served us well in the finite water of mother nature. We are only just realizing our ability to create abundance for ourselves, and we should nourish it, strive to educate each other, and help us help ourselves.

I know it sounds unrealistic, but think about <example of milestone accomplishment in history>. Most people would have to see it to believe, and that's why I think transitional RBEs need to be developed as an example for the world. I think it's equally important to express this mentality actively - in discussions like these, in the manner I have maintained, not rejecting anything, not religiously following anything, and considering everything to the best of ability. The people of the world can learn this virtue, it just needs to be actively demonstrated across the globe.

Anyway, thanks for this, Mr. Stabby & HL2.net. You've helped me to define my own position, and I am much more confident in talking about it than before.

About Friedman edit: Yes, trade has helped us get to where we are, it is a wonderful tool. Will we always need it? Is there a problem with it? Can we not invent new tools? *sigh* central planning, central planning. I will look into this this some more, I will try to come up with a response to show how a RBE makes use of it, how it is the next logical step beyond trading, and I will definitely check out freetochoose.tv.

Edit2: 'The zeitgeist guy' does have a tone about him, I would not say fascist. I think you are relying on history too much, and not using your imagination, but I will try to address your points soon.

Edittt: In the meantime, I'm curious, are you really reading discussions like this and thinking for yourself?
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...d=230&id=314272&limit=10&limitstart=10#314328

 

[Mr Stabby]

I've tried to come up with a list of questions where, I think there are flaws in/I don't understand, the RBE system. I'm re-treading some ground here. There doesn't seem to a clear definition of RBE, other than its vague mission statement, it's like communism in the sense that getting two communist to agree to what communism actually entails, is impossible.



Does Resource management require a technocratic elite who know how all the technology works and what resources are required to manufacture it. How is it therefore not authoritarian? What ensures the right people are in the right positions?

How is food produced, do farmers own their own land, are they given X amount of resources and given a quota of food to produce, what happens if they don't meet this quota?

Do people own their own homes, if I decide to trash my house/garden/car am I given a new one? Do I get an unlimited amount of petrol for my sportscar/helicopter?

Can I just smoke weed all day and not get a job?

Are their prisons, is property crime illegal, who administers the legal system?

What if I want an Xbox, Bob wants a violin and Dave wants a Yacht, how is the supply of non essesential items that not everyone wants and are not abundent handled?

Assuming the energy crisis and peak oil are solved through technology, why do we need a RBE system, if clean water could be easily produced anywhere on earth through technological advancement, and was therefore cheap to produce, why cant we just have european style social market economies (Markets with safety nets)?

What if we don't solve the energy crisis, and there isnt enough food and energy to go around? Could RBE function with todays technology?

What is to stop people opting out and starting market societies? (Not everyone thinks they are evil)

How does the scientific method decide, if art/films/music are any good/popular and should be reproduced/promoted? Generally what happens when scientific rationality decides something unpopular?

 

[tomemozok]

1. Transition to renewable energy
2. Clean water in developing countries (because it's kinda lame that we haven't accomplished this already) -- currently people are working on distributing clay pots painted with anti-bac colloidal silver. All we need to do is give these people clay pots and/or presses to make clay pots and we haven't done this yet.

That,my friend,the UAC has already done (UAC is the organisation on mars in Doom 3)