The changing the world thread

[Maestro]

I think the Culture series by Iain M Banks addresses a lot of this, but the keystone to a perfect Utopian society is a triple-headed hydra:
1. Thou Must Haveth Unlimited Energy
2. Thou Must Haveth AI Incalculably Smarter Than Humans
3. Thou Must Haveth A Monolithic Society

I just came in on this, and it has been interesting to read, but for the most part Mr Stabby has the hardest points here, although I believe this partially stems from him having what sounds like a very solid grounding in economics. Naudian, I think you've done a good job representing your points and staying on the level here. I would say, though, that the crux of your RBE system is scarcity, i.e., unlimited wants with limited resources. Try reading up on that and I think you'll have some more solid counters to the presented issues.

I applaud you both for not turning this thread into the usual internet argument, and shall continue to watch with interest and curiosity.

 

[Tyguy]

How do we progress when the solutions to our problems simply create more problems? Human beings got smart too quickly and still retain primal instincts that overrule logic and cloud empathy. Forget trying to imagine ways to achieve an Utopian society. The problem is us and it always has been. Our biology simply will not accommodate this ideology unless billions of people decide to get along over night. I came into this thread with a positive outlook to the future but until you can factor in every conceivable variable there's virtually no way to change human behavior on a global scale in a time frame that is dependent on the rate of population growth. Natural resources are very likely to be scarce much sooner than expected and without a well financed and efficient system of channeling solar power to the world there's sure to be chaos on a grand scale.

We stockpile nuclear weapons that could destroy our world many times over for no other reason than demanding fear and respect. Hell, the US even used two just to prove to the world we don't **** around. There's never a moment that goes by where the world is not involved in some type of genocide. The majority of our species lives primarily to die for a religion promising eternal bliss which has a, shall I say, sizable impact on our motivation to lessen misery and suffering, especially for those of a different faith. Disease shows great promise in evolving beyond our capacity to slow its progress which will certainly decimate the poorest nations despite efforts to mitigate an effective initiative to stop the spread. Technology will remain abundant in the richest nations and as the rest of the world suffers through a daily effort of simply trying to stay alive, hostility will inevitably rise to a level where mass campaigns of terror are brought to the doorstep of those countries which will be blamed, rightly or not, for allowing it to happen.

There might be an Utopia somewhere in the future but it sure as hell won't be on earth. Our only hope is to develop the technology necessary to leave this planet with a cargo of wealthy tycoons and the beginning stages of artificial intelligence, set on course to the nearest rock that will accommodate life.

I suppose the movie Wall-E is my basic forecast for humanity. This was depressing to write but my ex-girlfriend and I just got off the phone and despite my best efforts she decided that getting back together wouldn't be for the best. She will certainly not be getting a seat on the spaceship.

 

[Naudian]

Hold on to your butts...

The following is partly Naudian’s own conception and does not necessarily reflect the stage at which members within the Zeitgeist Movement have developed a concept of their own.

How does an RBE make use of “central planning”?

The strategic allocation of resources only becomes problematic or controversial with truly scarce, truly high demand resources. Whereas abundant resources, while still technically allocated strategically, are effectively free for anyone to obtain, due to their abundance. For instance, suppose copper has a calculated level of abundance, and is freely accessible at distribution centers (still monitored), but is only free up to a certain limit - Ah, ok let us call it the “eco-limit” (the deriving of which will be described) – whereat allocation procedures are enacted to ensure economic usage of the copper. The directors of said procedure are well educated members of the body that operates a distribution channel, and they adhere primarily to scientific analysis with respect to the eco-limit. Directors also check credentials and review project proposals. This is not authoritarian, because it is a transparent process that can be challenged and discussed to reach a solution. If an agreement cannot be reached, the challenger(s) may create a public poll. If the public shows in favour, the directors re-assess, and perhaps make a statement to the public along with their own secondary poll. If the result is still in favour, access is granted to one million tons of copper because the public has decided that the final product is just so damn desirable.

So let us define this almighty “eco-limit.” It is the point at which the above restrictive measures are imposed. For any given resource, this dynamic value is stored in a database. The database contains many other complex data about the resource, from which the eco-limit is derived, such as known quantity and whereabouts, quantity currently in use, demand figures generated by usage statistics, known applications of the resource, etc. The eco-limit may also vary according to information relating to the destination of the resource, such as geographic location, community opinion, future usage projections, whatever is relevant, I don’t know. The limit is calculated with sustainability of development as paramount. I will slap you if you ask me what kind of algorithms it will use.

No law enforcement of this eco-limit is necessary, only the strategic allocation procedure outlined above.

If an individual “steals” a resource exceeding the eco-limit and bypassing the allocation procedure, the theft will be detected and investigated by those qualified. Investigation is publicized, people vote to hang yada yada that’s as far as I care to hypothesize. The situation seems highly unlikely when we consider that a resource-based economy requires a major attitude-shift in values and behaviour. Nonetheless the possibility is real and methods of dealing with it will be proposed.

How is strategic allocation the next logical step from capital exchange?

Good use of strategic allocation results in sensible, economic distribution and utilization of scarce resources across the entire landscape of a resource-based economy. Capital exchange is only able to distribute scarce resources to those regions that can afford it, and is susceptible to induced scarcity for profit. Strategic allocation opens access of abundant resources to everyone, with minimal interference between distributor and user. Capital exchange is only able to distribute abundant resources to those who can afford it, and evidently, is not effectively distributing basic survival resources to everyone within this economic system. This is generally a result of ignorance and/or abuse of the system by those who seek wealth and power. One of the Zeitgeist Movement’s goals is for people to realize the perverted nature of this behaviour. It is oppressive, it has become problematic for the ensured survival of humanity and all life on Earth, and it is obsolete.

Is trade completely obsolete in this system?

Eliminating monetary exchange and adopting strategic allocation makes sense primarily for distribution of raw or essential-to-life resources, in the goal of sustainability and elimination of poverty. Trade is not entirely obsolete because it is a useful tool for exchanging non-essential items of abstract value. If a group of people have an appreciation of, for instance, antique vehicles, they may wish to form a market to trade such items. If an individual desires an antique but has none to trade, he may submit to have one reconstructed by an organization that manufactures such things, or he may have another item of abstract value worthy of someone’s antique vehicle. The value of these items is personal, and therefor requires no number value but rather an agreement of trade between individuals. Since there is no money, there is no desire to trade for profit, and the value remains purely abstract and personal.

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?

“Nature is a dictatorship.” Resource management requires a database with detailed information about the resource, and qualified directors to manage allocation procedures. Specific manufactured products can be catalogued in additional databases, with even more complex information. It’s not authoritarian because if there is a conflict then everyone gets a say. Furthermore, everyone has free access to education, and anyone can learn about the science behind the procedure. Resource extraction-production channels would be managed individually by groups of qualified people including directors, and their separate databases linked together. This database is called upon in the allocation process. Also involved in the allocation process is end user needs/desires, manufacturer credentials, the manufacturer proposal, and environmental impact.

Example: A group gets itself together to build a learning center. The engineers of the group have the credentials and knowledge to estimate what products and materials are required to build the various components. The group then makes a publicized proposal/request to all the distribution channels and centers necessary. Credentials & proposal are checked, and if all is reasonable then access and distribution is granted. These grants are also published. Other people in the group’s community have a say in the matter right from the start – how might it affect the community, or whatever concerns there are. If there is objection to a proposal then discussion must take place among those interested. I’d imagine that, the more advanced a project is, the more engineers and allocation processes will be involved. Perhaps a controversial proposal could be made that involves the whole world, who knows. For smaller personal projects that just require a few materials, you can go to a distribution center and pick them up, or have them delivered. I can tell just by playing this process out in my head in different scenarios, that in practice it would be very reasonable. Treehouse doesn’t take up much wood, access granted. Treehouse made of gold goes above the eco-limit, S.A.P. doesn’t check out, person is an idiot. Custom car project goes above eco-limit, S.A.P. grants access anyway because it’s all good. Group wants to build crazy art center, S.A.P. initialized and decisions are arrived at. If anyone manages to abuse this system it will be recognized and the community may partake in a solution.

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?

No one technically owns land, they just use it. If a farmer wants to start an operation, they flash there proposal and boom, buildings are being built for them, land is turned, tools & materials are supplied, and off they go to develop their operation. Quota starts with their proposal. If they give themselves a quota that suits the surrounding neighbourhood, great. If it’s way too much, then their operation is lessened. Too little and they may take on or join a larger operation. If they can’t farm properly then maybe they should go back and learn? Food would always be produced in slightly excessive amounts to account for potential farm failures.
Have you seen concepts for large hydroponics buildings?

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? .

People occupy their personal property, and people will respect each other’s privacy. If you trash shit intentionally, people are going to think you’re sick and try to help you
You get whatever you need and then some. Fuel would be abundant - you want some, you stock up on some, but people will look at you funny if you ask for a swimming pool of fuel for your dirtbike. Keep in mind that alternative fuels and engines would exist by now.

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

Yes. Your parents and community will probably see that you get some education when you’re young, but if you decide to grow up to be a pothead that’s fine. Chances are you’ll find something constructive to do eventually. If everyone did nothing then we all die, I think people can comprehend that.

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

I’d imagine there being therapy centers for people who are sick or just act like shit. I imagine some code of conduct would be necessary for determining if someone needs to be arrested and/or sent to one. People would report shit disturbers, who would then be contacted by whoever is qualified to deal with it.

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?

You “order” it from whatever organization of people is manufacturing those items, it’s not like there’s a rule saying organizations can’t have resources to make non-essential items. If you need a specialized product that doesn’t exist, you can have it manufactured by people that take custom orders or something.

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)?

Why can’t you have them? No one is forcing anything. I already said that a good market system can work, but if it proves that there are still downsides to it that are not observable in a RBE, I’d imagine people would make the switch. Maybe the market societies will do just fine. Markets or trading is still utterly unnecessary except for stuff with abstract value.

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?

Enough alternative & standard energy technologies exist today to be able to power a RBE. We have the “technology” to make it all happen; it is a matter of building/applying the technology accordingly. A RBE could function with “today’s technology,” but tech would quickly advance as the RBE expands. RBE might even work with low tech to some degree, but I don’t care to think about that right now.

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

Nothing but their own sense and understanding. They’re not evil, just obsolete. I think markets will be around for a while, even if RBE takes off.

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?

Come on dude, people will have easy access to whatever simple things they need to promote their art. Films and music are a non-issue with digital media, other artwork probably won’t take much to reproduce. If someone wants to make a million solid gold statues then there might be a problem (until we have replicators wooo). We don’t have to strictly obey the scientific method. It’s a tool to reach solutions, but in the end the decision is ours.


I think I've made realistic use of people and computers in the allocation process, but the more advanced we can make computers and robotics, the less we will need people to be appointed these kinds of positions. Who appoints them? I'll give you a chance to answer that. But yeah, eventually we will all turn into super-intelligent cyborgs and the future is pretty awesome.

On the other hand, if we don't change our mentalities soon, we will probably destroy ourselves before we even step foot on mars. Maybe proper free markets can be enforced, WMDs reduced, and all problems solved, but I wouldn't put my money on it.

*hnng*

I still haven't really done much research, and I probably misused some terminology, but did I win anyway?

 

[Mr Stabby]

I won't be saying anything I haven't said before, but I still have concerns about authoritarianism, central planning and relience on wonder technology that may never exist.

I don't necessarily agree with all you've said in response to my questions but I think I have a better understanding of what an RBE is. I think 'communism with robots' is not a unfair metaphor for it.

I know I don't know enough about the world's resources and how best to use them to run an RBE, but my concern is no one does, so there would be no one to be the strategist. Central planning doesn't work because its too ****ing complicated.

You seem to believe that our society stagnates technological advancemnt, I think technology has advanced pretty well in the last 300 years. Driven in part by the profit motive.

If oil could be made synthetically in such abudence that it was 1cent a gallon, why would it need efficent management?

 

[Naudian]

You should have concerns, as we all should, at all times.

My main concern right now is for people to listen to and fully understand this vision as quickly as possible, far and wide, and that is The Zeitgeist Movement's main objective at present.

Education about this system, and education within this system is of the utmost importance for it to succeed.

It will be a challenge, and we can do it.

Profit has driven our growth and I pat it on the head for that. It's time to grow up.

And your last point? It wouldn't. So what. Monetary markets are obsolete.

You want to know something else I believe? Harnessing infinite energy is possible. Mark those words

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think we have reached a stalemate in regards to the economic and engineering/techonolgy issues.

I know absolutely nothing about human behavioural science, but the idea of a society without liars/criminals/fraudsters etc. seems far fetched to me. A perfect society requires perfect citizens. Human nature has flaws, how are they dealt with? I'm not saying this is necessary for a RBE system if there is still a legal system, but alot of the RBE stuff I've read does seem to imply humanity can be 'perfected'. The social-market system will never lead to a utopia, but it can be pretty good, which I think is the best humanity can do.

 

[Mr. Djees]

At the point of "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." I think we might have something like a RBE, whatever that is.

Until then, I'm content with my nordic model.

 

[Mr Stabby]

I think I've come up with a solution to the economic calculation problem. The biggest issue is feedback, because thats what demand really is, supply is really just a complicated form of inventory, and one supercomputer could handle that. What there needs to be is a matrix like system of supercomputers, with an AI construct that mimics the behaviour of every individual in the real world, in a virtual world. It can then approximate how the real world will behave, basically it can predict the future.

Copper that has been already been dug up is cheaper than copper that needs to mined out of the ground, ore purity and mine depth also affect price, but in the future all resources will have been mined and stored in a giant warehouse the size of France.

 

[VirusType2]

Copper that has been already been dug up is cheaper than copper that needs to mined out of the ground, ore purity and mine depth also affect price, but in the future all resources will have been mined and stored in a giant warehouse the size of France.

For all the gaps where valuable resources have been taken from the ground, we can fill with garbage and waste material.

 

[Naudian]

I've thought about what to do with un-recyclable waste, and it doesn't sound too ridiculous to me to have some kind of incinerator/pulverizer that turns all the waste all into dust, maybe even usable dust, with no polluting byproducts. Failing that, we can probably get away with stuffing it in some holes, in desert areas or something.

Human behavior is somewhat unpredictable, but unstable people shouldn't be too difficult to recognize and deal with appropriately.
But you're right about feedback, Stabby. Won't be easy to nail that one.

The thing that still worries me right now is the massive armies that are built up in the world, and the people in control of them...does there really exist the kind of people you hear about in conspiracy theories? Unfeeling monsters who would seriously destroy the human race if we didn't bow down and answer to them like slaves? The hand of someone like that, with destructive power like that, is a thought that makes me want to crawl into a hole.

 

[VirusType2]

The thing that still worries me right now is the massive armies that are built up in the world, and the people in control of them...does there really exist the kind of people you hear about in conspiracy theories? Unfeeling monsters who would seriously destroy the human race if we didn't bow down and answer to them like slaves? The hand of someone like that, with destructive power like that, is a thought that makes me want to crawl into a hole.

The thing you should worry about are mistakes - Russia thought we had launched ICBM at them, but it turns out it was something else on their radar. At the last second (or an equally dramatic form of time measurement) -- like the bomb timer ticking down to zero in the latest action movie -- Russia nearly fired back -- but someone at the last second was like "NO WAIT, I DON'T THINK SO, BITCHES, GET ON THE PHONE TO THE USA COMRADE." - "HELLO USA? WTF WHY YOU NUKEN', BRO?" ... "NO? OH SHIT, I THOUGHT YOU WAS NUKEN'." And all out nuclear Holocaustic genocidal suicide, with hundreds of massive nuclear warheads destined to decimate half of the land on Earth was averted on that day.

The End.

OK kids, now time for sleep.

 

[Naudian]

^ Heh, Russia.

This might be good reading for anyone interested in the whole socialism vs capitalism thing...or anarchism.
Author clarifies definitions, pokes at Mises's arguments, talks about price vs actual cost, etc. I'm only halfway through...it's slow going...boredom taking over. (not related to the venus project, just thought I'd throw it in here)

 

[Mr Stabby]

tl;dr how was the ECP solved?

 

[Naudian]

I can’t believe how much time I’ve spent on this calculation thing. You say “How is ECP solved” as if that’s all there is to the question! Obviously it's a bit more in-depth, unless something like “Decentralized information flow and ethical/political judgement following the best possible technical deliberation” is a good enough answer for you.

Regarding the anarchist article I linked, the author doesn’t “solve the ECP”. He harks on Von Mises and exposes flaws in his arguments (and notes his correct arguments). I’ve since read several other writings that reveal the same flawed arguments and assumptions from the 20th century debate. You’d have to read it yourself to fully appreciate it, but I’ll try to relay some of it...

In one section, the author is defending Socialist ideas and brings up Market Socialism (or a “mutualist libertarian socialist society”) and explains how economic calculation is perfectly possible in such a system. On the other hand, State Socialism (any centrally planned system) does indeed result in irrational, inefficient use of resources. In this part he’s still talking about monetary economies, while making clear that Socialism does not have to mean State Socialism (as Mises implies), but later on he argues how markets are bad anyway.

He says that Mises had assumed a centrally planned scenario, but that “socialist ideas are not limited to Marxian Social Democracy,” thus Mises is leaving out much of the puzzle. He goes on to defend a moneyless society and talks about use-values - “the utility of a good to the consumer of it.” He quotes “at the level of the individual production unit or industry, the only calculations that would be necessary in socialism would be calculations in kind. On the one side would be recorded the resources (materials, energy, equipment, labour) used up in production and on the other the amount of good produced, together with any by-products…Socialist production is simply the production of use values from use values” and writes “The generation and communication of such information [use-values] implies a decentralized, horizontal network between producers and consumers. This is because what counts as a use-value can only be determined by those directly using it. Thus the production of use-values from use-values cannot be achieved via central planning, as the central planners have no notion of the use-value of the goods being used or produced. Such knowledge lies in many hands, dispersed throughout society, and so socialist production implies decentralisation. ” Obviously for a system like this, you need a lot of information flow between consumer/producer. Not impossible if it is “dispersed throughout society”. Also internet.

He continues about price being a false indicator of actual “costs”, market forces, wage labour, unequal purchasing power, etc. You’ll have to read it because I can’t really shorten it up for you. Here’s one last excerpt because I like it:

“Simply put, prices cannot be taken to reflect real costs any more that they can reflect the social expression of the valuation of goods. They are the result of a conflict waged over these goods and those that acted as their inputs (including, of course, labour). Market and social power, much more than need or resource usage, decides the issue. The inequality in the means of purchasers, in the market power of firms and in the bargaining position of labour and capital all play their part, so distorting any relationship a price may have to its costs in terms of resource use. Prices are misshapen. Little wonder Kropotkin asked whether "are we not yet bound to analyse that compound result we call price rather than to accept it as a supreme and blind ruler of our actions?"

ANYWAY, I’ve attached a document that a TZM member wrote. It’s a summary of John O'Neill’s work “The Market”. It’s short and concise and it’s a more interesting read than the anarchist page.

View attachment O'neil Summary.zip <- Reading is fun.

Following that, here’s my understanding of this problem so far:

Mises criticizes socialism: Central planning doesn’t work.

Truth: Central planning is no bueno when applied to an economic system any bigger than a household or small community.

However: Central planning does not define socialism/communism.

Mises claims: A single unit of value, like price, is required in order to have commensurability (the “common denominator”) which is the only way of overcoming the problem of rational economic action.

Truth: Technical methods are indispensable for comparing complex options.

Flaw: Technical judgment is only part of a rational system. In general, value cannot be reduced to a single unit, there are too many factors involved behind use-values. Also, price does not always reflect “cost” accurately.

Hmm: Products must be compared in their particular context. One item’s good can be another’s bad.

Btw markets suck: Prone to corruption in more ways than one. Commensurability of everything does not lead to a sustainable rational economy *looks at capitalist shitstorm*

Otto Neurath perspective: “Comparability” of economic options need not assume commensurability. There is no one rule or single measure, nor even one specific method to rely on for comparability. None itself can be mechanically adapted to produce a determinable decision regarding which plan to adopt, nor is non-technical judgement an eliminable role, even in technical decisions. Most economy-related decisions that are made every day don’t rely solely on price, and there needs to be more focus on taking everything into account if we want true practical rationality.

Notes from O’Neil summary: Arguments for what kind of methods we DO need to employ “do not concern the calculation problem, or questions of commensurability. Instead they are concerned with epistemology, the coordination of action and the dispersal of knowledge”, a whole other story. Another observation: “In the latter stages of the debate, it is Hayek who shares most with Neurath considering questions of practical reason and commensurability. Lange, who is supposed to be on the “socialist” side, is instead closest to Mises! He simply accepts many of Mises's central conclusions, as do many other future critics.”

How does this all relate to the RBE supporter in me: My understanding is that this thing we call money is not required to make any decision regarding production or distribution, but instead: scientific analysis, technical judgements, perhaps some rules of thumb, and whatever non-technical methods of decision making for all the different types of decisions that need to be made. That we need methods in general does not mean that any one specific institution, like the market, is required. These methods will need to be developed over time, and I believe computer simulations are already in early development as an attempt to establish, observe, and perfect the dynamics of such economic systems. It seems to me that this approach will result in more decisions and matters being considered (that’s a good thing) in the whole production process. This will not be slow or “inefficient” in that sense, or in any conceivable sense for that matter, because the process is distributed among many hands throughout society, yet linked and powered with modern information technology. In short, economic calculation is not such a big deal, it's just another detail in the web of interrelated challenges behind creating a sensible world to live in.