Scarcity - A New Theory of Everything

I think a technological utopia with robot workers is a noble idea. However, I think any attempt at such a society will be hijacked by the powers that be. They aren't motivated by money, they're motivated by power. And a non-sentient, intelligent robot slave is the ultimate vehicle for such power. Imagine legions of sentinels enforcing the will of the powers that be. That's a scary thought since it defuses many of our "serfs that be" defense mechanisms.

1. Virtually unlimited resources, thus virtually unlimited numbers of sentinels.

2. Inhuman strength and speed, reasonable intelligence (perhaps like that of a dog).

3. Less political arguments since those being sent into harms way are not human. This idea alone could divide the serfdom.

4. Unlimited intelligence-gathering abilities (think winged robots flying into homes).

5. Cheap wars. Less political backlash, more secrecy (less of our troops, less witnesses), again virtually unlimited force.

I haven't lost my faith in humanity. 95% of people are good, or at least have good intentions. I have only lost my faith in those at the top. And until they are taken out of power we will all suffer.

hmmmmmmmm.
i think i get the concept..not completely though,quite hard..
but yes i understand the theory..
some points are really good but most of the theory especially the 4 civilzation seems quite ridiculous..
well people have their opinion ..i am sure there are people who will find your theory interesting

PEACE

[edit on 6-11-2009 by saima]

**Part2**

To get to my main point directly, there is much more to humanity and to this construct we call space/time than can be commoditzed, and can not agree that treating life, and everything contained within it whether from a personal or societal perspective is a tenable perspective. Societal developmental direction is as much about personalities, beliefs, economics, individual and collective as it is about anything environmental. Societal development is effected by selfishness both personal and collective. If we bring low entropy or even negentropic systems into the mix, people will, based upon our history as a species, use those technologies, whether power propagation, food production, clothing, robotic goods and services for personal or national use, usually as a force multiplier against ones enemies or neighbors.

The problem isn't resources so much as it is our human frailties and the lesser, baser elements of our nature. Most of our problems are not going to be cured by outside devices and technologies but by rethinking who we want to be both personally and collectively. Without that change, without one generation choosing to be more altruistic, kind, generous, honorable etc and teaching those perspectives and truths to the following generation, we will as a species continue to repeat the mistakes of the past. If we want a better garden without so many weeds, we have to learn to plant with different seeds.

I give the original poster full marks on his effort snd thoughtfulness, and thank him for posting such a thoughtful treatise.

Shen



[edit on 6-11-2009 by Shendrin]

I fear I am way too thick to comprehend the details of this thread.

However, It does strike me that scarcity could well be the fuel that runs modern day society. I.E. We work to earn money, and the governments do all they can to take it off us, thereby keeping us on the treadmill.

Am I way off course here?

Very interesting though, and maybe I'll understand more if I take more time to understand the unfamiliar terminology used.
Now where did I put that dictionary?

Apologies in advance for any ignorance on my part, and thanks for doing my head in.

reply to post by GideonHM


Thanks for the further explanation, but my question was really just to confirm with the OP that I was actually understanding him/her correctly.

The concept is not something I am unfamiliar with and as you point out in your post, change comes at a cost. Something I believe the OP refers to in "end self," "peak group" and "beginning choice", but I've yet to fully understand or interpret what each of these stand for.

I personally am not without materialistic values but am aware that these are merely desires rather than a requirement of my existence, they are desires I could quite easily fore go.

I do not crave gold or gems that seem so dear to so many who do not seem to question the concept of true value, my only concern at present is the intentions of those that control finite resources that do have true value, at least at this present time, and use them as a control mechanism to further their own agenda.

I am not beyond understanding the artificial boundaries we place on ourselves or have imposed on ourselves so that we are conditioned to believe we have limits.

Thanks for the reply, I'm looking forward to hearing more from the OP and hope that my limited education does not stop me from understanding.

reply to post by Koka


No, you got it. All you need is an idea, and college education or not, all one has to do is to try to understand. Then along the way, that old light bulb just clicks on. Presto, now you have a little more understanding and that is all you should hope for.

Compared to many, you are downright enlightened. Just don't sell yourself short, or let it get to your head. Simple.

reply to post by Xtraeme


one thing I ponder, is that scarcity can also at times butt heads with itself if people are in persuit of filling the voids.

One example would be awareness of all things happening and going on vs privacy. At which point do the two balance out.

Another example would be technological and other restrictions ie: stone and metal in some form or another (raw materials) are needed for (any product necessary: housing, etc) vs conservation o f ecosystem.

I'm of course oversimplifying to the point of being borderline strawman here, but it does bring ripples to the theory.

ponderance #2: after the universe, what is left? not the reset button, since it would seem that time would not be an issue anymore. what about other dimensions or other universes at that point? we live in 3 physical dimensions of perception (with time as a virtual fourth) what about more?

If the powers that run the show, prevent a true expansion of real human potential i.e. breaking free of the old norms: religion, money, politics, then the current system must be taken down.

I think it's quite easy: Just stop using money. Since money is there noose around our necks, then it's easy to stop using it. As long as people still communicated on what is needed (supply demand) then that is the only relevant data.

To become sober you must first put the bottle down.

I know it's easier said then done but it is the answer, or a start to get toward a Resource Based economy and a real workable point of view for society.

I'm very interested in this Theory of yours, Xtraeme. I have collected my thoughts about it and have grouped them into four points. I would love a response if you have the time.

1) Jean Paul Sartre described life as disjunction in thought between an imperative, a value and a good - depending upon where a person resides in the economic class system. Yet beneath these three ways of viewing life lie one original source: All of my actions are for the good of myself. It is only thus that the importance to self of one's own life decreases in value as economic power increases. So when I can easily provide myself with food and shelter, I need no longer think about preserving my own life all the time. Now I have the luxury of thinking of other things -- perhaps other people's lives as well as my own.

Sartre has painted a rather bizarre moral situation in which we classify the poverty-stricken as concerned only with the preservation of their own lives, and the oppulent as concerned with the self-serving action of controlling the lives of others. This suggests that the only kind of altruism that could exist is in the middle class, where life is thought of as a "value" (a hazy term, as far as I understand it). In this middle class, one could pursue the path to oppulence, or one could commit one's resources to assisting in the lives of others.

Now I do not mean to suggest that Sartre's assessment is inaccurate. Indeed, it does seem to be accurate. Rather, I think that this assessment is misleading.

Obvious anomalies aside (e.g. a rich person whose sole concern is the benefit of others), it seems that if one spends most of her formative years in either extreme poverty or extreme oppulence, a distortion in worldview will inevitably occur. The person in poverty never discovers the beauty and potential of either herself or other human beings, because this person is always thinking about survival. The person in oppulence never discovers the the beauty and potential in other human beings because she has never stepped beyond the boundaries of the de-facto class system.

The middle class person is very aware of the de-facto class system on the one hand, and able to easily maintain survival on the other. A logic of self-service would suggest that this middle class person's efforts, where not concerned with survival, will be oriented toward gaining entry into the top echelon.

Although the poor and the rich are naturally biased toward self-service (due to the distortions of their atmospheres), this bias can easily arise in the middle class as well. Parents who do not raise their children to look for that which is worthy of love in others will raise children who are self-serving. And we see this often in the middle class as well.

My point: the notion of a value is a complex one, and it can take the form of either egoism or altruism. But this split cannot extend to the notions of a "good" or an "imperative", because both of these concepts assume a position of egoism. Care ought to be taken in assuming that the choice to be either egoistic or altruistic does not extend to beyond the middle class. The poor and the rich can both choose to be altruistic; it is just more difficult.

2) Scarcity assumes a moral position of self-service.

You must know that this is true, but I do not understand why this assumption is necessary in all moral systems. It is apparent that there exists scarcity, but let us consider the notion:

What makes something scarce is not that there is not enough for everyone's needs. Whether there exists this kind of needs-scarcity for human beings is unknown. What makes something scarce is that there is not enough for everyone's desires. And here we now must quantify the desires of others. We can attempt to quantify them based on sales of goods, but this concept is subject to self-reinforcing feedback, given the phenomenon of "marketing". It's not enough to measure the people's desire for any given good, because this desire can be changed by those who have a desire to change the people's desires. One can see how this concept lies at the root of the recent phenomenon of economic bubbles. We market to absolute saturation until the consumer can no longer pay and thus changes his desires, inadvertently collapsing the bubble.

For human beings, the scarcity of a good is measured by the desire of a human being for that good, rather than the need of a human being for that good. So if our collective desires changed, or if we learn to perceive our needs more clearly, scarcity need no longer support our ethical systems. In short: if persons began to be interested in the good of others more than themselves (i.e. a shift in global consciousness), the economic bubble structure of life would end, and we could pursue such things as vertical agriculture, etc., etc. Why should this be the case? Suppose that I am willing to sacrifice my life for those whom I love. I no longer have any strong consideration for the scarcity of a good. I have access to some set of things which I consider necessary for my existence as an altruist, and if someone asks me for something that I have, I will give it to him. In this transaction, scarcity is never an issue.

Now remember that scarcity is measured by desire and not need. Suppose also that we, as a globally aware culture, perceive that it is in the interests of altruism to determine the needs of the world and seek to meet those needs. In this situation, we have reprogrammed our collective desires to align with our collective needs. Now the difference between desire-scarcity and need-scarcity is semantic.

Thus, it will be easier to accomodate everyone's needs because there will no longer be anyone overconsuming.

3) Beyond the concept of Type-1 civilization, the Type scale may not be coherent.

Suppose that it takes a shift in global consciousness to achieve a Type-1 civilization. If this global shift of consciousness occurs, then all bets are off. A global shift in consciousness brings with it the potency of a conscious culture, and this new form of consciousness can no longer be measured by the standards which are used to measure human consciousness. Consequently, we do not know what kinds of drives and abilities our culture may have when it reaches Type-1. We may discover that numerous concepts which had troubled us in the past were no longer problematic (such as 'scarcity' and 'control'). We may also discover that there is an overarching socio-political structure of which we are only a part (a galactic federation, for example). Etc. This will change all the rules, and our definitions for Type-2, Type-3, and Type-4 may no longer apply.

At the same time, these distinctions have a vague similarity to Ra's (and other channeled entities) concepts of 'densities'. I highly recommend you research Ra's The Law of One (channeled by Carla Rueckert, Don Elkins, and Jim McCarty). There is much similarity between your overarching theoretical structure and Ra's.

I would stress to you, though, not to assume that the concept of scarcity will always be important. For example, the sentence, "So the only thing that will be scarce is 'the lack of something,'" may not make any sense when we actually achieve the state of being "omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent". As the mystics always say, God is entirely incomprehensible. This is true regardless of whether he exists independently from us or not.

4) In short, it may be best to see your theory as pulling the wool away from our eyes concerning only our present plight. However, our present plight, given such a progressive system, may only use a subset of the various categories of thought which will be implemented throughout our journey. And it may be that we leave some of these categories behind on the way. (And I suspect 'Scarcity' is one that will be left behind.) You have discovered the so-called "scared spiral", but this spiral is present throughout nature. Your discovery is an instance of this fact, but it is foolhardy to assume that you've discovered the One True Spiral (or the One True Truth). Thinking of yourself has having approximated the shape of the universe using a very dull instrument might be a healthier way to view this system. It will allow you to expand it and change it as necessary without the bias that the megalomaniacal theorist tends to have: the my-system-is-The-True-System conviction.

reply to post by PriamsPride


Firstly, thank you for the op. Very thought provoking.

PriamsPride I totally agree that perception is all important here.

The under estimation of perception change during evolution is to under estimate the potential of the evolution itself.

Well as far as I can make out anyway.


[edit on 6-11-2009 by ocomeon!]

I skimmed the thread this morning, but I will furthur read it later on this evening.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by shadowgears911]

I have read the words of many great humanist thinkers, but have failed to find any evidence of there ever being a global consensus and subsequent adoption and application of these ideas.

Philosophy, the journal of my thinking race...well the ones that got talked about or into print, has shown that sitting around Philosophizing subjects with no ends is pointless and that you would be of more use if you actually did something...other than lecturing.

From the greatest minds to the lowly poets, all have failed to unite the global population and force a descision out of it...so what chance do I have or you.?

I have to admit that I tend not to think very much about our local difficulties, because in reality our dislikes and desires have been over explored...we should, if we have learnt anything, be able to organize ourselves...this is afterall the easy part.

The hard part is facing upto the fact that as far as we know, our planet is the only one in the universe that carries life forms and that we could be obliterated at any given moment in time...this to me is the only `scarcity` worth bothering about. So if we wish to refute this fact we are going to have to quickly get focused and develop what we need to travel infinte distances in search of other occupants...before something very big happens in our small domain.

At the moment we appear to have learnt nothing, no real understanding of the enormity of our own existence and what we should do with it...kinda like an animal transfixed by the headlights of an oncoming car, unaware of their possible fate...pathetic.

I would gladly give my time/existence for the betterment and longtivity of the human race. As things stand at the moment, I prefer to distance myself from the activities of my race, and find happiness in the fact that I have not willingly contributed/declared any suppoort for this primative, directionless system I find myself in.
Distancing myself is the only action I can take, because the task of changing what I see before me exceeds many lifetimes, and I only possess one.

reply to post by Xtraeme


While the premise is legit, fascinating, and profound, there is already a reality and truth that has this whole theory pawned/trumped and that is Advaita Vedanta.

While humanity may indeed still go out on this said quest seeking and evolving to higher civilizational types, this god-like omnipresent state which you seem to imply would be the epitome of the highest state/achievement.

The reality is that this highest state has been already reached by many in history, currently, and in the near future and said reality is also the underlying reality of all things, ideas, thoughts, states.

Even in Quantum Physics we have the example of what happens to atoms when cooled to near absolue zero in condition of bose-eistein condensate, said atoms turn into waves and then into oneness/omnipresence.

The reason this state is being experienced by all is because within the psychology/physiology of every single human being is a projector/mind which projecting the illusion that we are all seperate beings and we label and categorize things implyng relativity to parts of a whole creating this perpetual illusuory state.

That Oneness also proven in science in certain conditions, is the final and absolute state and theory of everything and cannot be trumped!

I've already realized this concept with out the theory and everything backing it. But only up to getting our civilization into stage 1 where we utilize our entire planet, and for that, unite us all.

You sir, are one of my new best friends.

The Cause of Scarcity if no other than Capitalism

all The Technology that we need for become Type 1 Civilization has exist for decades but Profit Hungry Capitalist Suppress them all until much later.

A very deep concept indeed, but I think it comes down to this...

You talk about a logarythmic spiral, much like a fractal pattern. Through the study of such fractal patterns, such as the fibbonacci sequence of numbers, Elliot Wave, and the mandelbrot set, you will find that the universe is just this very thing.... a seemingly random repitition of the same logarythim over and over again at varying scale. You can go as deep as you want, and still you find the same endless loop of existence.

I think of it like Heiddeggar's concept of Being and Time. We are nothing more than a reflection of the "they", i.e., a product of our environment, which has been projected onto ourselves, but by simply being there in "it", i.e., in time, i.e., within the loop, you are the "they" and the "they" is you. Put simply, there is no hammer without the tool that defines its very purpose as a hammer, which is the nail. Conversely, there is no nail without the hammer. Both are defined by their usefulness by being in time with each other. Likewise, there is no being without time, for the very nature of being is defined by time.

I do not see things changeing without a cataclysmic event or scientific discovery that will change our entire view of the fractal universe that we live in. You can't change the logarythim, if you will, only our view of its scale. I think that time is the concept that must be dropped in order to achieve a full "oneness", if you will, with the "they", i.e., being able to traverse the entirety of the fractal universe at once, but that is the paradox, for being and time are like the hammer and the nail. You really can't be anywhere without it being restricted by time... Or maybe we just haven't figured out how to go beyond being in time yet? Maybe the key lies within our dreams, or the third eye, where time doesn't seem to exist? Can an infinite existence be achieved?

Or perhaps the logarythim can be changed, and has been projected onto us by those that are on a different logorythim, i.e., dimension than ourselves much like a holographic image. I don't know... My head hurts.

I think that the ancients had it right, and were perhaps farther along than ourselves.... "As above, so below." We need to find a way to be both above (atomic) and below (subatomic) at the same time by recognizing that time is merely an illusory prison that some one, thing, or possibly ourselves, or possibly all of the above, keep us in.

[edit on 6-11-2009 by HothSnake]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by HothSnake]

[edit on 6-11-2009 by HothSnake]

OP - maybe you are correct in assuming that people don't already know this.

I often assume that people know or understand what I know and understand, and am continuously shocked and surprised.

I think we have the technology available to make every person self sustaining. TO me it is perfectly necessary that people provide food, water, clothing and energy in their own small communities.

You need some specialization to cover the basic necessities, but not much. Small communities of several hundreds would be adequate.

To sustain those communities then you need an industrial center - people should have excess time left over after managing their own basic needs - this surplus labor can be used to build the capital goods necessary to provide for the communities. Such things as water burning electricity generators, weaving or spinning fibres to make clothing etc.

All of the raw materials needed should come from each community. With metals etc - these can initially be provided to each community - but should have a near 100% recycle rate.