Yes, I am for destroying the economy and replacing it with a resource based economy, moneyless economy or even love based economy. The so called 'economy' we have today can't survive. And in the end, money is not really needed when we all share and give without expecting anything in return. When the world is seen as One Big Family, this can be a reality.
It isn't communism you idiots, it's one of the systems our ancestors every had, the barter system. Only its a bit more sophisticated since it'd be almost instantaneous to find someone willing to exchange one good for another.
I strongly doubt they are yet doing the most of the energy research btw, as i though am as certain on that the ones who own the carbon markets will own the new energy markets as time goes (yes the stagnant part of the power elite - the top).
the previous regards the"successful" summit in Copenhagen. We have allready passed some important tipping points, populationto mention the biggest one - there are math done on this subject posted here on youtube (albert bartlett to to mention one).
Yes my defintion of a growing economy is an expanding one, not one with the same amount of value but increasing moneyflow (which would be a zero growth economy).
An economy that doesnt turn into a zero growth economy would be cataclysmic to humanity
Im very tired of the people here relates this to communism, there is a big difference in the people controlling the means of production versus sharing products bought in a liberal market economy.
Calling this communism is as intelligent as calling liberalism as base of freedom.
@Aslapacrosstheface Communism is a government enforcing the distribution of resources artificially and often against people's will, based not on interpersonal interaction and trust building, but on abstract standards of "equality".
This is not Communism. She is suggesting people voluntarily work together, to develop these concepts gradually, in order to meet their own needs, on their own terms; rather than, remaining slaves to a consumerist bastardization of Capitalism (itself unsustainable).
The recording industry is going to explode... if you can just share the physical copy of something it can be enjoyed any number of times and paid for just once - all legally.
Just based on what she is saying, the piracy war is going to intensify very soon.
The concept of zero growth economy is here, either you get used to it or you will help to destroy humanity. Somehow i rank human survival over the global economy.
@lassek85 Um... you're a fringe wacko alarmist. Nobody (or very few people) believe in a zero-growth economy. Even the experts, who've collectively pushed off the estimated "point of no return" for global warming to 2100, now say that curbing economic growth now, may deny us the research and technologies that we will need to actually save the planet when the real climate crisis starts to emerge a century from now.
Technology increase efficiency, it comes from information. With increasing efficiency you can still have growing profit with 0 growth, put on top that you will have a growing moneyflow as resources gets redistributed with growing wealth and better education. So even for a conservative or liberal it should be plausible with 0 growth.
What you speak of is an all in plan that conservatives present - by going faster we will outmanouver unsustainability with technological advancement.
Even a ahrdcore RC or ill stretch to PC realises the problem with putting all the eggs in one basket.
Please give me a reference to the point of no return litrature and i really hope its not from the USA, because htey have no intrest in sustaining status quo.
Alot of people believe in sustainability (0 growth), if you kept up with the front line litrature you would know that, the last report i read on it was "Prosperity without growth?" by Tim Jackson
@lassek85 I'm talking about ECONOMIC growth... I'm not sure what you're talking about. Growing "wealth" and "moneyflow" *is* economic growth. However, its not some conservative talking point that our chances of averting a cataclysmic climate change are more likely with economic growth. We *do not* have the tech to prevent climate change right now. Therefore, someone who's sincere about saving the planet should support pro-growth economic policies, where ecology research can be well-funded.
First off, please refer me to the source, aka if you dont know it ask whomever gave the reference in the first hand to refer you so i can check it out - this doesnt mean im discrediting you, it means i find it interesting.
2:nd off - your communist comment now makes no sense, why would you not increase products longetiviety and efficiency as a liberal who cheers on the "free market" efficiency? If you grasp the concept of 0 growth and understand the difference to 0 economic growth...
@lassek85 First off, you said "zero growth ECONOMY. An economy that doesn't grow permanently would be cataclysmic to human civilization. As for my sources, the most well-known is the Copenhagen Consensus... but their findings shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who knows about the issue. We do not have the technology to avert climate change today. Moving from gas heat and cars to electric is just trading one fossil fuel for coal, and large-scale renewables isn't capable of sustaining civilization
Well analysis of the future where a cost is decreased and not increased due to technology (that is allready available, in sweden for an example there has been an effort to decrease the weight of windturbines which resulted in a 20% cut, google it, common knowledge - which decrease the costs dramatically and puts it at level or about to more carbonintensive energy) and the sterling engine has also been adapted to work with solarpanels - aka the costeffective technology is there TODAY
@lassek85 No. Wind turbines will never replace fossil fuels, as it would take a wind farm the size of Colorado to power the US alone, and wind is still an intermittent power source. It can do nothing but supplement. Tidal generators are more likely for a permanent solution, but once again, you've got a scale factor, and landlocked countries obviously haven't any access to it. That leaves nuclear, which is non-renewable, even if it is zero-carbon. Other emerging tech: google "solar roadways"
Wind can stand for a great deal of the energy, i never said i would like to see wind stand for 100% of the energy demand did i? Nuclear will be "renewable" in a sense not too far down the road (i do not mean a cycle with the plants that will follow ITER).
Seing as you havent read much of what i have written i havent bothered replying to much of what you have written that is handled in my previous posts.
Electric car batteries lifespan 5-10 years increasing (not 2-3), new tech makin
To end it off, all resources that doesnt naturally recreate itself are what we are running out of, i will give you that markets will appear to create new assests for most of these, question is if the negative impact on our planet (read humanity) will allow for a continuing increased technological advancement when firm costs for production steadily increase. I do not believe so especially when there is no populous limitations inserted.
@lassek85 ...from your cooling system, and the water that they get the hydrogen from won't come back. 5-10 year batteries are good and all, but that's still a landfill problem, even if it accrues at half the speed. It doesn't look like you looked up solar roadways like I'd asked. I think this is the best solution. First off, you could have electric cars that are powered by the road - small (or no) batteries req'd. And roads alone could produce 170% of America's current power consumption.
Well did you look up the stirling engine and the new wind power plants and its cost vs carbon? If you had you would have noticed that in within 10 years carbon doesnt have to come out on top cost vs effect (once production is scaled, unless these companies gets bought up & closed down).
I did not look up solar roadways, but i will tonight, give it a few mins atleast. Yeah by 2 solarpanels you can cover most of the home need (with few sunhours) - neighbour has it set up.
@lassek85 ITER is still experimental, and there are other technical hurdles for it (its not cold fusion, and therefore all the energy is expended at once, making it more difficult to harness). There's an experimental cold fusion system under development at MIT where individual particles of hydrogen are pushed close and excited with tiny high precision lasers, but once again, they don't know if it will ever be practical. And fusion is not renewable. You still have radioactive waste...
Okey to start off the fusionpower plants was not what i focused on in the arguement, so i got no clue why you mixed it into this. Though there is allready plans on a larger version after ITER, this before ITER has come basically anyhwere.
What i maybe should have precised was that i meant generation 4 reactors (breedreactors), which uses old nuclearwaste and makes it less radioactive in the process.
Why so? Because we deal with finite resources, not infinite - and we are depleting these at an alarming rate, not to mention the consequences of doing so. If we dont reach sustainability humanity will die (reaching it at the maximum rate of efficiency is obv. a target to be set, meaning sustain as many humans on the planet as possible).
Regarding the electric car you really want to read up on efficiency, electric cars gives you alot more power in relation to energy than gas, oil etc
@lassek85 Electric engines *are* less lossy energy-wise than gasoline, but you are plugging your car into about 60% coal power (in the US,) which is a less clean reaction than unleaded gas. Coupled with the environmental damage caused by the fabrication of huge batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of every 2-3 years, electric cars are arguably worse for the environment than gas. Much like our ethanol boom, its a cure worse than the disease. Takes 2.3 gallons of gas for 1 gal ethanol
@lassek85 We are not depleting our resources at an alarming rate. What resource are we running out of? Most wood/paper comes from tree farms. Organic agriculture is exploding in popularity (at least for US consumers), and we haven't hit peak oil yet, despite what environmentalists keep prophesying. But what if we did? Then the price of oil would go up, recycled plastics cheaper, and more industries would move to that. Woopdie-doo. Overfishing *is* a problem though. Need to privatize the oceans.
Most wood/paper does not come from tree farms, it comes from logging in natural forests / rainforests.
These are not easily recreated if you once have taken them down as most of the bilogical material are in the trees themselves, which once removed obv. doesnt get replaced.
Oil & gas at an increasing rate, look at India, China and several other economies that are "catching up" to the western world right now.
Biodiversity, ocean death, rainforests, GMO (killing the natural cycle)...
@lassek85 In the US most wood/paper does come from tree farms. They're privately owned forests that are logged sustainably, then replanted.
I know fossil fuel consumption continues to rise, but we still haven't hit peak oil, so I don't understand what you mean by "depleting at an alarming rate" when we still have about 50 years left untapped in reserves. Ocean death I've already addressed. Privatizing the rainforests would save them too. See: The Tragedy Of The Commons (thats why they're dying)
You cant privatise the oceans, you can globally regulate them through U.N. - international water are these days being drained by asian and eastern europe fleets alike.
I agree about the price will change once oil rises, but whom do you think will carry that weight? Do you seriously think it wouldnt be more wise to decrease the negative impact on humanity by increasing oil efficiency by regulations than just seing if we will make it once that times comes?
@lassek85 You can privatize the oceans. Its the responsible thing to do. If a person owns something, they take care of it and maintain it. If everybody owns it, everyone will grab what they can from it before someone else takes it. This is why surface fish populations are depleted, then they have to go lower and lower to get any fish, eventually destroying things like coral reefs. If sections of the ocean were privately owned, owners would do their best to ensure sustainable fishing there
@lassek85 And no, I don't believe in regulation because it kills innovation, and right now regulation can't save us but innovation can. If you took the tech we have RIGHT NOW... even the cleanest tech for everything... we would still not be carbon-neutral. Therefore, we should do nothing that would hamper innovative companies. We should promote pro-market policies so we have a strong economy where startups can get the funding they need to try to make their ideas a reality - that's where innovat
Regulation keeps price competition working which should means that it actually helps innovation, otherwise new markets (where price competition works) wouldnt experience a big boost of new technology as they spring up, safeguard opportunity to prosper and you will gain innovation.
I will stop this arguement now, because you stick with the conservative doomsdayplan of increasing consumption (of carbon) when we need to decrease it. Individual rationality vs collective rationality.
There is a huge difference in growth - expansion (nation economy - populus, economics - classicly expanding volumes and increasing profit) to economic growth.
but that isnt even the main issue, the problem is that the big industry is too powerful these days for nations to put up any real demands on, this is why you want to move the problem from what fuelcompany to buy from (dealing with middlehands) to the option which has larger value for society; which company that produces most efficiently and the "best" energy from a consumer pov (aka what energy producing to buy from), -force larger competition onto the stagnant energymarkets of today
@lassek85 I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. First off, "big oil" has seen the writing on the wall. They're actually doing more renewable energy research than anyone else. For example, BP is the world leader in high-efficiency solar cells, and make wind turbines too. Exxon Mobil is working on fuel from algae. Shell has hydrogen pumps at their gas stations (in the US anyway).
I think the consumer should choose which energy source is "best" for them, rather than some bureaucrat.
When markets evolve different types of competition comes into play, in today global society alot of the competition is in information (what info you and your counterpart has), by increasing the market you will force oil as energyform to compete with solar, water wind etc - putting the decision back into the consumers hand and increase the normative force for the owners to proceed buying up energy effective markets faster, producing green energy cost-effective sooner (increase demand).
there shouldn't be a monetary system now in the first place! all this shit she's talking about is based on an outdated system ! i agree - all for sharing of ideas and no intellectual property - but why - for fuck's sake - should we focus on materialistic, egocentric and stagnating system in the first place? urbanization and all that shit is backfiring right about now.
nature. nurture. team-play.
those are the rules.
seams like me against the world, as tupac said. he was never pardoned.
@nublex - getting rid of money is a fool's errand. some form of money will always be replaced by another form because prices are not equal, but various. a glass of water, a house, a candy bar, a haircut. everything has to be paid for somehow. money gets the job done.
@MrIzzyDizzy - seen all three. i debate this topic all the time with my friend who loves the venusproject idea and also understands my position. one of the very important differences is how we DEFINE our terms. monopoly fiat money is unjust and destructive. but sound money is what naturally occurs through voluntary trade to facilitate more complex trading. VProject won't make trade disappear, it's something people do and it is in fact the only way the venus project could be built.
@thisisbunk - your friend doesnt represents the venus projects if she claims it has different interpretation of money - it means fiat money - but this is a moot point now anyway - the us would have to raise federal income tax to 52% today to pay next years interest - that would put the tax burden to around 75% over all if sales - and property taxes where not also raised by citys countys school boards or states (5 layers of taxing) - refinace -borrow from china- these will delay a while maybe
@MrIzzyDizzy weather the project can be built with out barter -idk - barter with who? - when the system is implemented there will be no need to barter as this method will be based on maximum sustainble wealth for all -and that will be a very high level that only multimillionaires surpass now - everything people want and need will be made availble to everyone - barter supposes scarcity - i dont think a case can be made for scarcity in a rbe - if i have access to anything and you do too why barter
@MrIzzyDizzy - let's assume we can teleport to the future and skip everything that would need to happen to get to the working model that the venusproject is selling. let's assume venusproject works. venusproject can produce anything and everything? there is no such thing as scarcity for humans? really? whatever people want they can have?
@MrIzzyDizzy - please read my comment again. i know that venusproject is talking about fiat. if you support the venusproject, why would you want to continue funding the federal government and using fiat money?
@thisisbunk i never said money or barter was needed for tvp i believe you said " its the only way tvp could be built" as to the standard of living -anything that a multi millionaire income could have - we will have access too yes." - when you have free renewable energy and robots working 24/7 365 - there are few limits - you couldnt have a yatchs for a 6 month vacation by yourself - nor could you deliver it via barter -access will be shared to many high luxury items like yatchs
@MrIzzyDizzy - yes, in order to build tvp you will need to trade. whether or not tvp works or not is an unknown factor. promising something that doesn't exist yet is silly. the only way to know what will work is to test the products. until then, it's just a dream and scarcity is a fact of life.
What could be more collaborative than the market? If the DVD is sold one could trade it for so much more than just another DVD. The very nature of money is that it eliminates the need for the coincidence of wants.
Sharing and access are an emerging capital and will (and largely are already) play a critical role in every sphere, from politics, to economics, to environmentalism.
Botsman's point about the gen Y's native sharing habits is eloquent and informative.
@bbb695 Thank you. I thought there was consensus that monkeys and apes are by definition disjoint. Taxonomy with those varying and sometimes fuzzy definitions really can be confusing :/
@bbb695 There is really no argument, we are monkeys. You never stop being something. There are monkey's today, a clan of which we are related but not a part of. Our ancestors, however, were monkeys, such as the ancestors of modern monkeys. Human's are monkey, (as with all great apes) as much are birds are dinosaurs.
@bowerbjo I agree, but saying "some would argue" is a lot less confrontational, my real aim was to get her to watch the AronRa video and not to just simply tell her that I think she’s wrong. That video explains the facts far better than any text comment could, plus it’s a great video, more people should see it.
@bowerbjo No, all wrong, humans are not monkeys and never were monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, but that ancestor was neither a human nor a monkey.
The oldest known primate-like animal is "plesiadapis" living 58-55 mya. The plesiadapis was not a monkey it was a plesiadapis.
"Saadanius hijazensis" (29-28 mya) is the last common ancester of apes and old world monkeys but, again, was neither an ape or monkey.
Birds evolved from theropods but are not theropods they are birds.
The differentiation went: fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal->primate->simian->ape->great ape
We are great apes specifically, but we are also everything we were before. We are fish, which kind of fish? Amphibians, Which kind of amphibians? Reptiles. Which kind of reptiles? Mammals. And so on...
Not all simians are not apes, but all apes are simians.
@t3tsuyaguy1 We are neither fish nor amphibians. We are also derived from one celled organisms that doesn't mean we're one celled. If you want to talk about classification, it's best to use the names of the classes and not some fuzzy colloquial names.
@theyetunusedname clade: a group consisting of an organism and all of it's descendants. You are member of every clade your ancestors were a member of. You are a fish. You a very specific kind of fish (homo sapians sapians), who no longer resembles your fish ancestors in any meaningful way, but you are still a fish.
Also - fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, and many other common colloquial terms are also valid terms of taxonomy. They aren't fuzzy. I'm really not sure why you think they are.
Everything about this clip seems right to me, except sharing physical objects. Renting them out, yes. Sharing them, not so much.
In an ideal world, everyone will put equal wear and take equally good care of an item, but some people will put more strain and wear and take less care of thigns than others, so people will want their own "copies" of these things so they can be taken care of and used in the way they think it should be.
1. we're in a recession because of a housing bubble. now imagine many people sharing cars = instant car bubble. if people need a car for only 1hour, what would happen to the economy when, for example, 20 people share a single car?
2. p2p doesn't pay, and direct rent empowers the renter at the expense of the rentee. there would be sharp dichotomy of power and possession like in the middle ages.
3. recycling. also, china was once a great civilization, no shame in seeing it rise again.
What nonsense. It's not Collaborative Consumption, but UNconsumprion because max sharing leads to min demand to min production to less jobs. So, while it's good on the micro-economical-small-village scale, on macro level (i.e. if all did it with most products) it can lead to global shutdown.
btw, what's the most common p2p sharing? that's right, pirated stuff on bittorent. How's that for a new economical future?
Okay, before this idea of "Collaborative Consumption" becomes "hip", we need a standardized system of doing the Reputation Rating so that we are able to compare not just across one particular site, but across the whole world wide web.
When she watches Sex and the City does it ever cross her mind that she endorses a show (by disclosing that she is a fan of it) that shamelessly illustrates a lifestyle she is campaigning against...I mean kudos to her and I support her cause but real change starts at a subconscious, behavioral level, and if she wants to see a world rid of hyper consumerism, she should not support things which glorify such consumption...................sorry folks, I just simply despise that show. ;\
@Joerexia I understand that, but if it is something that is inherently inconsistent with a principle or idea that is so important to her, I think she should reconsider being a fan of the show. I mean what if I campaigned for vegetarianism and animal rights but I told everyone my favorite show was Carnivore Chronicles (just made that up)? You'd raise an eyebrow or a fist or your voice wouldn't you?
@watchmanthomas Fair enough, but Sex & the City, while stupid, is more innocuous and less viscerally unappealing than I'm guessing Carnivore Chronicles would be to a vegetarian.
@fiscornioman You know, most women I know tell me that the show empowers them and makes them feel confident and independent. But the reality is the show exposes their weakness to resist a consumer culture that highlights their shallowness and that their priorities lie in their material wealth. This show's impact is so detrimental to the impressionable minds of young women out there and in my opinion set the feminist movement back a couple decades.
@watchmanthomas Sorry to butt in, but way to hit the nail on the head. I don't see the confidence or independence in four women spending basically every waking moment obsessing about men.
I was recently presented with a litmus test for how "gender evolved" a movie or TV show is.
1. Are there at least 2 female characters? (central characters, not bit roles)
2. Do they speak to each other?
3. When they speak, is it about anything but men?
Yes to all three, and you have real women characters.
@watchmanthomas I don't get it. The video is an endorsement of the idea, not of the example. I don't have to like the things that are swapped / shared, but I love the idea. And you are wrong; change starts at a conscious level.
@watchmanthomas you know, why those women consume that much? Definitely not because they want to spend money. But to satisfy their longings, which are much more differentiable than shoes rather than pure consumption. Who says that their longings are satisfiable only by consumption? Maybe Botsman got her idea of sharing actually *BY* watching that series? Finally, that series doesn't only communicate consume! to women, also.
P2P trust begins with checking Facebook pages, if i rent out my car i ask for the tenants facebook. that way i know everything about them and immediately understand and develop an intimacy between trades. piracy depeneds on seeds, other peers who are willing to devote personal time and bandwidth in order to allow you to download the file itself. collaborative consumption is the way forward.
If things are being used constantly, they are being worn out constantly. Just think of how many miles you'd have on your car if it was driven 24 hours a day. And there's a reason commercial tools cost a lot more than tools for a private homeowner user. That drill is probably not designed to last through more than 15 hours of use.
THis is why capitalism is so wonderful. It allows for communism without the need of a regime! Because everyone wants to benefit they share, not because they are forced to by others!!!. All hail capitalism and the internet
"Now, mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we're gonna be able to perform a google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital.
And this repution capital will determine our access to colaborative consumption. "
I cringe when I think about what a dedicated group of coercive bullying loonies like the Scientology Church could do to that capital. They are known to swarm against critics using morally questionable or outright illegal methods.
Seriously why does she think viewregistration over the world is increasing (because of a steady barely increasing rate of "terrorist attacks" - redefinitions)? Why internet is going getting censored as never before, and the sites from individuals that do stay up get locked out due to link bombing by companies or simply due to legal actions (better safe than sorry).
(oh btw 2008? - Maybe in England, try a green revolution about 10-15 years earlier in Sweden)
Great presentation of an idea that has a potential to bring us closer to one another. I am seriously considering an attempt to implement it were I live by establishing a small network of peer to peer sharing.
@clearmenser I think that's sort of her point. In the not so distant past, people traded with each other all the time. Growing corporations used their physical capital to monopolize shipping and advertising, in order to carve out ever larger portions of markets. This made p2p trading very difficult to sustain, in any meaningful way. Now, because CERN made the technology behind the internet open to all, we have this medium in which we can "go back to it".
Brilliant talk. I totally agree. But playing it out to completion this move will starve global economy built on overconsumerism, linked to the jobs we have to fuel that. So unless we revolutionise what kind of jobs the growing population does, it will be a crisis and a blessing.
@SSuperCuriouss Yes, I could see a lot of copyright issues to be hammered out here. In time those issues are due to be looked at, and the laws should be changed in the interests of fairness.
In India people have shared real resources like food , shelter for thousands of years - not to mention cars, bikes, music ,etc.. Its funny how individualistic the western societies have become, that the idea of sharing a car is actually considered an evolution. Organic food for ex- has always been a natural way of growing good for thousands of years, was replaced with pesticides only to be re-introduced. Western knowledge has no conceptual foundation - just trial and error goes in circles.
GNU, P2P, Torrents, Wiki, forums, social media. The tech side of it has already had collaborative consumption platforms for a while now, what will take longer is entrepeneurs discovering and taking the step apply the same principles to sharable physical objects. Key is security and avalibility, and ofcause price. Many such services will depend on population density to be efficient, whereas the non-physical services needs only reliable internett access and sufficient bandwidth.
@gulllars Yes, in the future items will have value inverse proportional to their ability to be digitized. New information, machines and commodities will have value, while older media/information will have to recede back to its actual low value in the scheme of things.
I believe!
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
More videos please
juliacotic 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think there are many sites that change human behavior and that is because we have not a strong personality and we are easily to manipulated
andreeaweed 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IGzakt you are IGnorant
Rebeccasnogueira 5 months ago
Yes, I am for destroying the economy and replacing it with a resource based economy, moneyless economy or even love based economy. The so called 'economy' we have today can't survive. And in the end, money is not really needed when we all share and give without expecting anything in return. When the world is seen as One Big Family, this can be a reality.
gutzbramah 6 months ago 12
@gutzbramah love it! :) preach!!
realpassionlife 3 weeks ago
@gutzbramah I love you man/woman. You are awesome
crudhousefull 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from TEDtalksDirector
BEST EVER!
rosailinka1 8 months ago
Or you could just stream it online, save the money on the delivery costs...and get immediate satisfaction.
infidelity89 9 months ago
@infidelity89
Could you stream a console? Or a game for that matter? It's not like the only thing they trade are dvd's...
donkisiko 1 month ago
It isn't communism you idiots, it's one of the systems our ancestors every had, the barter system. Only its a bit more sophisticated since it'd be almost instantaneous to find someone willing to exchange one good for another.
glitchnoise 9 months ago 9
awesome!
prettyful18 11 months ago
37 corporative CEOs watched this video.
SEThatered 11 months ago 2
priceless 11:08-
locanix 1 year ago
we are not monkeys. .
artazhar84 1 year ago
I'd share my goods with her....
SirBlackAcid 1 year ago
I strongly doubt they are yet doing the most of the energy research btw, as i though am as certain on that the ones who own the carbon markets will own the new energy markets as time goes (yes the stagnant part of the power elite - the top).
lassek85 1 year ago
the previous regards the"successful" summit in Copenhagen. We have allready passed some important tipping points, populationto mention the biggest one - there are math done on this subject posted here on youtube (albert bartlett to to mention one).
Yes my defintion of a growing economy is an expanding one, not one with the same amount of value but increasing moneyflow (which would be a zero growth economy).
An economy that doesnt turn into a zero growth economy would be cataclysmic to humanity
lassek85 1 year ago
ugh has she not heard of bittorrent ?
amiasc 1 year ago
we share yards, seeds, fruit, veg, potlucks etc - over 300 groups all over the place watch?v=PxO4JUaTzgA
hyperlocavore 1 year ago
I think there is a small chance, if she is correct, that a model such as this could lead to an increased focus on quality.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Co... Co... Co... Copyrights???
TheMuseumDude 1 year ago
Im very tired of the people here relates this to communism, there is a big difference in the people controlling the means of production versus sharing products bought in a liberal market economy.
Calling this communism is as intelligent as calling liberalism as base of freedom.
lassek85 1 year ago
Excellent talk
TJtraceur 1 year ago
Oh... and yea... the ideas here are communist, but if this is what people want, the market will be forced to adapt.
Aslapacrosstheface 1 year ago
@Aslapacrosstheface Communism is a government enforcing the distribution of resources artificially and often against people's will, based not on interpersonal interaction and trust building, but on abstract standards of "equality".
This is not Communism. She is suggesting people voluntarily work together, to develop these concepts gradually, in order to meet their own needs, on their own terms; rather than, remaining slaves to a consumerist bastardization of Capitalism (itself unsustainable).
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
The recording industry is going to explode... if you can just share the physical copy of something it can be enjoyed any number of times and paid for just once - all legally.
Just based on what she is saying, the piracy war is going to intensify very soon.
Aslapacrosstheface 1 year ago
I agree that her presentation was bad. Although her ideas might be interesting.
al3030 1 year ago
the idea is actually pretty interesting, but the presentation was horrible... she really failed in getting the idea across properly!
LeMixtapeRomance 1 year ago
In a world of limited resources, it only makes sense to share.
LudicrousTachyon 1 year ago
Total communist. Thumbs-up if you're for destroying the economy
Jaspian 1 year ago 3
@Jaspian
The concept of zero growth economy is here, either you get used to it or you will help to destroy humanity. Somehow i rank human survival over the global economy.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 Um... you're a fringe wacko alarmist. Nobody (or very few people) believe in a zero-growth economy. Even the experts, who've collectively pushed off the estimated "point of no return" for global warming to 2100, now say that curbing economic growth now, may deny us the research and technologies that we will need to actually save the planet when the real climate crisis starts to emerge a century from now.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Technology increase efficiency, it comes from information. With increasing efficiency you can still have growing profit with 0 growth, put on top that you will have a growing moneyflow as resources gets redistributed with growing wealth and better education. So even for a conservative or liberal it should be plausible with 0 growth.
What you speak of is an all in plan that conservatives present - by going faster we will outmanouver unsustainability with technological advancement.
lassek85 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Even a ahrdcore RC or ill stretch to PC realises the problem with putting all the eggs in one basket.
Please give me a reference to the point of no return litrature and i really hope its not from the USA, because htey have no intrest in sustaining status quo.
Alot of people believe in sustainability (0 growth), if you kept up with the front line litrature you would know that, the last report i read on it was "Prosperity without growth?" by Tim Jackson
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 I'm talking about ECONOMIC growth... I'm not sure what you're talking about. Growing "wealth" and "moneyflow" *is* economic growth. However, its not some conservative talking point that our chances of averting a cataclysmic climate change are more likely with economic growth. We *do not* have the tech to prevent climate change right now. Therefore, someone who's sincere about saving the planet should support pro-growth economic policies, where ecology research can be well-funded.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
First off, please refer me to the source, aka if you dont know it ask whomever gave the reference in the first hand to refer you so i can check it out - this doesnt mean im discrediting you, it means i find it interesting.
2:nd off - your communist comment now makes no sense, why would you not increase products longetiviety and efficiency as a liberal who cheers on the "free market" efficiency? If you grasp the concept of 0 growth and understand the difference to 0 economic growth...
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 First off, you said "zero growth ECONOMY. An economy that doesn't grow permanently would be cataclysmic to human civilization. As for my sources, the most well-known is the Copenhagen Consensus... but their findings shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who knows about the issue. We do not have the technology to avert climate change today. Moving from gas heat and cars to electric is just trading one fossil fuel for coal, and large-scale renewables isn't capable of sustaining civilization
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Well analysis of the future where a cost is decreased and not increased due to technology (that is allready available, in sweden for an example there has been an effort to decrease the weight of windturbines which resulted in a 20% cut, google it, common knowledge - which decrease the costs dramatically and puts it at level or about to more carbonintensive energy) and the sterling engine has also been adapted to work with solarpanels - aka the costeffective technology is there TODAY
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 No. Wind turbines will never replace fossil fuels, as it would take a wind farm the size of Colorado to power the US alone, and wind is still an intermittent power source. It can do nothing but supplement. Tidal generators are more likely for a permanent solution, but once again, you've got a scale factor, and landlocked countries obviously haven't any access to it. That leaves nuclear, which is non-renewable, even if it is zero-carbon. Other emerging tech: google "solar roadways"
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Wind can stand for a great deal of the energy, i never said i would like to see wind stand for 100% of the energy demand did i? Nuclear will be "renewable" in a sense not too far down the road (i do not mean a cycle with the plants that will follow ITER).
Seing as you havent read much of what i have written i havent bothered replying to much of what you have written that is handled in my previous posts.
Electric car batteries lifespan 5-10 years increasing (not 2-3), new tech makin
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85
g batteries alot more envrio-friendly.
To end it off, all resources that doesnt naturally recreate itself are what we are running out of, i will give you that markets will appear to create new assests for most of these, question is if the negative impact on our planet (read humanity) will allow for a continuing increased technological advancement when firm costs for production steadily increase. I do not believe so especially when there is no populous limitations inserted.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 ...from your cooling system, and the water that they get the hydrogen from won't come back. 5-10 year batteries are good and all, but that's still a landfill problem, even if it accrues at half the speed. It doesn't look like you looked up solar roadways like I'd asked. I think this is the best solution. First off, you could have electric cars that are powered by the road - small (or no) batteries req'd. And roads alone could produce 170% of America's current power consumption.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Well did you look up the stirling engine and the new wind power plants and its cost vs carbon? If you had you would have noticed that in within 10 years carbon doesnt have to come out on top cost vs effect (once production is scaled, unless these companies gets bought up & closed down).
I did not look up solar roadways, but i will tonight, give it a few mins atleast. Yeah by 2 solarpanels you can cover most of the home need (with few sunhours) - neighbour has it set up.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 ITER is still experimental, and there are other technical hurdles for it (its not cold fusion, and therefore all the energy is expended at once, making it more difficult to harness). There's an experimental cold fusion system under development at MIT where individual particles of hydrogen are pushed close and excited with tiny high precision lasers, but once again, they don't know if it will ever be practical. And fusion is not renewable. You still have radioactive waste...
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Okey to start off the fusionpower plants was not what i focused on in the arguement, so i got no clue why you mixed it into this. Though there is allready plans on a larger version after ITER, this before ITER has come basically anyhwere.
What i maybe should have precised was that i meant generation 4 reactors (breedreactors), which uses old nuclearwaste and makes it less radioactive in the process.
lassek85 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Why so? Because we deal with finite resources, not infinite - and we are depleting these at an alarming rate, not to mention the consequences of doing so. If we dont reach sustainability humanity will die (reaching it at the maximum rate of efficiency is obv. a target to be set, meaning sustain as many humans on the planet as possible).
Regarding the electric car you really want to read up on efficiency, electric cars gives you alot more power in relation to energy than gas, oil etc
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 Electric engines *are* less lossy energy-wise than gasoline, but you are plugging your car into about 60% coal power (in the US,) which is a less clean reaction than unleaded gas. Coupled with the environmental damage caused by the fabrication of huge batteries that need to be replaced and disposed of every 2-3 years, electric cars are arguably worse for the environment than gas. Much like our ethanol boom, its a cure worse than the disease. Takes 2.3 gallons of gas for 1 gal ethanol
Jaspian 1 year ago
@lassek85 We are not depleting our resources at an alarming rate. What resource are we running out of? Most wood/paper comes from tree farms. Organic agriculture is exploding in popularity (at least for US consumers), and we haven't hit peak oil yet, despite what environmentalists keep prophesying. But what if we did? Then the price of oil would go up, recycled plastics cheaper, and more industries would move to that. Woopdie-doo. Overfishing *is* a problem though. Need to privatize the oceans.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Most wood/paper does not come from tree farms, it comes from logging in natural forests / rainforests.
These are not easily recreated if you once have taken them down as most of the bilogical material are in the trees themselves, which once removed obv. doesnt get replaced.
Oil & gas at an increasing rate, look at India, China and several other economies that are "catching up" to the western world right now.
Biodiversity, ocean death, rainforests, GMO (killing the natural cycle)...
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 In the US most wood/paper does come from tree farms. They're privately owned forests that are logged sustainably, then replanted.
I know fossil fuel consumption continues to rise, but we still haven't hit peak oil, so I don't understand what you mean by "depleting at an alarming rate" when we still have about 50 years left untapped in reserves. Ocean death I've already addressed. Privatizing the rainforests would save them too. See: The Tragedy Of The Commons (thats why they're dying)
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
You cant privatise the oceans, you can globally regulate them through U.N. - international water are these days being drained by asian and eastern europe fleets alike.
I agree about the price will change once oil rises, but whom do you think will carry that weight? Do you seriously think it wouldnt be more wise to decrease the negative impact on humanity by increasing oil efficiency by regulations than just seing if we will make it once that times comes?
US is ONE part of the world.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 You can privatize the oceans. Its the responsible thing to do. If a person owns something, they take care of it and maintain it. If everybody owns it, everyone will grab what they can from it before someone else takes it. This is why surface fish populations are depleted, then they have to go lower and lower to get any fish, eventually destroying things like coral reefs. If sections of the ocean were privately owned, owners would do their best to ensure sustainable fishing there
Jaspian 1 year ago
@lassek85 And no, I don't believe in regulation because it kills innovation, and right now regulation can't save us but innovation can. If you took the tech we have RIGHT NOW... even the cleanest tech for everything... we would still not be carbon-neutral. Therefore, we should do nothing that would hamper innovative companies. We should promote pro-market policies so we have a strong economy where startups can get the funding they need to try to make their ideas a reality - that's where innovat
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Regulation keeps price competition working which should means that it actually helps innovation, otherwise new markets (where price competition works) wouldnt experience a big boost of new technology as they spring up, safeguard opportunity to prosper and you will gain innovation.
I will stop this arguement now, because you stick with the conservative doomsdayplan of increasing consumption (of carbon) when we need to decrease it. Individual rationality vs collective rationality.
lassek85 1 year ago
@Jaspian
There is a huge difference in growth - expansion (nation economy - populus, economics - classicly expanding volumes and increasing profit) to economic growth.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85
but that isnt even the main issue, the problem is that the big industry is too powerful these days for nations to put up any real demands on, this is why you want to move the problem from what fuelcompany to buy from (dealing with middlehands) to the option which has larger value for society; which company that produces most efficiently and the "best" energy from a consumer pov (aka what energy producing to buy from), -force larger competition onto the stagnant energymarkets of today
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 I'm not sure what you're saying here, really. First off, "big oil" has seen the writing on the wall. They're actually doing more renewable energy research than anyone else. For example, BP is the world leader in high-efficiency solar cells, and make wind turbines too. Exxon Mobil is working on fuel from algae. Shell has hydrogen pumps at their gas stations (in the US anyway).
I think the consumer should choose which energy source is "best" for them, rather than some bureaucrat.
Jaspian 1 year ago
@Jaspian
When markets evolve different types of competition comes into play, in today global society alot of the competition is in information (what info you and your counterpart has), by increasing the market you will force oil as energyform to compete with solar, water wind etc - putting the decision back into the consumers hand and increase the normative force for the owners to proceed buying up energy effective markets faster, producing green energy cost-effective sooner (increase demand).
lassek85 1 year ago
@Jaspian
Excuse my spelling in a hurry, the report is wide and should be a good introduction - read it about 2-3 months ago so been a while now.
lassek85 1 year ago
there shouldn't be a monetary system now in the first place! all this shit she's talking about is based on an outdated system ! i agree - all for sharing of ideas and no intellectual property - but why - for fuck's sake - should we focus on materialistic, egocentric and stagnating system in the first place? urbanization and all that shit is backfiring right about now.
nature. nurture. team-play.
those are the rules.
seams like me against the world, as tupac said. he was never pardoned.
nublex 1 year ago
@nublex - getting rid of money is a fool's errand. some form of money will always be replaced by another form because prices are not equal, but various. a glass of water, a house, a candy bar, a haircut. everything has to be paid for somehow. money gets the job done.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk your brain is infected my the world wide monetary system - you should watch zietgiest addendum it may be an opener -
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy - seen all three. i debate this topic all the time with my friend who loves the venusproject idea and also understands my position. one of the very important differences is how we DEFINE our terms. monopoly fiat money is unjust and destructive. but sound money is what naturally occurs through voluntary trade to facilitate more complex trading. VProject won't make trade disappear, it's something people do and it is in fact the only way the venus project could be built.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk - your friend doesnt represents the venus projects if she claims it has different interpretation of money - it means fiat money - but this is a moot point now anyway - the us would have to raise federal income tax to 52% today to pay next years interest - that would put the tax burden to around 75% over all if sales - and property taxes where not also raised by citys countys school boards or states (5 layers of taxing) - refinace -borrow from china- these will delay a while maybe
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy weather the project can be built with out barter -idk - barter with who? - when the system is implemented there will be no need to barter as this method will be based on maximum sustainble wealth for all -and that will be a very high level that only multimillionaires surpass now - everything people want and need will be made availble to everyone - barter supposes scarcity - i dont think a case can be made for scarcity in a rbe - if i have access to anything and you do too why barter
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy - let's assume we can teleport to the future and skip everything that would need to happen to get to the working model that the venusproject is selling. let's assume venusproject works. venusproject can produce anything and everything? there is no such thing as scarcity for humans? really? whatever people want they can have?
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy - please read my comment again. i know that venusproject is talking about fiat. if you support the venusproject, why would you want to continue funding the federal government and using fiat money?
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk i never said money or barter was needed for tvp i believe you said " its the only way tvp could be built" as to the standard of living -anything that a multi millionaire income could have - we will have access too yes." - when you have free renewable energy and robots working 24/7 365 - there are few limits - you couldnt have a yatchs for a 6 month vacation by yourself - nor could you deliver it via barter -access will be shared to many high luxury items like yatchs
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
@MrIzzyDizzy - yes, in order to build tvp you will need to trade. whether or not tvp works or not is an unknown factor. promising something that doesn't exist yet is silly. the only way to know what will work is to test the products. until then, it's just a dream and scarcity is a fact of life.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
@thisisbunk by* eye* opener
MrIzzyDizzy 1 year ago
Thats what the communists wanted!
nurlanagabek 1 year ago 4
some societies are far ahead of the rest and the distance is growing.
nurlanagabek 1 year ago
@nurlanagabek where the fuck did you get that from?
nublex 1 year ago
Is she talking about torrent service?)))
nurlanagabek 1 year ago
all i can say is ... duuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, welcome to the modern world.
i guess we need someone to explain the internet to those unfortunate few who have been living under a rock for the last decade.
neurocrater 1 year ago
Co... Co... Co... Communist!!!
igzakt 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Co... Co... Co... Copyrights???
TheMuseumDude 1 year ago
@igzakt You think sharing is communism??? 0_0
MilesTyson 1 year ago
@igzakt Is that even an argument?
chapulinaaa 8 months ago
Hot, damn, I will swap it with you beautiful!
GrimSoul66 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What could be more collaborative than the market? If the DVD is sold one could trade it for so much more than just another DVD. The very nature of money is that it eliminates the need for the coincidence of wants.
tr0yzilla 1 year ago
Comment removed
tr0yzilla 1 year ago
isn't it strange how most things that benefit society are illegal?
theking4mayor 1 year ago 2
so software piracy is a great way for collaborative consumption right? because less money circulates the market and we still get what we want :)
not that I endorse illegal activities.
HungryLama 1 year ago
Outstanding and enlightening Thanks Rachel!
ac4uv 1 year ago
Sharing and access are an emerging capital and will (and largely are already) play a critical role in every sphere, from politics, to economics, to environmentalism.
Botsman's point about the gen Y's native sharing habits is eloquent and informative.
bowerbjo 1 year ago
We aren't monkeys. We are apes.
theyetunusedname 1 year ago
@theyetunusedname some would argue that Apes are Monkeys
watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695 Thank you. I thought there was consensus that monkeys and apes are by definition disjoint. Taxonomy with those varying and sometimes fuzzy definitions really can be confusing :/
theyetunusedname 1 year ago
@bbb695 There is really no argument, we are monkeys. You never stop being something. There are monkey's today, a clan of which we are related but not a part of. Our ancestors, however, were monkeys, such as the ancestors of modern monkeys. Human's are monkey, (as with all great apes) as much are birds are dinosaurs.
bowerbjo 1 year ago
@bowerbjo I agree, but saying "some would argue" is a lot less confrontational, my real aim was to get her to watch the AronRa video and not to just simply tell her that I think she’s wrong. That video explains the facts far better than any text comment could, plus it’s a great video, more people should see it.
bbb695 1 year ago
@bbb695 True say. Was a nice chat. Happy holidays!
bowerbjo 1 year ago
@bowerbjo No, all wrong, humans are not monkeys and never were monkeys. We share a common ancestor with monkeys, but that ancestor was neither a human nor a monkey.
The oldest known primate-like animal is "plesiadapis" living 58-55 mya. The plesiadapis was not a monkey it was a plesiadapis.
"Saadanius hijazensis" (29-28 mya) is the last common ancester of apes and old world monkeys but, again, was neither an ape or monkey.
Birds evolved from theropods but are not theropods they are birds.
Experiment47 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
Jointi5 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Experiment47 Thank you. I appreciate people with knowledge and the volition to share it!
Jointi5 1 year ago
@theyetunusedname But we ARE monkeys.
The differentiation went: fish->amphibian->reptile->mammal->primate->simian->ape->great ape
We are great apes specifically, but we are also everything we were before. We are fish, which kind of fish? Amphibians, Which kind of amphibians? Reptiles. Which kind of reptiles? Mammals. And so on...
Not all simians are not apes, but all apes are simians.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@t3tsuyaguy1 We are neither fish nor amphibians. We are also derived from one celled organisms that doesn't mean we're one celled. If you want to talk about classification, it's best to use the names of the classes and not some fuzzy colloquial names.
theyetunusedname 1 year ago
@theyetunusedname clade: a group consisting of an organism and all of it's descendants. You are member of every clade your ancestors were a member of. You are a fish. You a very specific kind of fish (homo sapians sapians), who no longer resembles your fish ancestors in any meaningful way, but you are still a fish.
Also - fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal, and many other common colloquial terms are also valid terms of taxonomy. They aren't fuzzy. I'm really not sure why you think they are.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
Everything about this clip seems right to me, except sharing physical objects. Renting them out, yes. Sharing them, not so much.
In an ideal world, everyone will put equal wear and take equally good care of an item, but some people will put more strain and wear and take less care of thigns than others, so people will want their own "copies" of these things so they can be taken care of and used in the way they think it should be.
Arcus2658 1 year ago
Connecting your brain to INTERNET will solve everything described. :)
You will "think" you have anything and can do everything.
But to be serious there are interesting ideas in this video.
electrodacus 1 year ago
Filesharing come to anyone elses mind???
imhallowarren 1 year ago
I want to meet her boyfriend or her husband to see if I can "swap" a copy a 24 for her!!
racpembertondual 1 year ago 2
@FreboyDT
1. we're in a recession because of a housing bubble. now imagine many people sharing cars = instant car bubble. if people need a car for only 1hour, what would happen to the economy when, for example, 20 people share a single car?
2. p2p doesn't pay, and direct rent empowers the renter at the expense of the rentee. there would be sharp dichotomy of power and possession like in the middle ages.
3. recycling. also, china was once a great civilization, no shame in seeing it rise again.
VaeVictisAeternum 1 year ago
What nonsense. It's not Collaborative Consumption, but UNconsumprion because max sharing leads to min demand to min production to less jobs. So, while it's good on the micro-economical-small-village scale, on macro level (i.e. if all did it with most products) it can lead to global shutdown.
btw, what's the most common p2p sharing? that's right, pirated stuff on bittorent. How's that for a new economical future?
VaeVictisAeternum 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
dayummm she is so fine
marktheman045 1 year ago
Now is the time. We have the technology to get rid of money.
redsbr 1 year ago
@redsbr -- um... ?? define money.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
estoy aquí por la #leysinde
cosy18 1 year ago
Okay, before this idea of "Collaborative Consumption" becomes "hip", we need a standardized system of doing the Reputation Rating so that we are able to compare not just across one particular site, but across the whole world wide web.
kommaV1023 1 year ago
When she watches Sex and the City does it ever cross her mind that she endorses a show (by disclosing that she is a fan of it) that shamelessly illustrates a lifestyle she is campaigning against...I mean kudos to her and I support her cause but real change starts at a subconscious, behavioral level, and if she wants to see a world rid of hyper consumerism, she should not support things which glorify such consumption...................sorry folks, I just simply despise that show. ;\
watchmanthomas 1 year ago 45
@watchmanthomas
true, that's what went through my mind too!
agraver 1 year ago
@agraver Cannot wait for Zeitgeist III in January, right?!
watchmanthomas 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas There is such a thing as a guilty pleasure.
Joerexia 1 year ago
@Joerexia I understand that, but if it is something that is inherently inconsistent with a principle or idea that is so important to her, I think she should reconsider being a fan of the show. I mean what if I campaigned for vegetarianism and animal rights but I told everyone my favorite show was Carnivore Chronicles (just made that up)? You'd raise an eyebrow or a fist or your voice wouldn't you?
watchmanthomas 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas Fair enough, but Sex & the City, while stupid, is more innocuous and less viscerally unappealing than I'm guessing Carnivore Chronicles would be to a vegetarian.
Joerexia 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas that makes the two of us
wickedinsight 1 year ago
I totally agree, i hate that show, i hate everything that show portrays.
fiscornioman 1 year ago 5
@fiscornioman You know, most women I know tell me that the show empowers them and makes them feel confident and independent. But the reality is the show exposes their weakness to resist a consumer culture that highlights their shallowness and that their priorities lie in their material wealth. This show's impact is so detrimental to the impressionable minds of young women out there and in my opinion set the feminist movement back a couple decades.
watchmanthomas 1 year ago
Agreed.
fiscornioman 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas Sorry to butt in, but way to hit the nail on the head. I don't see the confidence or independence in four women spending basically every waking moment obsessing about men.
I was recently presented with a litmus test for how "gender evolved" a movie or TV show is.
1. Are there at least 2 female characters? (central characters, not bit roles)
2. Do they speak to each other?
3. When they speak, is it about anything but men?
Yes to all three, and you have real women characters.
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
@fiscornioman Your Sex and the City is my Jersey Shore. Cancel those two fucks
erik4727 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas Would you say James Bond movies promote spying?
jestempies 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas I don't get it. The video is an endorsement of the idea, not of the example. I don't have to like the things that are swapped / shared, but I love the idea. And you are wrong; change starts at a conscious level.
ExpieMF 1 year ago
@watchmanthomas you know, why those women consume that much? Definitely not because they want to spend money. But to satisfy their longings, which are much more differentiable than shoes rather than pure consumption. Who says that their longings are satisfiable only by consumption? Maybe Botsman got her idea of sharing actually *BY* watching that series? Finally, that series doesn't only communicate consume! to women, also.
sp4zzpp2 1 year ago
epic
gaynm 1 year ago
Quite like her idea, the collective consumption might just be an answer to eco problems. We may not have to produce so much if we just share.
Have man kind reached a state, yet (?), of civilisation that can allow for this kind of sharing to happen taking away the act of selfishness?
kristinanne 1 year ago
17 minutes to say "rent don't buy and sell what you're not using."
notme222 1 year ago 2
hah, I liked that torrent pun.
joebobfrank666 1 year ago
P2P trust begins with checking Facebook pages, if i rent out my car i ask for the tenants facebook. that way i know everything about them and immediately understand and develop an intimacy between trades. piracy depeneds on seeds, other peers who are willing to devote personal time and bandwidth in order to allow you to download the file itself. collaborative consumption is the way forward.
jin455 1 year ago
this video reminded me of the awesomeness potential for creative commons
MrJaiLeeworthy 1 year ago
She just discovered the market.
sharperguy 1 year ago
If things are being used constantly, they are being worn out constantly. Just think of how many miles you'd have on your car if it was driven 24 hours a day. And there's a reason commercial tools cost a lot more than tools for a private homeowner user. That drill is probably not designed to last through more than 15 hours of use.
JeanKM1 1 year ago 2
THis is why capitalism is so wonderful. It allows for communism without the need of a regime! Because everyone wants to benefit they share, not because they are forced to by others!!!. All hail capitalism and the internet
princeofexcess 1 year ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
>> reveal/find any web based email password for cheap! >>
reveal-mail(dot) com <
revealteam 1 year ago
"Now, mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we're gonna be able to perform a google-like search and see a cumulative picture of our reputation capital.
And this repution capital will determine our access to colaborative consumption. "
I cringe when I think about what a dedicated group of coercive bullying loonies like the Scientology Church could do to that capital. They are known to swarm against critics using morally questionable or outright illegal methods.
kaminarigaston 1 year ago 2
Seriously why does she think viewregistration over the world is increasing (because of a steady barely increasing rate of "terrorist attacks" - redefinitions)? Why internet is going getting censored as never before, and the sites from individuals that do stay up get locked out due to link bombing by companies or simply due to legal actions (better safe than sorry).
(oh btw 2008? - Maybe in England, try a green revolution about 10-15 years earlier in Sweden)
lassek85 1 year ago
Great presentation of an idea that has a potential to bring us closer to one another. I am seriously considering an attempt to implement it were I live by establishing a small network of peer to peer sharing.
krot13 1 year ago
Great talk.
This is why torrents are awesome. XD
Silverstarlightt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I've never heard of one of these websites.
tdreamgmail 1 year ago
does anyone else hear the person fiddling with the overhead camera... i feel like i hear weird feedback every time it cuts to that
hossboss96 1 year ago
torrents is the best form of sharing
ChocolateMagicEyes 1 year ago 3
i liked the part about trading...
Kishgofu 1 year ago
Gosh I hope she's right. I'm having trouble having as much faith in humanity as she does.
StealingBread 1 year ago
@StealingBread I take it you think you can do better?
michetox 1 year ago
@michetox Uh, no that's not what I was saying at all... She is just more hopeful than me.
StealingBread 1 year ago
brilliant and hopefull
brbrhej 1 year ago
This is a Patternist speech extraordinaire.
clearmenser 1 year ago
in a perfect world with selfless people, sure. in our selfish society - absolute fail
razotan 1 year ago
It's not a new thing, we're going back to it.
clearmenser 1 year ago
@clearmenser I think that's sort of her point. In the not so distant past, people traded with each other all the time. Growing corporations used their physical capital to monopolize shipping and advertising, in order to carve out ever larger portions of markets. This made p2p trading very difficult to sustain, in any meaningful way. Now, because CERN made the technology behind the internet open to all, we have this medium in which we can "go back to it".
t3tsuyaguy1 1 year ago
So uh...basically, trading?
DancingChakra 1 year ago
Brilliant talk. I totally agree. But playing it out to completion this move will starve global economy built on overconsumerism, linked to the jobs we have to fuel that. So unless we revolutionise what kind of jobs the growing population does, it will be a crisis and a blessing.
SSuperCuriouss 1 year ago
Sure, try media sharing/swopping on the internet (thus cutting out the profit of the posting company) and you're relabelled a pirate.
SSuperCuriouss 1 year ago
@SSuperCuriouss Yes, I could see a lot of copyright issues to be hammered out here. In time those issues are due to be looked at, and the laws should be changed in the interests of fairness.
JeanKM1 1 year ago
@JeanKM1 - to be fair, i don't think fairness is the bottom-line, principal, or goal, even though it is or may often be a legitimate concern.
thisisbunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, she's hot...but her idea is hotter, what makes her hotter then her idea, but never mind :P...
...i just wish i can live it the perfect sharing world :)...
TheCorruptedFiles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, she's hot...but her idea is hotter, what makes her hotter then her idea, but never mind :P...
...i just wish i can live it the perfect sharing world :)...
TheCorruptedFiles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, she's hot...but her idea is hotter, what makes her hotter then her idea, but never mind :P...
...i just wish i can live it the perfect sharing world :)...
TheCorruptedFiles 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yeah, she's hot...but her idea is hotter, what makes her hotter then her idea...but never mind :P
...i just wish i can live it the perfect sharing world :)...
TheCorruptedFiles 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheCorruptedFiles 1 year ago
Gotta get rid of those "evil" cars...
Sheesh.
freesk8 1 year ago
In India people have shared real resources like food , shelter for thousands of years - not to mention cars, bikes, music ,etc.. Its funny how individualistic the western societies have become, that the idea of sharing a car is actually considered an evolution. Organic food for ex- has always been a natural way of growing good for thousands of years, was replaced with pesticides only to be re-introduced. Western knowledge has no conceptual foundation - just trial and error goes in circles.
acidcrashguy 1 year ago
GNU, P2P, Torrents, Wiki, forums, social media. The tech side of it has already had collaborative consumption platforms for a while now, what will take longer is entrepeneurs discovering and taking the step apply the same principles to sharable physical objects. Key is security and avalibility, and ofcause price. Many such services will depend on population density to be efficient, whereas the non-physical services needs only reliable internett access and sufficient bandwidth.
gulllars 1 year ago
@gulllars Yes, in the future items will have value inverse proportional to their ability to be digitized. New information, machines and commodities will have value, while older media/information will have to recede back to its actual low value in the scheme of things.
hughtub 1 year ago