@ozzyxs lazyness is the lack of motivation, and lack of motivation is the inability to see an proper outcome in relation to input.This is natural behaviour of living beings, and called law of energy efficiency. Money is just a way to measure that behaviour in numbers. If someone doesn't like his job, then he is most likely working more than receiving.Maybe he is just undervaluing money,but then:why go to work?Maybe he is undervaluing money,cause he used to get it easier from his"wealthy"parents?
@subversiveoptimism So intrinsic motivation is the answer. Intrinsic motivation is implemented at present day: think of the non profit organisations. Still, there are people who dont't want to work despite the intrinsic motivation. Solution: The job doesn't get done, or if you really wan't the job get done you do it yourself. Option C: You offer people a reward so the job gets done. Aha! Now money gets involved.
@NeoCorporatism well, actually, part of the reasoning for not using money, besides the fact that money invariably leads to hierarchy and stratification, is that the only work that will get done is the work people actually want to do. keep in mind that without money, all jobs relating to money (insurance, bankers, cashiers, stockbrokers, advertising, etc, etc) are eliminated immediately. coupled with automation being implemented to any repetitive, mundane job (cont'd)
@NeoCorporatism (cont'd) (almost all production work, agriculture, etc could be automated), the amount of work needing to be done to maintain a high standard of living for everyone is only a fraction of the work being done today. reduced so substantially that all work could be done on a volunteer basis. so those that dont want to work, and prefer to learn, or relax, would have that luxury, and no one would need feel resentful because they would only be doing as much as they like
@NeoCorporatism well, i'd like to work at any job, as far as i can "live good". i'd study on science (i am a biochemist by the way), computer, electronics.. anything. i have a brain, and acces to my legs, hands and sensoriel organs so i have capability to learn and work on anything. "lazyness" is what corporation promt on TV ads. "buy this and live well".. "if you have lots of money you don't have to work, everything is done for you.." and "that shit has got to go"
@ozzyxs if there is no money to worry about, no religion to blind eyes, politician to cheat, corrupted media to create mass madness, it would be very peacefull isn't it? but who wants that? we all want mooooore of everything, do we? oh no we don't. we people just want to live well and in peace not "rest", LIVE!
Interesting video! What this video didn't explain, how do people get motivated to work for other people? If everyone gets access to same resources, regardless of how much they work, it rewards lazyness. And if everyones gets lazy, how do new goods or services get created?
Who is intrested in trying to get something like this into power in countries, A "Utopian Socalist" Party would be the name aiming for a united earth with this plan in place whos with me?
@Stillillgal If the intention behind this video is clear.. The "owner" of the idea is not important..+ jacque must have "stolen" it from many other scientist and thinkers from human history..
it is not about the "messenger" but about the message.
@thiizzman510 No they were not living in harmony. The plains indians would drive a heard of bison over a cliff, harvest what they needed and leave the rest. Many native cultures outstripped their resources and ceased to exist. They engaged in constant warfare with eachother.
@Robbob9933 WELL WE CAN ALL SAY THAT PEOPLE FIGHT FIGHT WITH EACHOTHER,,,,,BUT I FEEL SAFER WHEN SOME INDIANS FIGHT IN THE BUSHES WITH ROCK AND STICKS....THAN A WHITE MAN HIDING BEHIND NUCLEAR BOMBS....WHEN NATIVES ROAMED THE LAND THERE WAS AND ENDLESS SUPPLY OF BUFFALO.....WHEN WHITES SHOWED UP THEY SHOT THEM ALL ALMOST TO EXTINCTION AND DIDNT USE ANY OF THE MEAT AT ALL....IM SURE WHITE PEOPLE CAUSED MORE GENOCIDE AND DAMADE TO EARTH THAN ANY INDIGENOUS CULTURE IN THE WHOLE WORLD..
@Robbob9933 ASK ANY CULTURE..THEY HATE WHITE PEOPLE...AND NOT BECAUSE U GUYS "HELPED" THEM LIKE U THINK.....TRIBES ACROSS THE WORLD ARE KNOWN TO HAVE A WHITE MAN DEVIL DANCE AROUND THE FIRE,,,U THINK IT CAUSE THEY LIKE YOU???LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL,,,,,,UR BLINDED BY THE WHITENESS OF UR PASTEY BRIGHT SKIN...NOW GO GET SKIN CANCER IN THE SUN U UNNATURAL PIECE OF INBREED PILGRIM.
@thiizzman510 When the indians arrived, there the wooley mamouth was in plentiful supply as were the short faced bear, the sabre toothed cat, the horse (white man reintroduced these), the giant sloth, and many others but they indians killed them off. Go get yourself a full body tatoo you pastey self loathing white dude. As to genoside, whitey is a poor rookie at it, yollow, tan, brown, and black are far more experienced and successful at it.
People who say we are competitive by nature... this is stupid... it's like saying .... pilots who fly 747's are BORN TO FLY! or, we can speak a written language by nature! LOL
science fucks up because scientists have egos and have limited awareness, hence chemical pollution, nuclear fallout, poisoning of food with pesticides etc., poisoning of people with drugs etc.
@Funkyflorist Simply design areas of society to be as self-maintaining as possible with multiple backups. The rest is up to the many volunteers which would have a ton of free time on their hands now that all their 'survival needs' are taken care of.
"be as self-maintaining as possible with multiple backups"
~First this statement is contradictory to the video itself and ignores "specialization" that makes RBE efficient (assuming it does).
It is also IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this system would run on a 'few volunteers" even solar and wind power needs to be maintained by PROFESSIONALS, not volunteers.
Lets look at just ONE THING, water, how would Water be managed / distributed / utilized with RBE?
"Specialization" is in large part due to a lack of interdisciplinary learning. The education process is focused on mass producing specialized workers
A RBE assumes no monetary system is in effect (no jobs pushing money around) so there will be many ppl with extra time on their hands, therefore more volunteers
As for water management. Design and build many more efficient water treatment plants that maximize automated/cybernated processes. Improve existing processes (out o words)
Now you come up to many problems, you've ignored fine details like; Who is designing these facilities? Volunteers cannot take up this slack. You will need professionals and engineers that will have to work hard, and if they are not receiving more reimbursement than others that 'have free time' then they will simply not work.
There is NO INCENTIVE in a RBE...
Even if you get the professionals, water is a scarce resource, and it would be impractical to pipe it from Brazil...
Why wouldn't an engineer be motivated to create a system that will benefit EVERYONE, including themselves, just because they are not being "paid" in the form of money, when all their other basic needs are supported by the society anyway?
Your argument follows from an assumption about "human nature"; that is, that everyone is basically only an agent of self-interest, with no intrinsic motivation to contribute to the community. That's just part of the market propaganda you've accepted.
So now these volunteers are being paid? And it is basic anthropological fact that human nature motivates self preservation... There are whole sciences surrounding it...
Its not propaganda, its science... The only individuals that have other values than intrinsic are religious individuals... Is RBE a religion?
Paid in the form of "social capital", which is a community that supports you through trust and reciprocity and a common commitment to creating an abundant and just world for everyone.
"...basic anthropological fact that human nature motivates self preservation."
It's also a scientific fact that this monetary system promotes industrial practicies that are UNSUSTAINABLE. Anyone with a proper sense of self-preservation would look for alternatives.
"It's also a scientific fact that this monetary system promotes industrial practicies that are UNSUSTAINABLE. Anyone with a proper sense of self-preservation would look for alternatives."
That's just part of the environmental propaganda you've accepted.
/sarc
We are still assuming the fact that at no point this whole endeavor will become corrupted or exploited... Which could EASILY happen...
Even Stalin had absolute control of the USSR's resources to starve out whole regions...
@Funkyflorist "this whole endeavor will become corrupted or exploited... Which could EASILY happen.."
Please explain how. It's pretty easy to see how a monetary system can be corrupted, which is why I would like to see it phased out, but how can an RBE be corrupted?
In an RBE, you can't "steal" something that everyone has free access to, andwhy would you want to? Why expend the effort when you can just enjoy the abundant free access?
Yes I am, its blatantly obvious that RBE has MULTIPLE points at which it can become corrupted and detrimental to human kind. The underlying assumption with RBE is "everything is free=no one will be bad."
But there are millions of people that even with everything they want more, setting up a system of GLOBAL resource management is DOOMED to failure.
And we'll eventually degrade it back to a fake monetary system in the form of 'time credits'.
It is true there are imperfections with our current monetary system, but this stems from the absence of good regulation; (Glass-Steagall Act) for example...
But that is certainly NO reason to get rid of currency. That would be like trying to ban fire... Trade between individuals WILL OCCUR whether we have a RBE or not.
People in their free time in an RBE will spend that time doing EXTRA work, then they'll trade the product of that work with others... Currency HELPS that...
@Funkyflorist And no, an RBE is most certainly NOT a religion. It starts with basic common sense, and expands from there using the scientific method.
If ANYTHING, the current field of economics (or "anti-economics" more appropriately) is what resembles a religion. It does not track resources for conservation, follows no true life sequences for human need, and only refers to itself and it's own assumptions when making decisions. It is a closed, unchanging, pseudoscientific worldview.
Logging companies do that, oil companies do that, mining companies do that... In fact the US is covered by more forest today than it was 100 years ago...
"follows no true life sequences for human need"
Markets do that all the time
"only refers to itself and it's own assumptions when making decisions"
And the market and individuals.
"It is a closed, unchanging, pseudoscientific worldview."
The US Agriculture Department; in 1920 we had 735 million acres of forest, today it's more than 750 million acres..."
You have heard of the 'Baby Boomers'? correct? It's a major percentage of the population that the market 'follows' based on their age and growth. Market's also adapt to NEEDS quickly; ex- the Chicago Tylenol scare. People were dying from tampered Tylenol. What did the company do VOLUNTARILY? They pioneered tamper proofing and shipment monitoring...
I mean assumptions such as that the "money sequence" actually DELIVERS the "life sequence", which is what we all REALLY care about. But it doesn't. It is assumed that a higher GDP means a higher "standard of living", but that's not true! A higher GDP just means more money is being transferred the market, which usually reflective of NECESSITY. As drinking water becomes scarce and everyone is buying the bottled stuff, THAT's good for the GDP, but is it good for us?
I'm assuming you are talking about the currency exchange and how dollars cycle through the economy...
Again paper money is a TOOL to facilitate TRADE. By that use it is already an INTEGRAL PART OF EVERYONE'S LIFE SEQUENCE!!!
And GDP=Standard of Living is an interesting correlation... Standard of living and satisfaction is anecdotal from person to person. A country IS better off with a higher GDP generally speaking... Even countries with little or no resources have low GDP.
@Funkyflorist Even if the US is covered by more forest today ( bullshit ) than it was 100 yrs ago you still ignored a huuuge chunk of area in the world that has been deforested. Oh yeah Oil companies track resources for conservation like BP. How are they tracking the OIL spill in the gulf of Mexico by the way ? Man you're so full of crap !
"Even if the US is covered by more forest today ( bullshit )"
~Sorry but that comes from the Department of Interior... It's not 'bullshit'
"How are they tracking the OIL spill in the gulf of Mexico by the way ?"
~Keep in mind that the BP fiasco in the Gulf is an environmental NON-ISSUE, in just under a year the entire eco-system of the gulf is fully recovered and fish are thriving.
@Funkyflorist .."sorry but that comes from the Department of Interior"....sorry but I don't believe what the govt. says, it's still bullshit ! And you say the BP fiasco is an environmental non-issue & the ecosystem will recover under a year ? THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED THE LEAK YET let alone recover the ecosytem. The only thing that stopped is the media coverage, they don't want to talk about it but it's still there KILLING EVERY LIVING THING IN THE SEA. The exxon valdez is nothing compared to this
But in order for RBE to work we will have to change the 'way we think' about resources and money... This is a Philosophy... A set of principles... A RELIGION...
Patronizing science will not protect you from abuses of this system... We can plainly see TODAY that science and the scientific method ITSELF is abused and distorted for personal gain!
@Funkyflorist "we will have to change the 'way we think' about resources and money"
That's true. By necessity, any society needs a set of principles to follow. The trouble is, our CURRENT way of thinking goes against the contraints of nature to such a degree, that it leads to unsustainable, wasteful consumption. Nothing grows forever. Like I said, this current way of thinking is more like a religion.
"TODAY that science and the scientific method ITSELF is abused and distorted for personal gain!"
Also true, and the biggest examples that come to my mind are pharmaceutical trials that are biased because the pharmaceutical companies are funding those trials. "By law", they are required to declare their "conflicts of interest", as a way of preventing this corruption.
But in an RBE, science will not be affected by this, because there WON'T be "conflicts of interest", created by profit motive.
@Starbat88 That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. The notion that people with high end education and skills are going to apply their abilities for the collective - which includes people with no skills and no motivation - for the same compensation as everyone else is nonsense. There is a reason why such ridiculous thinking has never worked anywhere. I'm not surprised to see you're only 25. I'll bet you have no marketable skills and way too much time on your hands as well. Grow up.
@jake44514 You are still pointing out a fact that is not relevant, that there is some kind of a reward for "work". There is no compensation, we can all receive our needs through the implementation of our technology. The people have gained an education because they have an interest that they were free to indulge. It hasn't worked anywhere, because its never been done before.
@Starbat88 The question that none of you Zeitgiesters will answer is: Who decides what the basic needs of another person are? If you examine "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs", you are assuming that everyone is at the self-actualization level and that everyone will be provided basic life needs As such you are treating things like sex as a commodity whose supply and demand will be tracked in a computer. Oops we have a shortage of girls so you must take a guy instead.
@Robbob9933 That`s got to be the most ridiculous counter-example I`ve heard yet.
Sex is not a `commodity` to be produced and distributed equitably. It`s an interaction between two people. People will have as much or as little sex as they want, depending on the nature of their social adventures.
Now the production and supply of things like condoms might fall into that category, but that can easily be addressed technically.
@Starbat88 Quite the contrary, when you start treating basic life needs as commodities you can not pick and choose. Part of the Zeitgeist stance is all or nothing. But still the basic question goes unanswered. Who decides what a basic life needs of another is?
THIS system is what treats basic life needs as commodities! Food and shelter, for example, are only available to those who can pay `money` for them; even though everybody NEEDS them. It`s not about `demand`. It`s about NEED, in that case.
And `who decides` what the basic needs of anther is? We know (thanks to the scientific method) what people`s basic NEEDS are. They include food, water, shelter, obviously, but also positive social interactions, and feeling of self-worth.
@Starbat88 The "who decides need" is indeed the most relevant question. And no, the scientific method does not fully answer that. We know some of the basics yes, but reality quickly spirals this out of sustainability.
Take medical care for example. With 1 mil people, some may be risk takers and thus get injured a lot more. There's no way of know who is, and people pass into and out of this category. Yet medical resources have to be distributed fairly.
@sirellyn "Injuries" are not the most relevant issue in healthcare. It's chronic disease (heart disease, colon cancer, diabetes, etc), all or most of which is preventable with healthier lifestyle. Unfortunately, the monetary system drives this culture of consumption that propagandizes people AWAY from the ideal healthy lifestyle, and does not encourage them to take responsibility for their own health.
@Starbat88 The formula still works the same. You have to determine "need" subjectively. Do you try to ban all fatty food to prevent heart attacks? What happens to people who love the taste and make it secretly themselves? Do the food police arrest them?
You would have no way of knowing these things. (omniscience problem) The best you could do is a constant surveillance state. And people can even hide from that.
This question falls into the same category as "What if everyone wants five private jets parked in their front lawns?", etc.
These things are physically impossible, because resources are limited. The fact that SOME people might desire such things is a manifestation of our corrupted consumerist culture. Nobody should have exclusive rights to so much that it leaves others without.
That's not a violation of any 'rights'. It's just facing reality.
So, in response to your question about people eating a lot of fatty foods; again, it's the result of our corrupted culture that pushes and promotes the consumption of such things. If we instead had a culture that promoted MODERATION, and healthy-eating, rather than eating purely for taste or pleasure, we would have a population that behaved VERY differently!
@Starbat88 You're mixing something people never had and could never get the resources for (jets) with something people have frequently and a taste for with resources everywhere (lard, sugar, salt).
Moreover you negate if people could or would possibly do something this easy, so when it does happen (and it has) you have no good answer for what to do about it.
"Don't worry people will behave properly."
The "and what happens when they don't?" Should scare you.
@sirellyn "The "and what happens when they don't?" Should scare you."
Why? I already basically pointed out what would happen if they don't.
Furthermore, you seem to be taking the ignorant, brainwashed behavior of people today, and extrapolating that into the future; as if people will "always" "inevitably" do ignorant things
Cultural conditioning will be different in the future! This is what influences human behavior. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.
@Starbat88 It has nothing to do with people always doing the same things. All lifeforms explore their surroundings, humans also explore behaviors. Kids and teens in particular.
You discuss a system that absolutely relies on stable variables to ensure need is met. I'm telling you there are far too many rapidly changing variables for this.
Yes environment helps, not nearly to the level you require.
And conditioning? You are for propaganda as long as it's "yours?"
@sirellyn "And conditioning? You are for propaganda as long as it's "yours?""
Everything is conditioning, and so-called "propaganda". Right now, the "propaganda" has people upholding unsustainable values. We are for replacing these with values that are in accordance with natural law, as determined by the scientific method applied for social concern.
If that is what you call "propaganda", fine. But it's "good" propaganda, because it's real. It's not just blind ideology.
Ever notice how so many people apathetically spend their lives in 9-5 jobs, cast a vote every few year, and wonder why the world retains it's injustices?
People act the bloody the same NOW (in certain ways). There's nothing unrealistic about expected people to behave the same, in certain OTHER ways, that are sustainable, educated, peaceful. An RBE calls for a revolution in cultural values, no question.
But lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that a large portion of the population would really be as inexplicably "stupid" as you're suggesting.
All that means is that demand for treatment of heart disease, and the like, will exceed supply. Those who allow themselves to fall into that preventable situation will have to deal with the uncertainty of this limited supply of treatment (surgeries, drugs, etc).
Those who live well will not need to worry. (cont)
@sirellyn (cont) And like my earlier example, that would not be a violation of any human "rights". It would just be a fact of reality.
But for the record, I believe that the proportion of the population THAT stupid (not to listen to the common-sense principles of living well) will be non-existent, or else so small that taking care of them will not exceed the supply of treatments that an RBE (with it's optimized production) can deliver.
(cont1) You may look at the amount of injuries, but you cannot determine between someone who is unlucky, someone forced to take risks, someone abused, or a myriad or other circumstances. There is no "blanket" way of distributing the resources fairly without some sort of omniscience.
Worse, more will risk more (as it can be more fun) as a part of thrill seeking. Even those who don't won't contribute more to ensure the shortfall is made up for. They are guaranteed fairness.
For someone to be "unlucky", as you say, is just superstition.
If someone is "forced" to take risks, or is abused, the question is WHY are they "forced" and WHY are they abused? What are the social and economic pressures in society that create that circumstance? Are they poor because they don't have "money". Were their parents abused, and so they abuse them? Were they never constructively taught how to have a viable relationship?
(cont2) It's not that they are being mean, simply that there are many pressing concerns and priorities in each different person's life.
You would have to "enforce" fairness somehow. And this is where it gets ugly. Some central deciding vehicle has to be constructed. And to determine maximum fairness it has to have maximum knowledge. Which means surveillance. And you are already down the same twisted and broken road as before.
@sirellyn `You would have to "enforce" fairness somehow.`
No you don`t. People basically want to live peacefully. It may be hard to believe when you look around at most of the world today, but THAT is our essential nature.
It is the real or perceived scarcity of access to resources that `enforces` the drive toward unfairness and aggression. The need to get `one up` over another is something that comes from social conditioning.
@sirellyn If you remove the conditioning that leads to this kind of dysfunctional behavior, replace it with values that are more sustainable and viable in the natural order (reciprocity, conservation of resources, efficiency, sustainability), AND if you can create an access abundance that leaves nobody wanting for their essential needs... then people will behave very differently NATURALLY. You don`t need to `enforce` it, or have `surveillance`.
No. The monetary system assumes scarcity. When scarcity is not real, they CREATE it. They create the impression that buying some fashionable new product is necessary for you to be happy. That`s advertising. That`s manufactured demand.
Corporations thrive on the public being centrally depdendant on them for electricity, food, water, medicinal drugs. They THRIVE on scarcity.
(cont) Scarcity leads to profit. When profit is the end you are seeking, the last thing you want is access abundance.
Therefore, access abundance has not happened in our society. The society reinforces the values (sustainable or not) on which it is based.
I know it`s very easy to look at the `scarcity` around us, and assume there`s a `real` reason for it, but the fact of the matter is we have the TECHNICAL ability to meet everyone`s needs. Remember what the word technical means.
(cont3) Abundance through technology. Yet we can't even provide enough water for everyone with current technology even though 70% of the planet's surface is comprised of it. And this doesn't give you the first hint about how long this would take or how easy it would be to do for one ultra common compound?
The RBE intentions are good, but as the methods require a god-like level of omniscience it's fair to say the hubris reaches god like levels as well.
@sirellyn `Yet we can't even provide enough water for everyone...`
All we would need are desalinization plants, powered by renewable power sources, (something we have the TECHNICAL ability to accomplish), and the political will to build enough such plants. You could theoretically EASILY provide everyone with clean drinking water, green the deserts, etc.
But of course, in this society, we don`t have the `money` for such plants. (cont)
Again, the problems that get in the way of such solutions are not `real` or insurmountable, as you`re suggesting. These problems are products of the dysfunctional monetary system that we`re living in.
You don`t need `omniscience`. You don`t need some `god-like` power or dictatorial way of running things. ALL you need is common sense, and some social values that don`t diametrically oppose the natural order.
@Funkyflorist Say we live in this RBE. What would you fill your time with? well, for starters, family friends, travel...but that can only last so long. People today have things called Hobbies, generally constructive things they do for pleasure, no monetary gain. They have a personal incentive to do them. So back in RBE world, what if you could work on your hobby all of the time. A hobby like designing buildings to be amazing, effecient etc would be AWESOME. I think there is more incentive really
There are other major problems with just water in a RBE. You will have to define what purification parameters for certain areas, some places WILL HAVE less water than others, and water can vary through-out the year as well.
What if a water main breaks? Will it be fixed by volunteers? No volunteer will get up at 2 am to repair it. If it is repaired by robots, who will build these robots!?
Resource Based Economy is a pipe dream, you do not consider the real world needs...
@Funkyflorist yes water obviously is not spread evenly across the planet, that's why RBE understand this concept called "Efficiency". it will simply try to find ways & alternatives to tackle the distribution of energy across the planet, without the INEFFICIENT, INDIRECT tool called: Money, which unfortunately, has NOW caused much more problems in our world today, than solutions! first you have to acknowledge and admit this first, before we can go further.
Money is only a tool to facilitate TRADE. Without money you are left with a barter system, under this RBE scheme all of this trade would be controlled. And actually money HAS facilitated more development than ANY recent or past 'depressions'.
Keep in mind EVERY ONE of these depressions are not CAUSED by money, but by individuals trying to MANIPULATE the system to get rich quick. The great depression was due to individuals taking out loans and investing it... RBE would kill us.
@Funkyflorist "Without money you are left with a barter system"
Even a barter system only makes sense in a world of scarcity. An RBE exists in a world of access abundance. It's a completely different dynamic.
"...not CAUSED by money, but by individuals trying to MANIPULATE the system..."
And money was a tool that ENABLED them to do it. In an RBE, there is no means, and no motive to do such a thing. THAT's how you prevent "corruption". No "law" or "regulation" can accomplish that.
Keep in mind you are ASSUMING that everything will be abundant... It is not made that way by the system at all...
"different dynamic"
Are we back to the religion thing again?
"money was a tool that ENABLED them to do it"
This is and inductive reasoning problem...
If people didn't have guns we wouldn't be killing each other?
Removing currency WOULD NOT PREVENT CORRUPTION! You are also assuming that a global RBE would be above this as well, when it could EASILY be corrupted...
@Funkyflorist and for an area that lacks water, it perhaps has another source of energy (eg: heat from a dry places for example, or minerals, etc) that can be exchanged with area that has plenty of water. all done without having a MIDDLE MEDIUM called Money, which unfortunately, is proven INEFFECTIVE because turns out that people/humans (especially the "rich Elites"!) tend to exploit it (Money), rather than working/solving for the REAL Values/Solutions. Hence the phrase: "you can't EAT Money!"
"exchanged".... You mean 'trade'..... But there is no trade, you removed money to do it...
Money is just like a hammer, it's a tool, nothing more. It makes it so that we can all EXCHANGE these resources better!
Would you eliminate hammers? Even though some people can 'exploit' these hammers to kill others? That's no reason to get rid of hammers! The same applies to money.
@Funkyflorist "That's no reason to get rid of hammers!"
Another good example is the hand-driven drill. We got rid of those. Not because we "blamed" the hand-driven drill for being inefficient and time-consuming, but simply because power drills were better.
Likewise, we don't "blame" money for enabling corruption, as well as honest trade, or promoting self-centered, consumerist values. It's just that automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete. We don't need it anymore.
Actually there are still hand drill's used today for small tasks... So it's a bad example... And in that CONTEXT of money as a TOOL FOR TRADE. Credit Cards and Digital Currency would be a better example...
"It's just that automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete. We don't need it anymore."
Even automation needs expertise and guidance, RBE seems like a 10 step process that is missing 8 steps!
"automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete."
This is actually quite fallacious... Automation does not make labor for income 'obsolete'. It makes the labor SPECIALIZED.
If you design a machine that can do the work of 100 men (a Bulldozer) then it takes one 'specialized' individual to operate that machine. It does not make his 'labor for income' obsolete, it makes it EVEN MORE IMPORTANT!
"if a water main breaks? Will it be fixed by volunteers?"
In a system that actually SUPPORTS you, rather than coerce your labor through a "carrot on a stick" mentality, I GUARANTEE you, people would be willing to get up at 2AM to fix a broken water main; especially when the lack of water affects them, as well as the rest of the community.
And robots would make that task easier, allowing humans to server merely as supervisors. Who wouldn't want to build something to make their lives easier?
Lets assume you have a volunteer... He gets up, get's in his rental car (since we have to share everything so that everything will be abundant) He goes to where the maintenance truck is head's to the water main... And he has no experience with fixing a water main... He's a volunteer.
You would have to support yourself through-out this whole scheme and in the end, YOU HAVE NO PRIVATE PROPERTY!
@Funkyflorist "And he has no experience with fixing a water main... He's a volunteer."
Okay. I think there is a misunderstanding here, with regards to the nature of these hypothetical volunteers. He will not be some kind of amateur just because "he's a volunteer".
We're not talking about the kind of volunteers we have TODAY, where one volunteers as a kind of "personal sacrifice" since they are not making "money"... Why do you assume that only "money" can make experts?
"Why do you assume that only "money" can make experts?"
Because it is a current absolute fact, specialists like doctors, engineers and other skilled laborers have to spend alot of time and money building their education and skill sets...
You think you can get 'volunteer's to pick up trash? Or empty your septic tank? Or design a Future Cold Fusion Septic Tank!?
This is sounding more like a fantasy...
And what's to stop these volunteers from demanding bribes and favors??
@Funkyflorist "ecause it is a current absolute fact,"
Emphasis on CURRENT. I realize that it's peoples dominant (erroneous) values lead them to behave a certain way today, but it would be a different dynamic in an RBE. Stop holding the RBE to the standards and constraints of a monetary system, and then claiming that as evidence an RBE "wouldn't" work.
"You think you can get 'volunteer's to pick up trash?..."
Automation, genius. Volunteers would do the more intellectual jobs.
Volunteers of the future will WANT to serve, say the city, because they know it supports them as well as everyone else. They will be happy gain the required education and employ it.
But we're not talking about a 9-5 "job" like today either. It would be more like 2-3 hours per week, with volunteers rotating between shifts. The rest of the time, they can do whatever they want, including gaining all the education you could ever expect.
Taught by a string of 'volunteer teachers' working 2-3 hours a week... How are they going to get ANY education from that!? We can already see failures in such 'volunteer community systems'. Look at low income housing subsidized by the federal government.
Large apartments fell into degradation, sure the tenants could 'VOLUNTEER' and work on the place, but with no incentive it falls apart everytime.
"...what purification parameters for certain areas, some places WILL HAVE less water than others...
With the development of abundant alternative energy sources, de-salinization plants can be built to deliver water just about anywhere. But efficiency is always kept in mind. Does it make sense to build a city in the middle of the desert, requiring a long pipeline?
At any rate, these are TECHNICAL issues, resolvable NOT through human opinion or the "market", but through the scientific method.
@Starbat88 "With the development of abundant alternative energy sources" ASSUMPTION "plants can be built to deliver water just about anywhere" BLIND ASSUMPTION "Does it make sense to build a city in the middle of the desert, requiring a long pipeline?" Nope "At any rate, these are TECHNICAL issues, resolvable NOT through human opinion" (people don't live in the Sahara by preference) "or the "market" " (market has covered that) "but through the scientific method." " which is beyond reproach...
@Funkyflorist ["With the development of abundant alternative energy sources" ASSUMPTION]
There's over 2000 years of energy readily tappable from Geothermal sources alone. Not an assumption.
["plants can be built to deliver water just about anywhere" BLIND ASSUMPTION]
We can build desalinization plants to give us drinking water right out of the ocean. It's just that CURRENTLY, they would require too much energy use to be "cost productive".
Geothermal is actually quite rare. Places that utilize them are protected in national parks (Old Faithful in Yellowstone). Are you proposing we build a plant on top of it?
"that CURRENTLY, they would require too much energy use to be "cost productive"."
Thats because COST=RESOURCES+LABOR, this is fact. If I sold you a rock you would only pay me depending on the rock's rarity. If I spent 3 hours carving it, I would charge you the COST of the rock, and my labor...
@Funkyflorist [(people don't live in the Sahara by preference)]
No. They live in the Sahara because of arbitrary national boundaries, and monetary and "economic" forces won't allow them to migrate elsewhere because of the infringement on a neighboring countries "anti-economy".
In an RBE, people would be free to live wherever makes sense. They would only live in the desert long-term, probably, if it were practical to green that desert.
I'm sure we're talking about DIFFERENT parts of the Sahara... There are vast areas of desert where there is only sand... It's an inhospitable environment... People don't live in extreme climates where it is difficult to live. That is an opinion and PREFERENCE.
"In an RBE, people would be free to live wherever makes sense."
Just like we do right now? So basically no change... You're back to square one.
@Funkyflorist "people would be free to live wherever..... just like we do right now" ?.... "so basically no change" ? Then what do you call borders, immigration laws, illegal aliens, and deportations ? you got it all wrong there, in this current system people are not free to live wherever. Clearly you have no idea what is to be an illegal alien. These people sacrificed so much to go to another country, just so they could get that hard earned money.
Market has already covered area's of efficiency... It is cheaper (takes up less resources) to pump oil in Saudi Arabia than in other areas of the world. (this is a form of market specialization)
Larger countries enjoy developing natural resources while smaller countries focus on specialized manufacturing (japan=electronics, germany=cars, france=tailoring, etc).
The market has ALREADY made thing's efficient... Denial of this means you've drunk the kool-aid.
@Funkyflorist "The market has ALREADY made thing's efficient... Denial of this means you've drunk the kool-aid."
Tell that to the stuffed-to-bursting landfills that are spreading across the country, or to the great garbage patch of the Pacific Ocean. Tell that to the millions of people around the world starving to death, while those in the "developed" world are dying of diabetes and heart disease because they have TOO MUCH food.
1. Starvation in third world countries are due to CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS... Certainly NOT the economic system. When we gave Aid to North Korea the government would SELL this food to the people. African countries do the same. Pocketing money for themselves, we cannot blame the 'monetary system' for that.
2. Landfills are not 'rampant'. In fact about 90% of the United States is UNDEVELOPED (according to the Department of Interior)
@MichelinDUD we live in a scarcity based economy the less of somthing , (money, gold, diamonds, vangoh paintings, ect...) it is viewed as more valuable... (supply and demand) this is the norm for the whole world, what jacque and tvp are doing is looking at the world a different way , with out any of the old system (our norm) , if we as a species want to survive we need a hive mentality, we all need to stop killing our planet with co2 nuclear power hydrocarbon fuels ect...
"we all need to stop killing our planet with co2 nuclear power hydrocarbon fuels ect..."
Too... Many... Contradictions....
First co2 is a TRACE GAS that facilitates plant growth. Increases of co2 also increase crop yields and tree growth. Nuclear Power has almost NO co2 emissions and is perfectly safe (France has over 50 of them with no qualms with their waste thanks to breeder reactors). And.... Actually alternative energy sources (solar, wind) are BAD for the environment!
@axe863 You forgot something before the year 3,000 we will have used up all the resources we need to live, so there won't be a 3,500 around 2050 we will start running out of things, but it will take a little while before the planet is completely distroyed. I am sure we start addressing this problem soon, like maybe when there is about 10 years worth of resources left.
You can ask questions directly to TVP and they will answer all of them (which is much more than what any politian does). People will be needed to create technology, they will always be needed. As some people today are interested in law and politics, in the future people will be interested in engineering and science (which is what life is about). What they say is that monotonous jobs won't exist. In fact, they will be extint in this system too, but you'll be unemployed and will die starving.
Some of the points are awesome but many are limiting. Standardizing tracking of all resource in a logical model is fundamentally limited. understanding always changes needs always change truth always changes. There is no stead state except constant change. The system he imagines can not be built by us unless we tie into everything t the quantum level? Didn't God already do that?
I love this... however... in comparing to a library... when people borrow a book, they pay the library to borrow it. That gives them the right to access the book. In our society, the reason the library is kept clean, organized, and monitored for inventory is bc people are paid money to upkeep the system for a population. What, other than money (which is motivating bc it gives access to limited resources) in a resource-based economy would motivate people to upkeep something like a library?
Robots. You would walk up to a terminal and ask, "I want book X" and voila, an autonomous robotics system would retrieve it for you to use.
Perhaps it would even give you a digital version of the book if you requested, (reason being: to save paper or your time). Re-watch the video and see what he mentions about automation.
This solves the "Paying the employee" concept. Robots work for free, and are scientifically more efficient in every sector than us humans. More importantly, their ability to reference knowledge (or information) electronically is one of the main aspects of a Resource Based Economy.
@Anubis7169 ok but your "robots replace employees" solution still seems incomplete to me. Suppose EVEN if we had robots all over the world replace ALL human employment and if nobody owns anything... Now... if even ONE of those robots breaks down. Who is going to fix that robot? Other robots?? What if they break too?? Nobody will upkeep the robots. Because nobody's job is to fix it, or know anything about it. Who is going to reprogram the robot? Who decides what kind of robots exist? etc
I never said ALL humans would be replaced. This is not possible from the near paradox you just pointed out. But based on volunteer statistics taken through polls and studies, the volunteer man hours for the average country exceeds that required for an RBE to run. It would require less than 4-5 man-hours per person per week, to run properly once set up.
@Anubis7169 "the volunteer man hours for the average country exceeds that required for an RBE to run. It would require less than 4-5 man-hours per person per week, to run properly once set up."
u just completely made up that stat. back that up with proof.
there is no way we can meet the demand of what consumers would want once everything is made free, let alone meet that demand using just 12.5% of the workforce!!
@Anubis7169 You didn't answer because you don't have an answer. If you can't answer it, don't wast time commenting. Also, i actually don't work for anyone but myself fyi. And I am greatly in support of the resource based economy... as long as someone can enlighten me on how to solve this very simple and basic question which I have presented. This question I have asked is fundamental to whether this resource based economy is possible or not. This is important. Anyone have a solution?
Why is it that these conversation always end up with me spending exorbitant amounts of time trying to enlighten someone, only for them to turn around and say "Nah You just dont have an answer"?
You're probably the 14th or 15th person to ask the exact same questions.
-"Money creates value"
"In a world of abundance value doesnt exist"
-"Who will do the work to creates this abundance?"
"Robots"
-"Who will fix the robots if all jobs are robots?" (Ive heard this one 10000 times)
@Anubis7169 ... My answer to your question: Your comment gives the impression you don't know the answer. The reason it appears that way is because you took out lots of time to write a complaint about having to deal with answering a question as if it was a burden instead of answering the question. And just because we're conversing on a youtube video doesn't make it any less valuable of a communication medium.
@goldensleeves TVP is not interested in science. they r on an ideological crusade to eliminate money.
there is no scientific validity to the claim that we can run the economy without money or that there would be any benefit to doing that.
goods need to be rationed otherwise u will have hugely unequal distribution and shortages in everything. and workers need to be compensated otherwise u wont have enough workers.
@kajmobile 1. The VP seems to be interested in science to me. In fact, eliminating the monetary system seems to be part of the solution based on the premise that it is a deterrent to our ability to maximize objective scientific reasoning to allocate resources most effectively for human survival. 2. No validity? Well, it's yet to be tested... and there is more than enough validity that the current monetary system perpetuates inevitable failure in meeting the global needs of humanity.
@goldensleeves 1. just because TVP "seems to be interested in science" does not mean their proposals r based on science.
2. the overwhelming majority of allocation decisions r SUBJECTIVE not objective. there is no correct scientific answer to whether we should live in cheap fresco igloos or more expensive brick ornate homes.
3. proof that there is a problem is not proof that ur solution will fix or improve anything
1. The goal is eliminate human suffering, not just money. Suffering occurs as basic needs are unmet due to resource scarcity. Scarcity is required for profit so the monetary system guarantees human suffering
2. Some subjectivity may be inevitable. But if we agree suffering is bad, it matters less how we subjectively choose a method since survival needs are objectively measurable
3. Even if it could fail, it's still irrational to continue what we already KNOW fails
1. "Scarcity is required for profit so the monetary system guarantees human suffering"
That is not how our economy works. Profit does not rely on scarcity. It relies on being able to generate more revenue than expenses. If capital owners collect all the profits, that will lead to increasing inequality which causes suffering.
The solution is better allocation of income, not eliminating money. i think capital should be democratically owned and its income equally distributed
2. if we objectively determine everyone needs a home, that tells us nothing about whether we should put everyone in hi-rise apartments, brick homes or cement igloos. that is why what people want should be determined by them, not by fresco's team of technicians, through democratic votes and through them spending their own money.
the technician's role should be building what people want, not telling u what u can and cannot have
@kajmobile All human attachment comes with WANTING something...The Venus Project suggests working with computerized system which designs the most efficient citys, buildings etc for sustainable lifestyle. If we could lift up our collective conciseness there will be less attachment to the material world. This will not discriminates creativity or esthetics in our life but push us away from the ego-oriented desires.
@13Sundisk A scientific magical unicorn told me that if we all eat 1 pound of skittles for 15 minutes ...there will never be hunger again ... oh yeah I forgot to say science is good, scientific method is awesome, science science science.
@axe863 better science than fantasy superstitions from anonymous authors that lived in the bronze age and thought thunder in the night was a wrathful invisible spae man with magical powers.... this completely sums up religion....
if you dont like science then i suggest you return to the jungle wearing only a fig leaf and never ever ever use anything like a car farm equipment or even crop rotation... pray to your invisible space man for food and see how long you last
@kenmabie Congratulations, I'm studying to be a "complexity" scientist. You believe in magic. You believe that a computer can overcome something that isnt Turing computable. At the very least, you believe something with absolutely zero proofing and zero evidence. I was mocking the faith of TVPers and comparing it to a "scientific magical unicorn." You believe in AI with godlike powers... this sums up TVP religion. The hyper-computer is all knowing, all powerful ok maybe not all loving ...lol.
@kenmabie Please link me to Fresco peer reviewed research papers on the RBE, human psychology, social dynamics, interest-money capitalistic collapse, etc. Fresco has ZERO scientifically verified ideas. He has a hypothesis here a hypothesis there...... with NO mathematical model to derive its statistical validity. A 9 year old can come up with 100 different things and be equally as valid from the scientific point of view.
@goldensleeves I'm from England, and we don't have to pay anything for books at the library, you pay? I guess it may be our slight lean towards socialism here in the UK. And by the way, our libraries run absolutely fine, better than fine actually.
Strategery.
mikemat3307 1 week ago
@ozzyxs lazyness is the lack of motivation, and lack of motivation is the inability to see an proper outcome in relation to input.This is natural behaviour of living beings, and called law of energy efficiency. Money is just a way to measure that behaviour in numbers. If someone doesn't like his job, then he is most likely working more than receiving.Maybe he is just undervaluing money,but then:why go to work?Maybe he is undervaluing money,cause he used to get it easier from his"wealthy"parents?
NeoCorporatism 1 week ago
@subversiveoptimism So intrinsic motivation is the answer. Intrinsic motivation is implemented at present day: think of the non profit organisations. Still, there are people who dont't want to work despite the intrinsic motivation. Solution: The job doesn't get done, or if you really wan't the job get done you do it yourself. Option C: You offer people a reward so the job gets done. Aha! Now money gets involved.
NeoCorporatism 1 week ago
@NeoCorporatism well, actually, part of the reasoning for not using money, besides the fact that money invariably leads to hierarchy and stratification, is that the only work that will get done is the work people actually want to do. keep in mind that without money, all jobs relating to money (insurance, bankers, cashiers, stockbrokers, advertising, etc, etc) are eliminated immediately. coupled with automation being implemented to any repetitive, mundane job (cont'd)
subversiveoptimism 1 week ago
@NeoCorporatism (cont'd) (almost all production work, agriculture, etc could be automated), the amount of work needing to be done to maintain a high standard of living for everyone is only a fraction of the work being done today. reduced so substantially that all work could be done on a volunteer basis. so those that dont want to work, and prefer to learn, or relax, would have that luxury, and no one would need feel resentful because they would only be doing as much as they like
subversiveoptimism 1 week ago
@NeoCorporatism well, i'd like to work at any job, as far as i can "live good". i'd study on science (i am a biochemist by the way), computer, electronics.. anything. i have a brain, and acces to my legs, hands and sensoriel organs so i have capability to learn and work on anything. "lazyness" is what corporation promt on TV ads. "buy this and live well".. "if you have lots of money you don't have to work, everything is done for you.." and "that shit has got to go"
ozzyxs 1 week ago
@ozzyxs if there is no money to worry about, no religion to blind eyes, politician to cheat, corrupted media to create mass madness, it would be very peacefull isn't it? but who wants that? we all want mooooore of everything, do we? oh no we don't. we people just want to live well and in peace not "rest", LIVE!
ozzyxs 1 week ago
Interesting video! What this video didn't explain, how do people get motivated to work for other people? If everyone gets access to same resources, regardless of how much they work, it rewards lazyness. And if everyones gets lazy, how do new goods or services get created?
NeoCorporatism 2 weeks ago
@NeoCorporatism great question!
check out this video for some info on why this isn't the case:
watch?v=xstnYViFMRQ
subversiveoptimism 1 week ago
14 people are idiots
QCREIGN 2 weeks ago
Who is intrested in trying to get something like this into power in countries, A "Utopian Socalist" Party would be the name aiming for a united earth with this plan in place whos with me?
MassAirshow 1 month ago
this part is stolen from jacque fresco's book "the best that money can't buy"
Stillillgal 2 months ago
@Stillillgal it's not 'stolen', the film gives fresco full credit, and fresco is in the movie. stealing the idea would be to claim it was his own.
saydaysago2008 2 months ago
@Stillillgal : I'll read it.
bambiandblake 2 months ago
@Stillillgal jacque is shown in the movie as the person who originated these ideas.. how is that stealing?
subversiveoptimism 1 month ago
@Stillillgal If the intention behind this video is clear.. The "owner" of the idea is not important..+ jacque must have "stolen" it from many other scientist and thinkers from human history..
it is not about the "messenger" but about the message.
taotech4096 1 month ago
wasnt the native americans already living in harmony with earth b4 the europeans showed up??....why is it taking white people so long to wake up????
thiizzman510 2 months ago
@thiizzman510 No they were not living in harmony. The plains indians would drive a heard of bison over a cliff, harvest what they needed and leave the rest. Many native cultures outstripped their resources and ceased to exist. They engaged in constant warfare with eachother.
Robbob9933 2 months ago
@Robbob9933 WELL WE CAN ALL SAY THAT PEOPLE FIGHT FIGHT WITH EACHOTHER,,,,,BUT I FEEL SAFER WHEN SOME INDIANS FIGHT IN THE BUSHES WITH ROCK AND STICKS....THAN A WHITE MAN HIDING BEHIND NUCLEAR BOMBS....WHEN NATIVES ROAMED THE LAND THERE WAS AND ENDLESS SUPPLY OF BUFFALO.....WHEN WHITES SHOWED UP THEY SHOT THEM ALL ALMOST TO EXTINCTION AND DIDNT USE ANY OF THE MEAT AT ALL....IM SURE WHITE PEOPLE CAUSED MORE GENOCIDE AND DAMADE TO EARTH THAN ANY INDIGENOUS CULTURE IN THE WHOLE WORLD..
thiizzman510 2 months ago
@Robbob9933 ASK ANY CULTURE..THEY HATE WHITE PEOPLE...AND NOT BECAUSE U GUYS "HELPED" THEM LIKE U THINK.....TRIBES ACROSS THE WORLD ARE KNOWN TO HAVE A WHITE MAN DEVIL DANCE AROUND THE FIRE,,,U THINK IT CAUSE THEY LIKE YOU???LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL,,,,,,UR BLINDED BY THE WHITENESS OF UR PASTEY BRIGHT SKIN...NOW GO GET SKIN CANCER IN THE SUN U UNNATURAL PIECE OF INBREED PILGRIM.
thiizzman510 2 months ago
@thiizzman510 When the indians arrived, there the wooley mamouth was in plentiful supply as were the short faced bear, the sabre toothed cat, the horse (white man reintroduced these), the giant sloth, and many others but they indians killed them off. Go get yourself a full body tatoo you pastey self loathing white dude. As to genoside, whitey is a poor rookie at it, yollow, tan, brown, and black are far more experienced and successful at it.
Robbob9933 2 months ago
People who say we are competitive by nature... this is stupid... it's like saying .... pilots who fly 747's are BORN TO FLY! or, we can speak a written language by nature! LOL
EasternMerchant 3 months ago
uhhh...not religious but moral spiritual solution
/watch?v=Smqh7EemSXY
My man also see's science.... He plugged in
CHOOSE42 3 months ago
Take this to occupy walll street.Let evryone know.
spread the word.
crazykong2 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
thepetitionsiteD0Tcom/1/The-future-that-Humanity-Deserves/
^^^SIGN THE VENUS PROJECT PETITION^^^
freemanpatriot 4 months ago
science fucks up because scientists have egos and have limited awareness, hence chemical pollution, nuclear fallout, poisoning of food with pesticides etc., poisoning of people with drugs etc.
12233445566abc 4 months ago
@12233445566abc
Chemical Pollution
(this is a government problem un-associated with science)
nuclear fallout
(this is a MYTH perpetuated by environMENTALists)
poisoning of food with pesticides
(err actually pesticides are SAFE and keep your foods good, "lrn 2 rinse w/ water" )
poisoning of people with drugs
(....like Aspirin? oh not "THAT" kind of drug eh? Like Viagra?.... Maybe I should go back to Rhino Horns then...)
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
Systems Approach!! RBE all Day!!
glassandroid 4 months ago 13
I wonder why the uber rich horde money/gold rather than help produce more raw resources...
GnaReffotsirk 5 months ago
Resource Based Economy
Step 1: Create a Global Organization that can monitor and control all resources on the planet...
Step 2: Remove all private ownership and place everything under a 'time share' model.
Step 3: ....
Step 4: Profit! err, we've eliminated that... NOTHING!!
Yea I can't see this going wrong AT ALL!
Funkyflorist 5 months ago
@Funkyflorist Simply design areas of society to be as self-maintaining as possible with multiple backups. The rest is up to the many volunteers which would have a ton of free time on their hands now that all their 'survival needs' are taken care of.
e.g. no forced occupations
genanmer 4 months ago
@genanmer
"be as self-maintaining as possible with multiple backups"
~First this statement is contradictory to the video itself and ignores "specialization" that makes RBE efficient (assuming it does).
It is also IMPOSSIBLE to believe that this system would run on a 'few volunteers" even solar and wind power needs to be maintained by PROFESSIONALS, not volunteers.
Lets look at just ONE THING, water, how would Water be managed / distributed / utilized with RBE?
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist
"Specialization" is in large part due to a lack of interdisciplinary learning. The education process is focused on mass producing specialized workers
A RBE assumes no monetary system is in effect (no jobs pushing money around) so there will be many ppl with extra time on their hands, therefore more volunteers
As for water management. Design and build many more efficient water treatment plants that maximize automated/cybernated processes. Improve existing processes (out o words)
genanmer 4 months ago
@genanmer
Now you come up to many problems, you've ignored fine details like; Who is designing these facilities? Volunteers cannot take up this slack. You will need professionals and engineers that will have to work hard, and if they are not receiving more reimbursement than others that 'have free time' then they will simply not work.
There is NO INCENTIVE in a RBE...
Even if you get the professionals, water is a scarce resource, and it would be impractical to pipe it from Brazil...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
Why wouldn't an engineer be motivated to create a system that will benefit EVERYONE, including themselves, just because they are not being "paid" in the form of money, when all their other basic needs are supported by the society anyway?
Your argument follows from an assumption about "human nature"; that is, that everyone is basically only an agent of self-interest, with no intrinsic motivation to contribute to the community. That's just part of the market propaganda you've accepted.
Starbat88 4 months ago 8
@Starbat88
" "paid" in the form of money,"
So now these volunteers are being paid? And it is basic anthropological fact that human nature motivates self preservation... There are whole sciences surrounding it...
Its not propaganda, its science... The only individuals that have other values than intrinsic are religious individuals... Is RBE a religion?
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
"So now these volunteers are being paid?"
Paid in the form of "social capital", which is a community that supports you through trust and reciprocity and a common commitment to creating an abundant and just world for everyone.
"...basic anthropological fact that human nature motivates self preservation."
It's also a scientific fact that this monetary system promotes industrial practicies that are UNSUSTAINABLE. Anyone with a proper sense of self-preservation would look for alternatives.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
"It's also a scientific fact that this monetary system promotes industrial practicies that are UNSUSTAINABLE. Anyone with a proper sense of self-preservation would look for alternatives."
That's just part of the environmental propaganda you've accepted.
/sarc
We are still assuming the fact that at no point this whole endeavor will become corrupted or exploited... Which could EASILY happen...
Even Stalin had absolute control of the USSR's resources to starve out whole regions...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "this whole endeavor will become corrupted or exploited... Which could EASILY happen.."
Please explain how. It's pretty easy to see how a monetary system can be corrupted, which is why I would like to see it phased out, but how can an RBE be corrupted?
In an RBE, you can't "steal" something that everyone has free access to, andwhy would you want to? Why expend the effort when you can just enjoy the abundant free access?
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist are you really trying to argue against this? ...
focista6 4 months ago
@focista6
Yes I am, its blatantly obvious that RBE has MULTIPLE points at which it can become corrupted and detrimental to human kind. The underlying assumption with RBE is "everything is free=no one will be bad."
But there are millions of people that even with everything they want more, setting up a system of GLOBAL resource management is DOOMED to failure.
And we'll eventually degrade it back to a fake monetary system in the form of 'time credits'.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist even if it has flaws, I rather choose it over what is in place today.
focista6 4 months ago
@focista6
It is true there are imperfections with our current monetary system, but this stems from the absence of good regulation; (Glass-Steagall Act) for example...
But that is certainly NO reason to get rid of currency. That would be like trying to ban fire... Trade between individuals WILL OCCUR whether we have a RBE or not.
People in their free time in an RBE will spend that time doing EXTRA work, then they'll trade the product of that work with others... Currency HELPS that...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist what extra work? and what would be the sense in trading in an RBE?
focista6 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist And no, an RBE is most certainly NOT a religion. It starts with basic common sense, and expands from there using the scientific method.
If ANYTHING, the current field of economics (or "anti-economics" more appropriately) is what resembles a religion. It does not track resources for conservation, follows no true life sequences for human need, and only refers to itself and it's own assumptions when making decisions. It is a closed, unchanging, pseudoscientific worldview.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
"It does not track resources for conservation"
Logging companies do that, oil companies do that, mining companies do that... In fact the US is covered by more forest today than it was 100 years ago...
"follows no true life sequences for human need"
Markets do that all the time
"only refers to itself and it's own assumptions when making decisions"
And the market and individuals.
"It is a closed, unchanging, pseudoscientific worldview."
That would be communism / socialism...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Funkyflorist "Logging companies do that, oil companies do that, mining companies do that."
Yeah, to set prices. It doesn't mean our rate of oil consumption is driving over a cliff.
"the US is covered by more forest today than it was 100 years ago."
Reference please.
"Markets do that all the time" [track life sequence]
Examples and references please. I can give you plenty of examples to the contrary.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
The US Agriculture Department; in 1920 we had 735 million acres of forest, today it's more than 750 million acres..."
You have heard of the 'Baby Boomers'? correct? It's a major percentage of the population that the market 'follows' based on their age and growth. Market's also adapt to NEEDS quickly; ex- the Chicago Tylenol scare. People were dying from tampered Tylenol. What did the company do VOLUNTARILY? They pioneered tamper proofing and shipment monitoring...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
I mean assumptions such as that the "money sequence" actually DELIVERS the "life sequence", which is what we all REALLY care about. But it doesn't. It is assumed that a higher GDP means a higher "standard of living", but that's not true! A higher GDP just means more money is being transferred the market, which usually reflective of NECESSITY. As drinking water becomes scarce and everyone is buying the bottled stuff, THAT's good for the GDP, but is it good for us?
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
I'm assuming you are talking about the currency exchange and how dollars cycle through the economy...
Again paper money is a TOOL to facilitate TRADE. By that use it is already an INTEGRAL PART OF EVERYONE'S LIFE SEQUENCE!!!
And GDP=Standard of Living is an interesting correlation... Standard of living and satisfaction is anecdotal from person to person. A country IS better off with a higher GDP generally speaking... Even countries with little or no resources have low GDP.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist Even if the US is covered by more forest today ( bullshit ) than it was 100 yrs ago you still ignored a huuuge chunk of area in the world that has been deforested. Oh yeah Oil companies track resources for conservation like BP. How are they tracking the OIL spill in the gulf of Mexico by the way ? Man you're so full of crap !
LeMuSunda 4 months ago
@LeMuSunda
"Even if the US is covered by more forest today ( bullshit )"
~Sorry but that comes from the Department of Interior... It's not 'bullshit'
"How are they tracking the OIL spill in the gulf of Mexico by the way ?"
~Keep in mind that the BP fiasco in the Gulf is an environmental NON-ISSUE, in just under a year the entire eco-system of the gulf is fully recovered and fish are thriving.
The same happened with the Valdez.
Funkyflorist 3 months ago
@Funkyflorist .."sorry but that comes from the Department of Interior"....sorry but I don't believe what the govt. says, it's still bullshit ! And you say the BP fiasco is an environmental non-issue & the ecosystem will recover under a year ? THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED THE LEAK YET let alone recover the ecosytem. The only thing that stopped is the media coverage, they don't want to talk about it but it's still there KILLING EVERY LIVING THING IN THE SEA. The exxon valdez is nothing compared to this
LeMuSunda 3 months ago
@Starbat88
But in order for RBE to work we will have to change the 'way we think' about resources and money... This is a Philosophy... A set of principles... A RELIGION...
Patronizing science will not protect you from abuses of this system... We can plainly see TODAY that science and the scientific method ITSELF is abused and distorted for personal gain!
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "we will have to change the 'way we think' about resources and money"
That's true. By necessity, any society needs a set of principles to follow. The trouble is, our CURRENT way of thinking goes against the contraints of nature to such a degree, that it leads to unsustainable, wasteful consumption. Nothing grows forever. Like I said, this current way of thinking is more like a religion.
[cont]
Starbat88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"TODAY that science and the scientific method ITSELF is abused and distorted for personal gain!"
Also true, and the biggest examples that come to my mind are pharmaceutical trials that are biased because the pharmaceutical companies are funding those trials. "By law", they are required to declare their "conflicts of interest", as a way of preventing this corruption.
But in an RBE, science will not be affected by this, because there WON'T be "conflicts of interest", created by profit motive.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88 That is one of the dumbest things I have ever read. The notion that people with high end education and skills are going to apply their abilities for the collective - which includes people with no skills and no motivation - for the same compensation as everyone else is nonsense. There is a reason why such ridiculous thinking has never worked anywhere. I'm not surprised to see you're only 25. I'll bet you have no marketable skills and way too much time on your hands as well. Grow up.
jake44514 3 months ago
@jake44514 Studies at MIT have concluded that when it comes to simple tasks, like running a mile, monetary (reward) incentives work as expected.
But when it comes to complex tasks, like engineering, healthcare, research, education, humans are motivated by three other things.
Mastery: Being able to master a skill.
Autonomy: Having the freedom to work in way and in a place you enjoy.
Purpose: Making a contribution to society.
These would be the pillars of labor in a Resource Based Economy.
AWesome61696 3 months ago
@AWesome61696 Well said! I completely agree.
Starbat88 3 months ago
@jake44514 Are you really looking for an intelligent debate, or are you just blowing opinionated gas?
Starbat88 3 months ago
@jake44514 You are still pointing out a fact that is not relevant, that there is some kind of a reward for "work". There is no compensation, we can all receive our needs through the implementation of our technology. The people have gained an education because they have an interest that they were free to indulge. It hasn't worked anywhere, because its never been done before.
Sphacelate 3 months ago
@Starbat88 The question that none of you Zeitgiesters will answer is: Who decides what the basic needs of another person are? If you examine "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs", you are assuming that everyone is at the self-actualization level and that everyone will be provided basic life needs As such you are treating things like sex as a commodity whose supply and demand will be tracked in a computer. Oops we have a shortage of girls so you must take a guy instead.
Robbob9933 2 months ago
@Robbob9933 That`s got to be the most ridiculous counter-example I`ve heard yet.
Sex is not a `commodity` to be produced and distributed equitably. It`s an interaction between two people. People will have as much or as little sex as they want, depending on the nature of their social adventures.
Now the production and supply of things like condoms might fall into that category, but that can easily be addressed technically.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Starbat88 Quite the contrary, when you start treating basic life needs as commodities you can not pick and choose. Part of the Zeitgeist stance is all or nothing. But still the basic question goes unanswered. Who decides what a basic life needs of another is?
Robbob9933 2 months ago
THIS system is what treats basic life needs as commodities! Food and shelter, for example, are only available to those who can pay `money` for them; even though everybody NEEDS them. It`s not about `demand`. It`s about NEED, in that case.
And `who decides` what the basic needs of anther is? We know (thanks to the scientific method) what people`s basic NEEDS are. They include food, water, shelter, obviously, but also positive social interactions, and feeling of self-worth.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Starbat88 The "who decides need" is indeed the most relevant question. And no, the scientific method does not fully answer that. We know some of the basics yes, but reality quickly spirals this out of sustainability.
Take medical care for example. With 1 mil people, some may be risk takers and thus get injured a lot more. There's no way of know who is, and people pass into and out of this category. Yet medical resources have to be distributed fairly.
(cont1)
sirellyn 2 months ago
@sirellyn "Injuries" are not the most relevant issue in healthcare. It's chronic disease (heart disease, colon cancer, diabetes, etc), all or most of which is preventable with healthier lifestyle. Unfortunately, the monetary system drives this culture of consumption that propagandizes people AWAY from the ideal healthy lifestyle, and does not encourage them to take responsibility for their own health.
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Starbat88 The formula still works the same. You have to determine "need" subjectively. Do you try to ban all fatty food to prevent heart attacks? What happens to people who love the taste and make it secretly themselves? Do the food police arrest them?
You would have no way of knowing these things. (omniscience problem) The best you could do is a constant surveillance state. And people can even hide from that.
sirellyn 2 months ago
This question falls into the same category as "What if everyone wants five private jets parked in their front lawns?", etc.
These things are physically impossible, because resources are limited. The fact that SOME people might desire such things is a manifestation of our corrupted consumerist culture. Nobody should have exclusive rights to so much that it leaves others without.
That's not a violation of any 'rights'. It's just facing reality.
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn (cont)
So, in response to your question about people eating a lot of fatty foods; again, it's the result of our corrupted culture that pushes and promotes the consumption of such things. If we instead had a culture that promoted MODERATION, and healthy-eating, rather than eating purely for taste or pleasure, we would have a population that behaved VERY differently!
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Starbat88 You're mixing something people never had and could never get the resources for (jets) with something people have frequently and a taste for with resources everywhere (lard, sugar, salt).
Moreover you negate if people could or would possibly do something this easy, so when it does happen (and it has) you have no good answer for what to do about it.
"Don't worry people will behave properly."
The "and what happens when they don't?" Should scare you.
sirellyn 2 months ago
@sirellyn "The "and what happens when they don't?" Should scare you."
Why? I already basically pointed out what would happen if they don't.
Furthermore, you seem to be taking the ignorant, brainwashed behavior of people today, and extrapolating that into the future; as if people will "always" "inevitably" do ignorant things
Cultural conditioning will be different in the future! This is what influences human behavior. I don't understand what you don't understand about that.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Starbat88 It has nothing to do with people always doing the same things. All lifeforms explore their surroundings, humans also explore behaviors. Kids and teens in particular.
You discuss a system that absolutely relies on stable variables to ensure need is met. I'm telling you there are far too many rapidly changing variables for this.
Yes environment helps, not nearly to the level you require.
And conditioning? You are for propaganda as long as it's "yours?"
sirellyn 2 months ago
@sirellyn "And conditioning? You are for propaganda as long as it's "yours?""
Everything is conditioning, and so-called "propaganda". Right now, the "propaganda" has people upholding unsustainable values. We are for replacing these with values that are in accordance with natural law, as determined by the scientific method applied for social concern.
If that is what you call "propaganda", fine. But it's "good" propaganda, because it's real. It's not just blind ideology.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn "All lifeforms explore their surroundings, humans also explore behaviors. Kids and teens in particular."
That's certainly true. Nonetheless, you see people today behaving remarkably the same.
Ever see a mob lusting after the latest ipod or Justin Bieber merchandise?
Ever notice how worldly success is always equated with money, power, and youth?
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago 2
@sirellyn (cont)
Ever notice how so many people apathetically spend their lives in 9-5 jobs, cast a vote every few year, and wonder why the world retains it's injustices?
People act the bloody the same NOW (in certain ways). There's nothing unrealistic about expected people to behave the same, in certain OTHER ways, that are sustainable, educated, peaceful. An RBE calls for a revolution in cultural values, no question.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn (cont)
But lets just assume, for the sake of argument, that a large portion of the population would really be as inexplicably "stupid" as you're suggesting.
All that means is that demand for treatment of heart disease, and the like, will exceed supply. Those who allow themselves to fall into that preventable situation will have to deal with the uncertainty of this limited supply of treatment (surgeries, drugs, etc).
Those who live well will not need to worry. (cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn (cont) And like my earlier example, that would not be a violation of any human "rights". It would just be a fact of reality.
But for the record, I believe that the proportion of the population THAT stupid (not to listen to the common-sense principles of living well) will be non-existent, or else so small that taking care of them will not exceed the supply of treatments that an RBE (with it's optimized production) can deliver.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn (cont)
Instead, it is expected that we can "cure" these diseases by treating their symptoms with drugs.
THAT's the unsustainable part. It has nothing to do with needing a kind of "omniscience" to solve the problem.
Starbat88 2 months ago
(cont1) You may look at the amount of injuries, but you cannot determine between someone who is unlucky, someone forced to take risks, someone abused, or a myriad or other circumstances. There is no "blanket" way of distributing the resources fairly without some sort of omniscience.
Worse, more will risk more (as it can be more fun) as a part of thrill seeking. Even those who don't won't contribute more to ensure the shortfall is made up for. They are guaranteed fairness.
(cont2)
sirellyn 2 months ago
For someone to be "unlucky", as you say, is just superstition.
If someone is "forced" to take risks, or is abused, the question is WHY are they "forced" and WHY are they abused? What are the social and economic pressures in society that create that circumstance? Are they poor because they don't have "money". Were their parents abused, and so they abuse them? Were they never constructively taught how to have a viable relationship?
THESE are the more fundamental issues to address.
Starbat88 2 months ago
(cont2) It's not that they are being mean, simply that there are many pressing concerns and priorities in each different person's life.
You would have to "enforce" fairness somehow. And this is where it gets ugly. Some central deciding vehicle has to be constructed. And to determine maximum fairness it has to have maximum knowledge. Which means surveillance. And you are already down the same twisted and broken road as before.
The RBE assumes abundance.
(cont3)
sirellyn 2 months ago
@sirellyn `You would have to "enforce" fairness somehow.`
No you don`t. People basically want to live peacefully. It may be hard to believe when you look around at most of the world today, but THAT is our essential nature.
It is the real or perceived scarcity of access to resources that `enforces` the drive toward unfairness and aggression. The need to get `one up` over another is something that comes from social conditioning.
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn If you remove the conditioning that leads to this kind of dysfunctional behavior, replace it with values that are more sustainable and viable in the natural order (reciprocity, conservation of resources, efficiency, sustainability), AND if you can create an access abundance that leaves nobody wanting for their essential needs... then people will behave very differently NATURALLY. You don`t need to `enforce` it, or have `surveillance`.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn `The RBE assumes abundance.`
No. The monetary system assumes scarcity. When scarcity is not real, they CREATE it. They create the impression that buying some fashionable new product is necessary for you to be happy. That`s advertising. That`s manufactured demand.
Corporations thrive on the public being centrally depdendant on them for electricity, food, water, medicinal drugs. They THRIVE on scarcity.
(cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
(cont) Scarcity leads to profit. When profit is the end you are seeking, the last thing you want is access abundance.
Therefore, access abundance has not happened in our society. The society reinforces the values (sustainable or not) on which it is based.
I know it`s very easy to look at the `scarcity` around us, and assume there`s a `real` reason for it, but the fact of the matter is we have the TECHNICAL ability to meet everyone`s needs. Remember what the word technical means.
Starbat88 2 months ago
(cont3) Abundance through technology. Yet we can't even provide enough water for everyone with current technology even though 70% of the planet's surface is comprised of it. And this doesn't give you the first hint about how long this would take or how easy it would be to do for one ultra common compound?
The RBE intentions are good, but as the methods require a god-like level of omniscience it's fair to say the hubris reaches god like levels as well.
sirellyn 2 months ago
@sirellyn `Yet we can't even provide enough water for everyone...`
All we would need are desalinization plants, powered by renewable power sources, (something we have the TECHNICAL ability to accomplish), and the political will to build enough such plants. You could theoretically EASILY provide everyone with clean drinking water, green the deserts, etc.
But of course, in this society, we don`t have the `money` for such plants. (cont)
Starbat88 2 months ago
@sirellyn (cont)
Again, the problems that get in the way of such solutions are not `real` or insurmountable, as you`re suggesting. These problems are products of the dysfunctional monetary system that we`re living in.
You don`t need `omniscience`. You don`t need some `god-like` power or dictatorial way of running things. ALL you need is common sense, and some social values that don`t diametrically oppose the natural order.
Starbat88 2 months ago
@Funkyflorist Say we live in this RBE. What would you fill your time with? well, for starters, family friends, travel...but that can only last so long. People today have things called Hobbies, generally constructive things they do for pleasure, no monetary gain. They have a personal incentive to do them. So back in RBE world, what if you could work on your hobby all of the time. A hobby like designing buildings to be amazing, effecient etc would be AWESOME. I think there is more incentive really
Lukejcarter 4 months ago
@genanmer
There are other major problems with just water in a RBE. You will have to define what purification parameters for certain areas, some places WILL HAVE less water than others, and water can vary through-out the year as well.
What if a water main breaks? Will it be fixed by volunteers? No volunteer will get up at 2 am to repair it. If it is repaired by robots, who will build these robots!?
Resource Based Economy is a pipe dream, you do not consider the real world needs...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist yes water obviously is not spread evenly across the planet, that's why RBE understand this concept called "Efficiency". it will simply try to find ways & alternatives to tackle the distribution of energy across the planet, without the INEFFICIENT, INDIRECT tool called: Money, which unfortunately, has NOW caused much more problems in our world today, than solutions! first you have to acknowledge and admit this first, before we can go further.
nikiwonoto 4 months ago
@nikiwonoto
Money is only a tool to facilitate TRADE. Without money you are left with a barter system, under this RBE scheme all of this trade would be controlled. And actually money HAS facilitated more development than ANY recent or past 'depressions'.
Keep in mind EVERY ONE of these depressions are not CAUSED by money, but by individuals trying to MANIPULATE the system to get rich quick. The great depression was due to individuals taking out loans and investing it... RBE would kill us.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "Without money you are left with a barter system"
Even a barter system only makes sense in a world of scarcity. An RBE exists in a world of access abundance. It's a completely different dynamic.
"...not CAUSED by money, but by individuals trying to MANIPULATE the system..."
And money was a tool that ENABLED them to do it. In an RBE, there is no means, and no motive to do such a thing. THAT's how you prevent "corruption". No "law" or "regulation" can accomplish that.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
Keep in mind you are ASSUMING that everything will be abundant... It is not made that way by the system at all...
"different dynamic"
Are we back to the religion thing again?
"money was a tool that ENABLED them to do it"
This is and inductive reasoning problem...
If people didn't have guns we wouldn't be killing each other?
Removing currency WOULD NOT PREVENT CORRUPTION! You are also assuming that a global RBE would be above this as well, when it could EASILY be corrupted...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
Comment removed
nikiwonoto 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist and for an area that lacks water, it perhaps has another source of energy (eg: heat from a dry places for example, or minerals, etc) that can be exchanged with area that has plenty of water. all done without having a MIDDLE MEDIUM called Money, which unfortunately, is proven INEFFECTIVE because turns out that people/humans (especially the "rich Elites"!) tend to exploit it (Money), rather than working/solving for the REAL Values/Solutions. Hence the phrase: "you can't EAT Money!"
nikiwonoto 4 months ago
@nikiwonoto
"exchanged".... You mean 'trade'..... But there is no trade, you removed money to do it...
Money is just like a hammer, it's a tool, nothing more. It makes it so that we can all EXCHANGE these resources better!
Would you eliminate hammers? Even though some people can 'exploit' these hammers to kill others? That's no reason to get rid of hammers! The same applies to money.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "That's no reason to get rid of hammers!"
Another good example is the hand-driven drill. We got rid of those. Not because we "blamed" the hand-driven drill for being inefficient and time-consuming, but simply because power drills were better.
Likewise, we don't "blame" money for enabling corruption, as well as honest trade, or promoting self-centered, consumerist values. It's just that automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete. We don't need it anymore.
Starbat88 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Starbat88
"Another good example is the hand-driven drill."
Actually there are still hand drill's used today for small tasks... So it's a bad example... And in that CONTEXT of money as a TOOL FOR TRADE. Credit Cards and Digital Currency would be a better example...
"It's just that automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete. We don't need it anymore."
Even automation needs expertise and guidance, RBE seems like a 10 step process that is missing 8 steps!
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Starbat88
"automation technology makes "labor for income" obsolete."
This is actually quite fallacious... Automation does not make labor for income 'obsolete'. It makes the labor SPECIALIZED.
If you design a machine that can do the work of 100 men (a Bulldozer) then it takes one 'specialized' individual to operate that machine. It does not make his 'labor for income' obsolete, it makes it EVEN MORE IMPORTANT!
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
"if a water main breaks? Will it be fixed by volunteers?"
In a system that actually SUPPORTS you, rather than coerce your labor through a "carrot on a stick" mentality, I GUARANTEE you, people would be willing to get up at 2AM to fix a broken water main; especially when the lack of water affects them, as well as the rest of the community.
And robots would make that task easier, allowing humans to server merely as supervisors. Who wouldn't want to build something to make their lives easier?
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
...Robots made by volunteer technicians and engineers...
We're back to the Religion (change your mindset) cult farm philosophy...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Starbat88
Lets assume you have a volunteer... He gets up, get's in his rental car (since we have to share everything so that everything will be abundant) He goes to where the maintenance truck is head's to the water main... And he has no experience with fixing a water main... He's a volunteer.
You would have to support yourself through-out this whole scheme and in the end, YOU HAVE NO PRIVATE PROPERTY!
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "And he has no experience with fixing a water main... He's a volunteer."
Okay. I think there is a misunderstanding here, with regards to the nature of these hypothetical volunteers. He will not be some kind of amateur just because "he's a volunteer".
We're not talking about the kind of volunteers we have TODAY, where one volunteers as a kind of "personal sacrifice" since they are not making "money"... Why do you assume that only "money" can make experts?
[cont]
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
"Why do you assume that only "money" can make experts?"
Because it is a current absolute fact, specialists like doctors, engineers and other skilled laborers have to spend alot of time and money building their education and skill sets...
You think you can get 'volunteer's to pick up trash? Or empty your septic tank? Or design a Future Cold Fusion Septic Tank!?
This is sounding more like a fantasy...
And what's to stop these volunteers from demanding bribes and favors??
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "ecause it is a current absolute fact,"
Emphasis on CURRENT. I realize that it's peoples dominant (erroneous) values lead them to behave a certain way today, but it would be a different dynamic in an RBE. Stop holding the RBE to the standards and constraints of a monetary system, and then claiming that as evidence an RBE "wouldn't" work.
"You think you can get 'volunteer's to pick up trash?..."
Automation, genius. Volunteers would do the more intellectual jobs.
Starbat88 4 months ago
Volunteers of the future will WANT to serve, say the city, because they know it supports them as well as everyone else. They will be happy gain the required education and employ it.
But we're not talking about a 9-5 "job" like today either. It would be more like 2-3 hours per week, with volunteers rotating between shifts. The rest of the time, they can do whatever they want, including gaining all the education you could ever expect.
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
Taught by a string of 'volunteer teachers' working 2-3 hours a week... How are they going to get ANY education from that!? We can already see failures in such 'volunteer community systems'. Look at low income housing subsidized by the federal government.
Large apartments fell into degradation, sure the tenants could 'VOLUNTEER' and work on the place, but with no incentive it falls apart everytime.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
"...what purification parameters for certain areas, some places WILL HAVE less water than others...
With the development of abundant alternative energy sources, de-salinization plants can be built to deliver water just about anywhere. But efficiency is always kept in mind. Does it make sense to build a city in the middle of the desert, requiring a long pipeline?
At any rate, these are TECHNICAL issues, resolvable NOT through human opinion or the "market", but through the scientific method.
Starbat88 4 months ago
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist ["With the development of abundant alternative energy sources" ASSUMPTION]
There's over 2000 years of energy readily tappable from Geothermal sources alone. Not an assumption.
["plants can be built to deliver water just about anywhere" BLIND ASSUMPTION]
We can build desalinization plants to give us drinking water right out of the ocean. It's just that CURRENTLY, they would require too much energy use to be "cost productive".
[cont]
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
Geothermal is actually quite rare. Places that utilize them are protected in national parks (Old Faithful in Yellowstone). Are you proposing we build a plant on top of it?
"that CURRENTLY, they would require too much energy use to be "cost productive"."
Thats because COST=RESOURCES+LABOR, this is fact. If I sold you a rock you would only pay me depending on the rock's rarity. If I spent 3 hours carving it, I would charge you the COST of the rock, and my labor...
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist [(people don't live in the Sahara by preference)]
No. They live in the Sahara because of arbitrary national boundaries, and monetary and "economic" forces won't allow them to migrate elsewhere because of the infringement on a neighboring countries "anti-economy".
In an RBE, people would be free to live wherever makes sense. They would only live in the desert long-term, probably, if it were practical to green that desert.
[cont]
Starbat88 4 months ago
@Starbat88
I'm sure we're talking about DIFFERENT parts of the Sahara... There are vast areas of desert where there is only sand... It's an inhospitable environment... People don't live in extreme climates where it is difficult to live. That is an opinion and PREFERENCE.
"In an RBE, people would be free to live wherever makes sense."
Just like we do right now? So basically no change... You're back to square one.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "people would be free to live wherever..... just like we do right now" ?.... "so basically no change" ? Then what do you call borders, immigration laws, illegal aliens, and deportations ? you got it all wrong there, in this current system people are not free to live wherever. Clearly you have no idea what is to be an illegal alien. These people sacrificed so much to go to another country, just so they could get that hard earned money.
LeMuSunda 4 months ago
@Starbat88
Market has already covered area's of efficiency... It is cheaper (takes up less resources) to pump oil in Saudi Arabia than in other areas of the world. (this is a form of market specialization)
Larger countries enjoy developing natural resources while smaller countries focus on specialized manufacturing (japan=electronics, germany=cars, france=tailoring, etc).
The market has ALREADY made thing's efficient... Denial of this means you've drunk the kool-aid.
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Funkyflorist "The market has ALREADY made thing's efficient... Denial of this means you've drunk the kool-aid."
Tell that to the stuffed-to-bursting landfills that are spreading across the country, or to the great garbage patch of the Pacific Ocean. Tell that to the millions of people around the world starving to death, while those in the "developed" world are dying of diabetes and heart disease because they have TOO MUCH food.
Efficient my ass.
Starbat88 4 months ago
Comment removed
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
@Starbat88
1. Starvation in third world countries are due to CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS... Certainly NOT the economic system. When we gave Aid to North Korea the government would SELL this food to the people. African countries do the same. Pocketing money for themselves, we cannot blame the 'monetary system' for that.
2. Landfills are not 'rampant'. In fact about 90% of the United States is UNDEVELOPED (according to the Department of Interior)
3. So now 'abundance' is a bad thing?
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
We are already living in a resource based economy. Whoever they are, they need to find a better title
Juands10 6 months ago
@Juands10 We live in a monetary based economy
MichelinDUD 5 months ago
@MichelinDUD we live in a scarcity based economy the less of somthing , (money, gold, diamonds, vangoh paintings, ect...) it is viewed as more valuable... (supply and demand) this is the norm for the whole world, what jacque and tvp are doing is looking at the world a different way , with out any of the old system (our norm) , if we as a species want to survive we need a hive mentality, we all need to stop killing our planet with co2 nuclear power hydrocarbon fuels ect...
kenmabie 5 months ago
@kenmabie
"we all need to stop killing our planet with co2 nuclear power hydrocarbon fuels ect..."
Too... Many... Contradictions....
First co2 is a TRACE GAS that facilitates plant growth. Increases of co2 also increase crop yields and tree growth. Nuclear Power has almost NO co2 emissions and is perfectly safe (France has over 50 of them with no qualms with their waste thanks to breeder reactors). And.... Actually alternative energy sources (solar, wind) are BAD for the environment!
Funkyflorist 4 months ago
1970 - No RBE yet but were working on it
2010- No RBE yet but were working on it
2050- No RBE yet but were working on it
3500- No RBE yet but were working on it ....... ;)
axe863 6 months ago
@axe863 You forgot something before the year 3,000 we will have used up all the resources we need to live, so there won't be a 3,500 around 2050 we will start running out of things, but it will take a little while before the planet is completely distroyed. I am sure we start addressing this problem soon, like maybe when there is about 10 years worth of resources left.
Excelion333 6 months ago
You can ask questions directly to TVP and they will answer all of them (which is much more than what any politian does). People will be needed to create technology, they will always be needed. As some people today are interested in law and politics, in the future people will be interested in engineering and science (which is what life is about). What they say is that monotonous jobs won't exist. In fact, they will be extint in this system too, but you'll be unemployed and will die starving.
Snaking 6 months ago
Some of the points are awesome but many are limiting. Standardizing tracking of all resource in a logical model is fundamentally limited. understanding always changes needs always change truth always changes. There is no stead state except constant change. The system he imagines can not be built by us unless we tie into everything t the quantum level? Didn't God already do that?
daja74 6 months ago
I lol'd way too hard at "Science has no eggo, it eventually accepts it is wrong from time to time"......Bull....Shit.
the1unknown9 7 months ago
I love this... however... in comparing to a library... when people borrow a book, they pay the library to borrow it. That gives them the right to access the book. In our society, the reason the library is kept clean, organized, and monitored for inventory is bc people are paid money to upkeep the system for a population. What, other than money (which is motivating bc it gives access to limited resources) in a resource-based economy would motivate people to upkeep something like a library?
goldensleeves 7 months ago
Comment removed
Anubis7169 7 months ago
Comment removed
Anubis7169 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@goldensleeves
Robots. You would walk up to a terminal and ask, "I want book X" and voila, an autonomous robotics system would retrieve it for you to use.
Perhaps it would even give you a digital version of the book if you requested, (reason being: to save paper or your time). Re-watch the video and see what he mentions about automation.
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@goldensleeves
This solves the "Paying the employee" concept. Robots work for free, and are scientifically more efficient in every sector than us humans. More importantly, their ability to reference knowledge (or information) electronically is one of the main aspects of a Resource Based Economy.
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@Anubis7169 ok but your "robots replace employees" solution still seems incomplete to me. Suppose EVEN if we had robots all over the world replace ALL human employment and if nobody owns anything... Now... if even ONE of those robots breaks down. Who is going to fix that robot? Other robots?? What if they break too?? Nobody will upkeep the robots. Because nobody's job is to fix it, or know anything about it. Who is going to reprogram the robot? Who decides what kind of robots exist? etc
goldensleeves 7 months ago
@goldensleeves
I never said ALL humans would be replaced. This is not possible from the near paradox you just pointed out. But based on volunteer statistics taken through polls and studies, the volunteer man hours for the average country exceeds that required for an RBE to run. It would require less than 4-5 man-hours per person per week, to run properly once set up.
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@Anubis7169 "the volunteer man hours for the average country exceeds that required for an RBE to run. It would require less than 4-5 man-hours per person per week, to run properly once set up."
u just completely made up that stat. back that up with proof.
there is no way we can meet the demand of what consumers would want once everything is made free, let alone meet that demand using just 12.5% of the workforce!!
kajmobile 7 months ago
@goldensleeves
This again is dictated by what kind of life YOU want to live. You aren't forced to work.
Unfortunately i haven't the time to answer all your questions.
Peace :)
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@Anubis7169 You didn't answer because you don't have an answer. If you can't answer it, don't wast time commenting. Also, i actually don't work for anyone but myself fyi. And I am greatly in support of the resource based economy... as long as someone can enlighten me on how to solve this very simple and basic question which I have presented. This question I have asked is fundamental to whether this resource based economy is possible or not. This is important. Anyone have a solution?
goldensleeves 7 months ago
@goldensleeves
Why is it that these conversation always end up with me spending exorbitant amounts of time trying to enlighten someone, only for them to turn around and say "Nah You just dont have an answer"?
You're probably the 14th or 15th person to ask the exact same questions.
-"Money creates value"
"In a world of abundance value doesnt exist"
-"Who will do the work to creates this abundance?"
"Robots"
-"Who will fix the robots if all jobs are robots?" (Ive heard this one 10000 times)
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@goldensleeves
seriously the argument goes in circles
Do more research and you'll understand why these questions have been exhaustively answered. Im not spending more of my time answering youtube videos
Anubis7169 7 months ago
@Anubis7169 u r delusional if u think this can work. u need money to ration goods and services since people demand far more than we can produce.
and there wont be enough volunteers to do all the jobs that we dont have the technology to automate
not only does the rbe defy common sense, they dont have a shred of evidence that what they propose is viable.
kajmobile 7 months ago
@Anubis7169 ... My answer to your question: Your comment gives the impression you don't know the answer. The reason it appears that way is because you took out lots of time to write a complaint about having to deal with answering a question as if it was a burden instead of answering the question. And just because we're conversing on a youtube video doesn't make it any less valuable of a communication medium.
goldensleeves 6 months ago
@goldensleeves TVP is not interested in science. they r on an ideological crusade to eliminate money.
there is no scientific validity to the claim that we can run the economy without money or that there would be any benefit to doing that.
goods need to be rationed otherwise u will have hugely unequal distribution and shortages in everything. and workers need to be compensated otherwise u wont have enough workers.
kajmobile 7 months ago
@kajmobile 1. The VP seems to be interested in science to me. In fact, eliminating the monetary system seems to be part of the solution based on the premise that it is a deterrent to our ability to maximize objective scientific reasoning to allocate resources most effectively for human survival. 2. No validity? Well, it's yet to be tested... and there is more than enough validity that the current monetary system perpetuates inevitable failure in meeting the global needs of humanity.
goldensleeves 6 months ago
@goldensleeves 1. just because TVP "seems to be interested in science" does not mean their proposals r based on science.
2. the overwhelming majority of allocation decisions r SUBJECTIVE not objective. there is no correct scientific answer to whether we should live in cheap fresco igloos or more expensive brick ornate homes.
3. proof that there is a problem is not proof that ur solution will fix or improve anything
kajmobile 6 months ago
@kajmobile Good points!
1. The goal is eliminate human suffering, not just money. Suffering occurs as basic needs are unmet due to resource scarcity. Scarcity is required for profit so the monetary system guarantees human suffering
2. Some subjectivity may be inevitable. But if we agree suffering is bad, it matters less how we subjectively choose a method since survival needs are objectively measurable
3. Even if it could fail, it's still irrational to continue what we already KNOW fails
goldensleeves 6 months ago
@goldensleeves
1. "Scarcity is required for profit so the monetary system guarantees human suffering"
That is not how our economy works. Profit does not rely on scarcity. It relies on being able to generate more revenue than expenses. If capital owners collect all the profits, that will lead to increasing inequality which causes suffering.
The solution is better allocation of income, not eliminating money. i think capital should be democratically owned and its income equally distributed
kajmobile 6 months ago
@goldensleeves
2. if we objectively determine everyone needs a home, that tells us nothing about whether we should put everyone in hi-rise apartments, brick homes or cement igloos. that is why what people want should be determined by them, not by fresco's team of technicians, through democratic votes and through them spending their own money.
the technician's role should be building what people want, not telling u what u can and cannot have
kajmobile 6 months ago
@kajmobile All human attachment comes with WANTING something...The Venus Project suggests working with computerized system which designs the most efficient citys, buildings etc for sustainable lifestyle. If we could lift up our collective conciseness there will be less attachment to the material world. This will not discriminates creativity or esthetics in our life but push us away from the ego-oriented desires.
13Sundisk 6 months ago
@13Sundisk A scientific magical unicorn told me that if we all eat 1 pound of skittles for 15 minutes ...there will never be hunger again ... oh yeah I forgot to say science is good, scientific method is awesome, science science science.
This completely sums up TVP/TZM science.
axe863 6 months ago
@axe863 better science than fantasy superstitions from anonymous authors that lived in the bronze age and thought thunder in the night was a wrathful invisible spae man with magical powers.... this completely sums up religion....
if you dont like science then i suggest you return to the jungle wearing only a fig leaf and never ever ever use anything like a car farm equipment or even crop rotation... pray to your invisible space man for food and see how long you last
kenmabie 5 months ago
@kenmabie Congratulations, I'm studying to be a "complexity" scientist. You believe in magic. You believe that a computer can overcome something that isnt Turing computable. At the very least, you believe something with absolutely zero proofing and zero evidence. I was mocking the faith of TVPers and comparing it to a "scientific magical unicorn." You believe in AI with godlike powers... this sums up TVP religion. The hyper-computer is all knowing, all powerful ok maybe not all loving ...lol.
axe863 5 months ago
@kenmabie Please link me to Fresco peer reviewed research papers on the RBE, human psychology, social dynamics, interest-money capitalistic collapse, etc. Fresco has ZERO scientifically verified ideas. He has a hypothesis here a hypothesis there...... with NO mathematical model to derive its statistical validity. A 9 year old can come up with 100 different things and be equally as valid from the scientific point of view.
axe863 5 months ago
@goldensleeves
3. since fresco's idea cannot work, nobody is going to want to implement it. so it will have zero impact on fixing any of society's problems.
if u want to fix problems u need to be advocating solutions that will work.
using taxes to redistribute income is a good short term goal and owning all the means of production democratically is a good long term goal
also, nothing will change unless u get involved politically which TVP/TZM idiotically says not to do
kajmobile 6 months ago
@goldensleeves I'm from England, and we don't have to pay anything for books at the library, you pay? I guess it may be our slight lean towards socialism here in the UK. And by the way, our libraries run absolutely fine, better than fine actually.
stratocaster1986able 4 months ago
This will happen when there aren't 7 billion people on the planet
brutus301 8 months ago