Is it centralized? A Resource Based Economy

[TheRosa63]

utopian idea that would never be implemented, to many power hungry people who would always work against any good intentions. as long as people are selfish enough to even seek and hold on to power over others, they believe they have a right to rule over others, they believe the power of the state belongs to them and should enforce their values on others via force.

[IdentifiablePerson]

@TheRosa63 Yes you are right. RBE is a money less economy (MLE). MLE cannot be implemented. Capitalism is headed by the central bank, which is the Fed in USA. Money power is too much power, it cannot be toppled. Economy and Government are two independent systems. Government does not have any control over the Fed. But the Fed has full control over the government. Government can be and has been destroyed by the Fed. It will require another Hitler to come and overthrow the Fed.

[127miles]

Yesterday was my little sisters first day at school. When our family went to pick her up she asked " daddy, why do I have to get up so early for school?" my dad said" because it's the only way you'll have time to learn, that the way it going to be for the rest of your life" I said" that's horrible" eeryone in the car laughed. It sickens me that we are forced to do things we don't want to like get up at 6 for 50 years only to enjoy the money when your old.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@127miles Well said, I agree. I said the same thing as your little sister when I went to school. Of course I was also told it was necessary training for a job later....getting up and working behind a desk, etc, or a factory, or whatever it would be.

My dad once said *we work harder to watch more TV* as a comment on how we end up working jobs we dont like, only to sedate ourselves whenever we have the free time.

[amn3h23h2]

so i would have to run my ideas through a computer and have them approved? sounds pretty oppressive to me.

[harmier]

@Holisticism1 If you read between the lines of the proposal, you'll understand that the "desired ends" will be the ones you are conditioned to want. If it doesn't collapse within a few years due to the lack of private property and that pesky individuality, conditioning to like like certain "desired ends" more than others is fairly likely.

I've just used the YouTube messenger function to send you a long message that gets at the creepy underpinnings of TVP.

[mdlittle5466]

Anyone worrying about a central computer being in control of information makes me wonder if they are perpetually afraid of their own laptops... *shrugs* ...I'm going to go test out WolframAlpha. :D

[TZMchapterKiel]

well done, thanks

[ViolentMonopoly]

@Holisticism1 I'm an anarchist, and hence against the free market, so I don't mean it in that sense. What I do mean is that people will be able to gather and make decisions about how they want their community, and perhaps their entire global society to function. Can people get together and make these decisions, or are these decisions limited by your almighty calculator?

In other words, are the computers there for guidance or control?

[ViolentMonopoly]

@ViolentMonopoly Example: A community might want to have a few more buildings constructed for some subjective reason, are they able to set up such facilities by coming to consensus, organizing, and then constructing it? (I assume this would be automated in your society, but realize the people were the ones to make the decision to build based on their collective wants). We could come up with more examples, the point is, the community is able to make decisions, and change things as they please.

[hanspanzer]

@ViolentMonopoly

school for example.

1. you ask "why?" --> because we haven't enough space for teaching

2. how much space do we need? --> this clarifies how large the building must be

3. where to built? --> the location easiest reachable for the pupils/student

In most cases it doesn't matter what you think, the conditions decide for you what to do. It wouldn't make sense to say "I don't give a shit on these questions. I want to build the greatest school in the world."

[ViolentMonopoly]

@hanspanzer You make a logical fallacy by saying it doesn't matter what people think. What if people DON'T WANT a school. Why then would we build it. (don't provide arguments as to why they should, it ignores the argument) The only way to REALLY determine what people want on a social basis is face to face direct democratic organization. Yes, we want to use the most efficient means possible to construct things, I'm totally with you there, but we need democracy to decide what we want to produce.

[hanspanzer]

@ViolentMonopoly

Well it was my assumption that people want a school if there aren't enough classrooms. If this problem doesn't exist in the first place, no one needs to be asked if a school should be build. Also i said "in most cases". The way people interact with the system is being creative to solve the problems, not to make a vote. I'm with you on direct democracy in some cases, but mostly not regarding goods production. An online realtime demand system is actually a direct democracy.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@hanspanzer 1. Who's "asking"? Are we presuming there will be a designated asker or that the people in the society will recognize problems on their own and ask questions with regards t their solutions? The former is very totalitarian, the latter is egalitarian and democratic.

2. Under what conditions is something vote worthy? Why can't voting not a viable method for running a society And mean direct democracy, either 1 person 1 vote or proportional voting, with little to no representation.

[hanspanzer]

@ViolentMonopoly

It's not practical to vote about every matter. Why should we? Problems always create a solution process. Tell me how often people vote in a research center about problems? I think people who are actually involved in the solution process should arrive a decision. That's an incentive to act and not just vote and let do others the work. Public votes are only needed when the case can't be decided objectively and the decision could affect life quality of many people in a bad way.

[hanspanzer]

@ViolentMonopoly

2. of course you can complain about planned constructions for example. If there are enough complaints the contention should be solved by a vote anyway.

But do really want to vote about every single decision that's to be made? Do you really think that's a efficient way to work things out? Just consider you have to vote every day about 10 cases. As a responsible-minded person you should do research for every single vote. Otherwise ignorance would rule.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@hanspanzer I don't think we should vote on anything, that in and of itself can become too controlling and totalitarian. We don't vote on the cloths you wear for example because we find it to be absurd and oppressive. I generally obey the principle that "people should have a say in decisions in proportion to the degree they are effected by those decisions." In many cases, in order for this principle to be satisfied, a vote would be required. In many cases it would not, but that's pretty simple.

[harmier]

@ViolentMonopoly Why would being an anarchist necessarily make you against the free market? Not all anarchist are against a free market.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@harmier Historically anarchism is anti market, most anarchists are socialists. The anarcho-capitalist branch of anarchist has only existed for a few decades, and historically isn't really anarchism. By definition I guess it is, but the entire world perspective between an anarcho-capitalist and an anarcho-socialist is different. Anarchists and statists have more in common than these two branches.

[harmier]

@ViolentMonopoly I know that most anarchists are socialists. But I do know of anarcho-capitalism. That's what I meant when I said that anarchist doesn't necessarily mean that you must be against a free market.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@harmier Fair enough

[harmier]

@harmier Would you like my critique of The Venus Project? It gets a VERY sarcastic and snarky based on what I know of leftist utopias. Especially 1970s visions of leftist utopias which TVP seems to parrot. Basically it highlights the false assumptions underpinning TVP and the invariably creepy nature of the entire thing.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@harmier I'm a leftist Utopian, just not a Venus project leftist Utopian. I'm an anarcho-communist. So sure, let it rip.

In all honestly though they are two very different kinds of societies.

[harmier]

@ViolentMonopoly "So sure, let it rip." I snorted at this. For some reason I found the phrasing hysterically funny.

Anyway, I just sent. Hope you enjoy it.

[ViolentMonopoly]

@Holisticism1 I agree, there need to be separate ways of processing what is wanted and how to achieve it, the former being subjective, the latter being scientifically based on efficiency. My question then is, to what extent does the Zeitgeist movement value democracy? Does it use democracy as a method of determining the wants and needs of people in a particular area, and then use science to process those needs in an efficient manner? Or does it ignore democratic opinion all together?

[ViolentMonopoly]

@Holisticism1 I disagree that a difference in opinion is simply a flaw in ones ability to do scientific calculus. Science is important, but it cannot be used to measure everything, like if society should have more apples or oranges. That, at its fundamental core, is not based of science, but off of human wants and needs. Sure, we can use an advanced calculator to process the most efficient way to supply these wants and needs, but what is valued stems from the people, and hence democracy.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

Hey guys, sorry the music's a bit loud. Try to get from it what you can. I can hear everything fine but not everyone hears things the same, and English isn't everyone's first language so this might be hard to hear for some. I may re-upload if people want.

[ViolentMonopoly]

Joseph seems to believe that democracy is similar to the statist system we have today, where people make decisions and then those decisions are FORCED upon others. Voluntary democracy, the kind advocated by most Anarchists, does not force someone to obey the will of the collective, yet the collective still organizes the way society functions, allowing freedom. Though Josephs examples, i.e. polluting a river, seem rediculous, the populace could indeed vote for unsustainable policies. Which one?

[seigneurvoland666]

the goal is for all of us to be peter josephs. Skeptical, intelligent, civilized (ive never heard him freak out), able to admit he's wrong. Shed your masks, don't be scared of humility. We must all RISE UP in some way

[seigneurvoland666]

sounds like a bit of platformism is involved :P

[enlightenedone676]

Very informative! This makes a great case for the use of AI to be used in the RBE.

[NAIVADA]

excellent informative video, but the music......... sorry to say but its very distrubing

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@NAIVADA I've heard people say it's too loud but I don't really understand disturbing. Do you mean upsetting or distracting?

[zerothought]

@Neanderthalcouzin I think the music is lovely. But yeah, it's a little loud.

[StellarLove66]

Less music volume... sorry to be critical... good share though mate (0;

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@StellarLove66 Don't be sorry, you're right. Thanks for letting me know, I will remember this for the future.

[axe863]

@Neanderthalcouzin HAHAHAHA Youre utilizing the work of Wolfram to demonstrate by sufficient similarity that a RBE is viable. Wolfram is the genius mathematician who makes very clear the fact that most complex phenomena are computationally irreducible and thus you can not make simple "sufficient similarity" arguments. LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@axe863 It's about the evolution of computation, a section in the general video. Lol it up.

[axe863]

@Neanderthalcouzin "Wolfram...makes very clear the fact that most complex phenomena are computationally irreducible and thus you can not make simple "sufficient similarity" arguments." Wolfram's work is not making the TVPs RBEs yet discovered allocation mechanism any more feasible because reasoning based on X & Y being sufficient similarly===> if X is workable then Y is workable does not apply to computationally irreducible situations as Wolfram states.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@axe863 Thanks for fleshing out that point a bit. I myself critique the proposed RBE using algorhythmic computation as basically coming up against the calculation problem: in other videos I made and in lots of discussions with people, I strive to be a critical thinker and I have my own reservations. The irreducible argument is something I'll look up and think about. At this stage I don't see any a priori reason to just agree with Wolfram, particularly as some kind of unbreakable law.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 The simple fact is..... if at the very end of production and computer realizes that the city's infrastructure can only produce five yachts for a community of ten families, then the computer will just make a yacht available for every two families.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant One must proof or demonstrate that something is computable, not just assume that it is. Any algorithmic structure that is afflicted with the "curse of dimensionality" (exponential or higher computational complexity in dim==> intractability) / a halting problem (strong unsolvability) is unworkable. With your blind assertion, you have proven absolutely nothing.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 how ironic...... in one prior statement you surrender of Wolfram's Mathematical analysis without question, yet in this last statement you are stating we need to actually "Test" and "Demonstrate" the theories for which I have mentioned? You seem to swaying between the worlds of Theory and Proof. Which do you coincide with?

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant I said proof or demonstrate because 1) Somethings that are true cannot be proofed 2). If something contradicts with our accumulated understanding, it must be rigorously demonstrated.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 "I said proof or demonstrate because 1) Somethings that are true cannot be proofed 2). If something contradicts with our accumulated understanding, it must be rigorously demonstrated."

This is incorrect. All truths can "eventually be proven, if it can't, it's our current limitations as to why the truth can't be proven, but then truth might just be an element of a greater truth, so our realization of truth is always evolving.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant Someone has never heard of Godelian incompleteness.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 if something contradicts our accumulated understanding seems like an assertion without proof, watch this video: /watch?v=zYDzA9hKCNQ "Talk - Richard Wilkinson & Kate Pickett - Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger" They will show you "Imperical" Statistical evidence of egalitarian emergence in the world and it's overall impact to society.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant Ive read a significant portion of their book and it makes errors in statistical analysis that a 1st year statistician would cringe at. The fudging of data by excluding countries, measures of social health, data sources that don't fit the narrative, the omission of of higher explanatory variables, the inclusion of extreme outliers etc..A valid scientific approach would be to run a full multiple regression and correct for bias and inefficiencies in the estimators

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 It's not scientific practice to exclude conclusively without demonstrated proof that RBE is not feasible based on simple mathematical claims. To not experiment with such concepts because of a Theory is just pseudo science at best. Mathematics & Science is an evolving measurement of humanity's perspective on all aspects universe, but it IS NOT a DICTATOR of it. The Scientific Method used to test the Scientific Method for solving our socio/economic problems is only logical.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant Type IV systems, systems that are capable of endogenous novelty, are un-solvable by Turing machines. Wolfram demonstrated this. If you think you can solve Turing in-computability by creating hyper-Turing machines, creating a linear system that produces endogenous novelty or creating a pseudo- price system that transforms exponential or higher computational complexity into polynomial ...be my guest but don't proclaim something is solvable offhand.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 there are anomalies in the universe that we have yet to define mathematically for it would require a completely different and new model.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant There are anomalies yet to be defined ... RBE of the gaps argument? Lets see a demonstration.. Btw if you do create AI capable of stopping an optimization problem that has a halting problem.. you have created a system that is able to disobey its commands. I find it quite terrifying to imagine a global resource management system in the hands of such a conscious entity.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 I believe you have mathematically described "Free Will" HAH! So, you are saying that if we miraculously discover an algorithm to model human ingenuity, it will be flawed with biases as humans and thus we have accomplished nothing but to create a synthetic sentient lifeform with all the inherent psychological flaws which will lead to flawed value systems once more?

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant I didnt say anything about it possessing all of the psychological flaws of human beings. I merely said that putting an A.I. entity in charge of G.R.M is very risky because it is no longer a mindless machine but a sentient life-form. I would view it as being as dangerous as if a single human being was in charge of the RBE.

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant One of the main reasons why economic problems are solvable is because human being engage in "messy calculation."

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 now, alot of people shy away from this question when I ask it, but please don't go silent on me when I do ask this question.

Here it is:

What is YOUR Solution to the Socio/Economic Problems of the world?

[axe863]

@EasternMerchant The reason most people protest that kind of question is the same reason most scientists do. My disbelief in your system doesn't require a solution. When a physicist says that there isn't any evidence that X was "intelligently designed" and simply states "I don't know what naturalistic process caused this" ... it doesn't strengthen the I.D. position or weaken the physicist's position.

[EasternMerchant]

@axe863 "One of the main reasons why economic problems are solvable is because human being engage in "messy calculation." "

If what you say is true, then the only hope mankind on this earth has, is to evolve our value system to a point that satisfies everyone including the planet as a whole, and Science & Technology should only serve a role to Discover & Recommend, not Dictate.

[ChrisPMadden]

Cuz! You did a brilliant job with this! Thank you so much! Kudos!

Crispy

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@ChrisPMadden Thanks a lot for that, I appreciate it.

[silfidecontemporanea]

can you tell me what that first song was?

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@silfidecontemporanea Mounqualiba by Natacha Atlas.

She actually makes lots of gestures to TZM and an RBE in the album. It's a beautiful album too, I'm getting more into Arabic music and she's incredible imo.

[silfidecontemporanea]

That is very interesting, thanks for the information and all you are doing to help. It always helps me do things at my college.

[Okoth45]

You are knockin it out couzin. I will post this on my facebook page and do my best to widen the audience. Thanks again for your work. Shifting cultural values is a monumental task but you are definitely contributing to it. I was considering editing the same V-radio show you used to get the main points condensed in an easier to mentally digest form. You are on the case man!

[Okoth45]

yo are knockin it out couzin. I will post this on my facebook page and do my best to widen the audience.  Thanks again for your work. Shifting cultural values is a monumental task but you are definitely contributing to it. I was considering editing the same V-radio show you used to get the main points condensed in an easier to mentally digest form. You are on the case man!

[olonKOE]

It assumes that the scientific method is infallible and even optimizing the human experience.

The scientific method is an open-ended logical tool. It cannot be used to make decisions because it was never designed to do so. Just because it sounds good, it is not proved good, or even good enough.

Optimizing the human experience needs to allow for change in attitudes, values, emotions, ethics etc. AI programmed from people in 1975 will make huge mistakes if left to decide our future today...

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@olonKOE "It cannot be used to make decisions because it was never designed to do so."

This is simply not true. It is used from flying planes, to fail safe mechanisms in power plants, to sprinkler systems, to carrying out any other number of tasks. Also as we know technology is constantly evolving, so this wouldn't be like keeping AI from 1975 and never changing.

[olonKOE]

It assumes that the scientific method is infallible and even optimizing the human experience.

The scientific method is an open-ended logical tool. It cannot be used to make decitions because it was never designed to do so. Just because it sounds good, it is not proved good, or even good enough.

Optimizing the human experiance needs to allow for change in attitutes, values, emotions, ethics etc. AI programmed from people in 1975 will make huge mistakes if left to decide our future today...

[TZMSocialEvolution]

Damn, this was well done. :) Me likey!  :) Good job my friend.

[silfidecontemporanea]

Thank you neanderthalcouzin, I have started a group at my college, this will be useful to give to people.

Really helps alot, just what I was looking for.

Frank

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@silfidecontemporanea cheers, I encourage you to check out TZMSocialEvolution: he has a whole series of helpful educational stuff you'll definitely find relevant.

This clip is taken from a V-Radio episode, and you can find the archives of the show by googling the name.

Cheers.

[silfidecontemporanea]

I am on top of all this.

Thanks so much for your contributions, it has helped my nerve in starting from scratch at my school.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@silfidecontemporanea your welcome, thanks a lot :)

[xchainlinkx]

should lower the volume of the music x.x

other then that great video.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@xchainlinkx thanks :) I'll remember that for the future, you're right it's a bit loud.

[AnarchoConsciousness]

Been watching your channel from the beginning. You probably have a healthy respect for general semantics as "Science and Sanity" is on Jacque's reading list. I make this appeal that you to reconsider the term "centralization" for the more accurate and more reasonable term "decentralization". I know you are using the term in a different sense, but it is not accurate. Nature is decentralized, the internet is decentralized, our bodies are decentralized. The global economy is centralized. See?

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness Actually the video was more to do with saying this is not about centralization, as in central planning under political ideologies, so I'm with you on that, it's not pro blanket centralization. Furthermore, the reference to centralization is only in regards to system's engineering. This is entirely accurate.

I want to also add that aspects of science are both centralized and decentralized, depending on what you're looking at.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness Finally, in regards to nature, I disagree that you can call it decentralized. We belong to a single planet, which functions as a single, symbiotic system. We have a central nervous system. This is not some advocation of everything being centralized: it's just a tool in system's engineering, and in regards to nature, depending on your level of analysis, it is both centralized in parts, and decentralized. It is not either or, particularly in regards to science.

[AnarchoConsciousness]

@Neanderthalcouzin My concern is that you frequently use the term in reference to the aims of the Venus Project which seems to contradict its goals. Nature is decentralized in that there is not one single preeminent system in nature. Every eco system is interdependent on planet Earth, and totally decentralized. Just as the human nervous system alone could do nothing without the cardiovascular or endocrine systems supporting it. Nature is spontaneously ordered (emergent) not centrally planned.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness I tried to be explicit in the video and description that it was about the central database and the use of centralized systems in engineering, and that otherwise it isn't about central planning. My emphasis is on the use of it system's engineering, and modeling globally, in regards to the database, from the concept of the central nervous system. This is an accurate representation of TVP. Otherwise I fully agree on your point about emergence.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness So I just want to be clear what I tried to convey is that calling it 'centralization' is false--this is really a response to people who associate it with centralization and communism. You made an excellent point on decentralized nature, however I'll just repeat that it isn't either or----both decentralization and centralization are used in science, and exist in nature depending what you're looking at. This video was just about the central database aspect.

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness btw I'm changing the title cos I don't want people to misinterpret this as me saying 'TVP is centralization'. That was in fact the opposite of my intent.

[AnarchoConsciousness]

@Neanderthalcouzin Thank you cuz! The term is unattractive to a lot of people I associate with. You are going to get a lot of the same sentiment expressed in your first video on this. Just to be clear, in which sense would you call the internet centralized?  We think of central banking, central government, etc. In which sense is WolframAlpha centralized?

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@AnarchoConsciousness It's not, the point is on the central database. In regards to people having a problem with the term, I don't have a problem with it, but obviously with the whole thing being described as centralized is wrong. I want people to understand that in regards to system's engineering, centralized systems are used. This is not a political ideology, it's an approach to be used when it makes sense.

[TheAxlSnaks]

Excellent video - thought out, plain, concise, and a slew of other positive descriptions.

ps- Wolfram doesn't know my name >.<

[tazmaniainc]

good title ;]

[crookiemoonster]

Great Video!

[Neanderthalcouzin]

@crookiemoonster cheers :)