It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Feed 7 billion on 155 mi. sq.
page: 2share:
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
Yeah, I agree that handouts do not solve anything, and education is the key. But no matter how the food is produced, you still need to hand it out to those people that cannot pay for it. They do not care where the food is coming from. So yes, food produced efficiently and locally would be a good thing, but it would NOT solve starvation. To solve this, you need to change not the food industry, but the starving people themselves!
So long as we put value on worthless slips of paper and metal discs, I don't see this happening. Many of these starving people don't live in the best of lands to farm and would require those wonderful slips of paper and metal discs just to acquire the infrastructure to make that land usable for farming. We need to act as a global species and do away with this petty nonsense of national borders and resource wars when there is more than enough to go around for everyone. Right now it's greed before need, we should change that to need before greed. Do we really need to rape all the resources?
Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by weedwhacker
I personally took the size of land needed as a means to show that the amount of land required is a lot less than what conventional farming techniques tell us is required as well as the amount of resources or how much can actually be grown in a certain size of land.
I personally think we should live in mini familial arcologies with their own vertical farming systems that these families take care of as well as their own renewable energy generators to power the homes and farm. This ridiculous idea of building outwards and taking up more land and resources is going to be our demise if we don't act and think differently soon, if it isn't already too late!
Well said, and that is my thoughts as well.
We have a resource and biosphere management problem.
NOT a population problem.
We have the technology to make the earth a paradise instead of
a festival of greed, wars, consumerism, and power tripping.
We have a resource and biosphere management problem.
NOT a population problem.
But they are one and the same thing. Resource and biosphere management problem means that there is a part of the population that cannot get the resources it needs - a population problem. Population problem does not mean that the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. Overpopulation on a city or country level is a serious problem, too.
reply to post by Maslo
But it is not a population issue at all, it's purely an issue on how we manage the resources we have. When greed dictates where the resources go, then you have an issue with people not receiving what they need to survive. It's human greed of wanting more than is necessary. We could live in at least a familial arcology with a personal vertical farm rather than every member of a family owning an acre of land each living in a 2,000 sq. ft. house. You just need a room to sleep, a communal kitchen and a family room and possibly a space to entertain guest to your familial arcology. You could also set up a personal cemetery vault where dead family members are cremated and the remains stored in a family tree type setting, or something along those lines making it special to that particular familial arcology.
There is no problem with population or resources. It's a problem of greed and resource management and nothing else.
But they are one and the same thing. Resource and biosphere management problem means that there is a part of the population that cannot get the resources it needs - a population problem. Population problem does not mean that the Earth as a whole is overpopulated. Overpopulation on a city or country level is a serious problem, too.
But it is not a population issue at all, it's purely an issue on how we manage the resources we have. When greed dictates where the resources go, then you have an issue with people not receiving what they need to survive. It's human greed of wanting more than is necessary. We could live in at least a familial arcology with a personal vertical farm rather than every member of a family owning an acre of land each living in a 2,000 sq. ft. house. You just need a room to sleep, a communal kitchen and a family room and possibly a space to entertain guest to your familial arcology. You could also set up a personal cemetery vault where dead family members are cremated and the remains stored in a family tree type setting, or something along those lines making it special to that particular familial arcology.
There is no problem with population or resources. It's a problem of greed and resource management and nothing else.
reply to post by sirnex
No, it is also a population issue.
When citizens of some country cannot support themselves and they starve and need charity help from other countries, that means this country is overpopulated. Maybe if somehow magically all of these poor uneducated people had their nice arcologies, they would live decent lives. But that will not happen because nobody is gonna built those for free for them.
Handouts never solve anything, they only make things worse. Your nice arcologies would be destroyed and turned into ghettos in a few years, and the population of charity-dependent people living in them would increase even more while the resources lasted.
Another part of the problem is harmful globalization - importing food into regions that are unable to support themselves naturally, which causes overpopulation of these regions and further poverty and starving.
In my opinion, all these charity handouts are part of the problem. If the developed world would not start massive charity programs after WW2, there would be much less starving people today. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and tomorrow you will have two men asking you for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
But it is not a population issue at all, it's purely an issue on how we manage the resources we have.
No, it is also a population issue.
When citizens of some country cannot support themselves and they starve and need charity help from other countries, that means this country is overpopulated. Maybe if somehow magically all of these poor uneducated people had their nice arcologies, they would live decent lives. But that will not happen because nobody is gonna built those for free for them.
Handouts never solve anything, they only make things worse. Your nice arcologies would be destroyed and turned into ghettos in a few years, and the population of charity-dependent people living in them would increase even more while the resources lasted.
Another part of the problem is harmful globalization - importing food into regions that are unable to support themselves naturally, which causes overpopulation of these regions and further poverty and starving.
In my opinion, all these charity handouts are part of the problem. If the developed world would not start massive charity programs after WW2, there would be much less starving people today. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and tomorrow you will have two men asking you for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
reply to post by Maslo
I disagree. Many of these third world nations with starving populations don't live on land that can be farmed or have piss poor governments managing the resources improperly. You can't blame the population itself as the issue of enough land and food has nothing to do with the population. It has everything to do with management and greed.
And there you have it! So long as we have a continuation of this mindset where slips of paper and shiny metal discs have value and we act as individuals out for our greedy selves, then such a change in global society will never happen.
We willfully allow others to rule over us, control the worlds resources and turn necessities into commodities. This willful and voluntary slavery is what's uneducated. Does it really sound better to build outwards losing more land as population increases? Losing less habitable land, less land to produce food, less resources as we rape it all to continue our current outward growth? Jesus H. Fing Christ... You want to call a sustainable global culture uneducated?
I'm not sure why your envisioning a despotic post apocalyptic type of arcology lifestyle when I described nothing of the sort.
Moving to a global society living in arcologies, be it family owned small scale or larger population centers would provide more than enough land to move entire populations out of harsher environments that are hard to survive in.
Where are you getting this charity handout BS from my posts? Please quote the explicit statement leading you to think this is what I'm saying. I've said nothing about handouts and not having people do any work at all. This mindset that value exists and can only be received as small slips of paper and shiny metal discs is disgusting, pathetic, greedy, and uneducated. Your a consumerist zombie incapable of realizing a better way to live as a global society working together instead of against one another. It's pathetic and shameful.
When citizens of some country cannot support themselves and they starve and need charity help from other countries, that means this country is overpopulated.
I disagree. Many of these third world nations with starving populations don't live on land that can be farmed or have piss poor governments managing the resources improperly. You can't blame the population itself as the issue of enough land and food has nothing to do with the population. It has everything to do with management and greed.
Maybe if somehow magically all of these poor uneducated people had their nice arcologies, they would live decent lives. But that will not happen because nobody is gonna built those for free for them.
And there you have it! So long as we have a continuation of this mindset where slips of paper and shiny metal discs have value and we act as individuals out for our greedy selves, then such a change in global society will never happen.
We willfully allow others to rule over us, control the worlds resources and turn necessities into commodities. This willful and voluntary slavery is what's uneducated. Does it really sound better to build outwards losing more land as population increases? Losing less habitable land, less land to produce food, less resources as we rape it all to continue our current outward growth? Jesus H. Fing Christ... You want to call a sustainable global culture uneducated?
Handouts never solve anything, they only make things worse. Your nice arcologies would be destroyed and turned into ghettos in a few years, and the population of charity-dependent people living in them would increase even more while the resources lasted.
I'm not sure why your envisioning a despotic post apocalyptic type of arcology lifestyle when I described nothing of the sort.
Another part of the problem is harmful globalization - importing food into regions that are unable to support themselves naturally, which causes overpopulation of these regions and further poverty and starving.
Moving to a global society living in arcologies, be it family owned small scale or larger population centers would provide more than enough land to move entire populations out of harsher environments that are hard to survive in.
In my opinion, all these charity handouts are part of the problem. If the developed world would not start massive charity programs after WW2, there would be much less starving people today. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and tomorrow you will have two men asking you for fish. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Where are you getting this charity handout BS from my posts? Please quote the explicit statement leading you to think this is what I'm saying. I've said nothing about handouts and not having people do any work at all. This mindset that value exists and can only be received as small slips of paper and shiny metal discs is disgusting, pathetic, greedy, and uneducated. Your a consumerist zombie incapable of realizing a better way to live as a global society working together instead of against one another. It's pathetic and shameful.
Originally posted by Maslo
There are more obese people than starving people in the world. We have enough resources to feed everyone. But it will never happen. Not because of some evil TPTB, but because
1. it is not profitable to feed the poor
2. all it would lead to is further procreation of those who "need to be fed" and cannot provide for themselves.
Population control of the poor is the only answer if we ever want to end starving and scarcity.
1. why does it need to be profitable? The point of the OP is that scarcity is a lie. we can change the way that we do things and have all that we need in abundance.
2. Wow, that's some kind of "ism" that I don't even know what it is.
since the the richest 1% of the world own half the world's wealth, it actually stands to reason that if we were going to get rid of anyone, we should get rid of the wasteful eaters.
wow, I hope that your post was intended ironically.
kind regards, tamale
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
So????
Still...EVEN IF you have (and it's not possible) ONE space the size of West Virgina producing all this "food"....think it through logically!!
HOW do 7 billion people gain access to it??
Honestly....it's great idea for future space exploration, or local food sources...but 7 billion?? The entire PLANET??
Get real.
@weedwhacker
This response is not logical. Nowhere in the post or the video does it suggest that there should be 1 farm for the world 24000 sq mi might easily be broken in to 1000 or 2000.
I really think that you need to get real. Vertical farming is the future of agriculture on planet earth, there can be no other way. It is practical, efficient, clean, organic and healthful. And, yes...the entire planet can be fed with it.
90% of the cost of your food is related to fuel. Think about that and consider how best to reduce the cost of your food.
[edit on 10-7-2010 by Tamale_214]
reply to post by weedwhacker
I think someone is taking things to literal here.
Anywoo.We have had more breakthroughs like this before ,although this one is certaintly one of the more impressive ones.The sad thing is it wont be used.As said before it is already incorrect to think that we dont have enough food for everyone.There simply arent enough people willing to get the food to people who need it.
I think someone is taking things to literal here.
Anywoo.We have had more breakthroughs like this before ,although this one is certaintly one of the more impressive ones.The sad thing is it wont be used.As said before it is already incorrect to think that we dont have enough food for everyone.There simply arent enough people willing to get the food to people who need it.
Good thread! scarcity is an illusion. Even without hydroponics we have more then enough. This guy grows six tons of food a year on a tenth acre of his
city lot:
reply to post by sirnex
Well, I am afraid that it will never happen, then. Humans are indeed greedy, I know I am. There is a reason why capitalism is the most succesful system in history. Despite its shortcomings... it works. In this regard, global society is the same than it was at the dawn of civilization, when shiny pieces of metal or shells were used instead of our papers, metal discs and numbers in a computer. We need to embrace how global society works and work in cooperation with it, not trying to "change" it into something it is not.
Because if this arcology lifestyle would be economically viable, the transition would happen on its own naturally. I dont think arcologies would solve anything, and I dont know how could they be brought to reality, in the first place. It would be a waste of resources.
(Greed does not dictate where the resources go, you do with your wallet.)
If not by charity handout, how exactly do you intend to transfer resources from the rich and greedy to those that do not recieve enough to survive?
Yes, low quality land and a bad government are a big part of the problem. Strangely enough, their citizens are still procreating rapidly, even though the land is unable to support even current population. That is another part of the problem - overpopulation which you seem to ignore.
And there you have it! So long as we have a continuation of this mindset where slips of paper and shiny metal discs have value and we act as individuals out for our greedy selves, then such a change in global society will never happen.
Well, I am afraid that it will never happen, then. Humans are indeed greedy, I know I am. There is a reason why capitalism is the most succesful system in history. Despite its shortcomings... it works. In this regard, global society is the same than it was at the dawn of civilization, when shiny pieces of metal or shells were used instead of our papers, metal discs and numbers in a computer. We need to embrace how global society works and work in cooperation with it, not trying to "change" it into something it is not.
I'm not sure why your envisioning a despotic post apocalyptic type of arcology lifestyle when I described nothing of the sort.
Because if this arcology lifestyle would be economically viable, the transition would happen on its own naturally. I dont think arcologies would solve anything, and I dont know how could they be brought to reality, in the first place. It would be a waste of resources.
Where are you getting this charity handout BS from my posts?
When greed dictates where the resources go, then you have an issue with people not receiving what they need to survive.
(Greed does not dictate where the resources go, you do with your wallet.)
If not by charity handout, how exactly do you intend to transfer resources from the rich and greedy to those that do not recieve enough to survive?
I disagree. Many of these third world nations with starving populations don't live on land that can be farmed or have piss poor governments managing the resources improperly. You can't blame the population itself as the issue of enough land and food has nothing to do with the population.
Yes, low quality land and a bad government are a big part of the problem. Strangely enough, their citizens are still procreating rapidly, even though the land is unable to support even current population. That is another part of the problem - overpopulation which you seem to ignore.
Sorry I am late to the dance on this one OP. Great Find. I am from Wisconsin so now I am hunting down where this physically is.
My first blush at the start of the video was "3 acres, 1,000,000 pound of food" - maybe. Coming from a farm region, I had to ask what about fertilizers, fish food, disease fighting chemicals in the tanks, water usage permits, etc.
HOWEVER, even if it may not be perfect or an "Organic Utopia" as so Non-Knowers seem to get giddy over, this is a 1000 times better than Monsanto and corporate farms.
I am pretty sure those are not all heirloom veggies in those green houses but it could go that direction.
I doubt a pile of compost would provide enough heat in a January in Wisconsin so they may need to supplement it a little. But so what? A little wood stove smoke or even a diesel stove smoke has to be better than a gazillion square miles maintained by countless tractors belching fumes.
It may not supplement our Western diet 100% but it has to do better than shipping GM produce a thousand miles on a truck. This has the potential to return agriculture to local farmers since they could grow a wider variety of food throughout the year. Heck, if you took out corn soy bean, and grain from the northern Midwest right now, there would be almost nothing grown percentage wise.
I realize you posted this a while back so I expect no response but thanks for bringing this to my attention. I now have a direction for my retirement
My first blush at the start of the video was "3 acres, 1,000,000 pound of food" - maybe. Coming from a farm region, I had to ask what about fertilizers, fish food, disease fighting chemicals in the tanks, water usage permits, etc.
HOWEVER, even if it may not be perfect or an "Organic Utopia" as so Non-Knowers seem to get giddy over, this is a 1000 times better than Monsanto and corporate farms.
I am pretty sure those are not all heirloom veggies in those green houses but it could go that direction.
I doubt a pile of compost would provide enough heat in a January in Wisconsin so they may need to supplement it a little. But so what? A little wood stove smoke or even a diesel stove smoke has to be better than a gazillion square miles maintained by countless tractors belching fumes.
It may not supplement our Western diet 100% but it has to do better than shipping GM produce a thousand miles on a truck. This has the potential to return agriculture to local farmers since they could grow a wider variety of food throughout the year. Heck, if you took out corn soy bean, and grain from the northern Midwest right now, there would be almost nothing grown percentage wise.
I realize you posted this a while back so I expect no response but thanks for bringing this to my attention. I now have a direction for my retirement
reply to post by Maslo
[QUOTE]Humans are indeed greedy, I know I am.[/QUOTE]
Therein lays the real problem.
It works? Really? Food shortages, foreclosures, insane national debts, economic recession and collapses.
Yes ... your right, it's working like a charm!
So a global society can only exist if it only values greed and places value on worthless objects? Wow... That's an interesting idea. I wonder how that would pan out in the long run.
Please explain how freeing up more habitable land and more area to farm is a waste of resources. Seriously, I would absolutely love to see the logic behind such an inane statement.
That's called greed.
Do you understand what a resource based economy is? Do you understand that under such practice there would be no rich or poor? Do you understand that this planet has more than enough resources to sustain a much larger population than we currently have right now and that it's utterly unacceptable that there are hundreds of millions of human going without basic necessities because of people who are simply greedy. If we don't change this wonderful current global society, we'll possibly end up like that ourselves, thanks to human greed.
*sigh*
Overpopulation is not an issue on this planet. Having all these petty little nations squabbling over who owns what land is the problem. There is plenty of land to house and feed a larger population than we currently have without having any population living in harsh environments.
[QUOTE]Humans are indeed greedy, I know I am.[/QUOTE]
Therein lays the real problem.
Despite its shortcomings... it works.
It works? Really? Food shortages, foreclosures, insane national debts, economic recession and collapses.
Yes ... your right, it's working like a charm!
We need to embrace how global society works and work in cooperation with it, not trying to "change" it into something it is not.
So a global society can only exist if it only values greed and places value on worthless objects? Wow... That's an interesting idea. I wonder how that would pan out in the long run.
Because if this arcology lifestyle would be economically viable, the transition would happen on its own naturally. I dont think arcologies would solve anything, and I dont know how could they be brought to reality, in the first place. It would be a waste of resources.
Please explain how freeing up more habitable land and more area to farm is a waste of resources. Seriously, I would absolutely love to see the logic behind such an inane statement.
(Greed does not dictate where the resources go, you do with your wallet.)
That's called greed.
If not by charity handout, how exactly do you intend to transfer resources from the rich and greedy to those that do not recieve enough to survive?
Do you understand what a resource based economy is? Do you understand that under such practice there would be no rich or poor? Do you understand that this planet has more than enough resources to sustain a much larger population than we currently have right now and that it's utterly unacceptable that there are hundreds of millions of human going without basic necessities because of people who are simply greedy. If we don't change this wonderful current global society, we'll possibly end up like that ourselves, thanks to human greed.
Yes, low quality land and a bad government are a big part of the problem. Strangely enough, their citizens are still procreating rapidly, even though the land is unable to support even current population. That is another part of the problem - overpopulation which you seem to ignore.
*sigh*
Overpopulation is not an issue on this planet. Having all these petty little nations squabbling over who owns what land is the problem. There is plenty of land to house and feed a larger population than we currently have without having any population living in harsh environments.
Originally posted by Ex_MislTech
Feed 7 billion on 155 mi. sq.
www.youtube.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Via Hydroponics and Aquaculture using 10 times less water
a man was able to grow 1 million pounds of food on 3 acres.
Thank you!
This is the primary reason I joined ATS. To Discover, Learn, and debate.
This is wonderful information!
Below are a couple of updates on Will Allen:
www.sciencefriday.com...
wpt2.org...
And his non-profit homepage: www.growingpower.org...
[edit on 11-7-2010 by infolurker]
reply to post by sirnex
Insane national debts, some food shortages, economic recessions and collapses, even big part of foreclosures are not caused by capitalism, but by states trying to turn it into socialism. We do NOT have true capitalism.
Because we already have more than enough habitable land and land for farming? There is enough food for everyone, we have problem with its distribution. Hydroponic farms are good, more ecological and efficient. But are they more economical in the current situation? That is the question..
Its that Venus thingy, isnt it? I dont believe it would work, it totaly ignores human nature and economy. My favourite socialist utopia is this:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
Population living in harsh environments is already free to move to nicer places.
It works? Really? Food shortages, foreclosures, insane national debts, economic recession and collapses.
Insane national debts, some food shortages, economic recessions and collapses, even big part of foreclosures are not caused by capitalism, but by states trying to turn it into socialism. We do NOT have true capitalism.
Please explain how freeing up more habitable land and more area to farm is a waste of resources. Seriously, I would absolutely love to see the logic behind such an inane statement.
Because we already have more than enough habitable land and land for farming? There is enough food for everyone, we have problem with its distribution. Hydroponic farms are good, more ecological and efficient. But are they more economical in the current situation? That is the question..
Do you understand what a resource based economy is?
Its that Venus thingy, isnt it? I dont believe it would work, it totaly ignores human nature and economy. My favourite socialist utopia is this:
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
There is plenty of land to house and feed a larger population than we currently have without having any population living in harsh environments.
Population living in harsh environments is already free to move to nicer places.
reply to post by Maslo
OK, so then the problem lays with socialist and capitalist societies. We don't have true socialism either, so we can neither blame that fully either, but as a combination of the two we clearly have an issue. Nor do I think either would work even if practiced in full. I personally don't believe in governments nor do I believe creating fictitious units of value solves anything.
There is that catch phrase that holds distribution back. Is it economical? No, of course it's not because we place value where value doesn't exist. If these population groups can't produce this play money then they can't receive basic human necessities. Honestly, I'm surprised governments find it economical to allow us to still breath for free!
The only aspect about the venus project that I like is the resource based economy.
No, they are not free at all. Free implies FREE. They are allowed to move to nicer places IF they have units of fictitious value in the form of paper slips and metal discs. They are not free to move elsewhere without these worthless things.
Insane national debts, some food shortages, economic recessions and collapses, even big part of foreclosures are not caused by capitalism, but by states trying to turn it into socialism. We do NOT have true capitalism.
OK, so then the problem lays with socialist and capitalist societies. We don't have true socialism either, so we can neither blame that fully either, but as a combination of the two we clearly have an issue. Nor do I think either would work even if practiced in full. I personally don't believe in governments nor do I believe creating fictitious units of value solves anything.
Because we already have more than enough habitable land and land for farming? There is enough food for everyone, we have problem with its distribution. Hydroponic farms are good, more ecological and efficient. But are they more economical in the current situation? That is the question..
There is that catch phrase that holds distribution back. Is it economical? No, of course it's not because we place value where value doesn't exist. If these population groups can't produce this play money then they can't receive basic human necessities. Honestly, I'm surprised governments find it economical to allow us to still breath for free!
Its that Venus thingy, isnt it? I dont believe it would work, it totaly ignores human nature and economy. My favourite socialist utopia is this:
The only aspect about the venus project that I like is the resource based economy.
Population living in harsh environments is already free to move to nicer places.
No, they are not free at all. Free implies FREE. They are allowed to move to nicer places IF they have units of fictitious value in the form of paper slips and metal discs. They are not free to move elsewhere without these worthless things.
reply to post by sirnex
No, you do not need money to move. You just need a place to stay. For example, I exchanged my last house for my current one without any payments.
Thats because someone has to create those resources. Air is free because it is abundant AND is created without our work needed. If air was manufactured by humans, it would (theoretically) not be free. So until food and water is magically provided to everyone everywhere without human intervention, it would have cost.
These population groups cannot produce anything of substantial value, not just money. Money is just another commodity, I dont know why are you blaming it. If money would somehow ceased to exist, another commodity would take its place, provided its value is stable enough and it is practical. Or barter economy could arise, but this would not be very practical.
Basic income could provide all of humanitys basic needs, like food, water (and an internet connection ). It is already somehow implemented by welfare in a big part of the world, but this implementation is complicated and abused. Coupled with negative income tax, it could be even cheaper than welfare, and would not kill incentive to work as much. Basic income for poor countries would be much easier, due to their cheap living costs. Most important of all, it is not science-fiction like resource based economy is.
No, they are not free at all. Free implies FREE. They are allowed to move to nicer places IF they have units of fictitious value in the form of paper slips and metal discs. They are not free to move elsewhere without these worthless things.
No, you do not need money to move. You just need a place to stay. For example, I exchanged my last house for my current one without any payments.
There is that catch phrase that holds distribution back. Is it economical? No, of course it's not because we place value where value doesn't exist. If these population groups can't produce this play money then they can't receive basic human necessities. Honestly, I'm surprised governments find it economical to allow us to still breath for free!
Thats because someone has to create those resources. Air is free because it is abundant AND is created without our work needed. If air was manufactured by humans, it would (theoretically) not be free. So until food and water is magically provided to everyone everywhere without human intervention, it would have cost.
These population groups cannot produce anything of substantial value, not just money. Money is just another commodity, I dont know why are you blaming it. If money would somehow ceased to exist, another commodity would take its place, provided its value is stable enough and it is practical. Or barter economy could arise, but this would not be very practical.
Basic income could provide all of humanitys basic needs, like food, water (and an internet connection ). It is already somehow implemented by welfare in a big part of the world, but this implementation is complicated and abused. Coupled with negative income tax, it could be even cheaper than welfare, and would not kill incentive to work as much. Basic income for poor countries would be much easier, due to their cheap living costs. Most important of all, it is not science-fiction like resource based economy is.
reply to post by Maslo
Um... So you hauled everything by hand and foot?
How do you create resources that already exist? Oh you're referring to doling out fictitious units of value!
I believe the assumption of 'it will have cost' is backwards thinking.
We can solve that problem with proper management of resources and with a resource based economy.
I read the wiki links and in both of the criticisms sections they discussed how such economic models lead to people not working as much. Besides, didn't you say socialism was the problem and now your advocating it? I'm seriously confused now.
It's not science-fiction at all. The resources exist. The infrastructure and capacity to properly manage those resources exists. The only problem is the drive to properly manage those resources because we put value where value doesn't naturally exist. We cut down a valuable commodity and mine a valuable commodity that can be put to actual work and instead we turn it into pretty slips of paper and shiny metal discs that are of no practical use.
I can't eat slips of paper or metal discs. I can't live in them. They can't cloth me. They are worthless to my survival.
No, you do not need money to move. You just need a place to stay. For example, I exchanged my last house for my current one without any payments.
Um... So you hauled everything by hand and foot?
Thats because someone has to create those resources.
How do you create resources that already exist? Oh you're referring to doling out fictitious units of value!
Air is free because it is abundant AND is created without our work needed. If air was manufactured by humans, it would (theoretically) not be free. So until food and water is magically provided to everyone everywhere without human intervention, it would have cost.
I believe the assumption of 'it will have cost' is backwards thinking.
These population groups cannot produce anything of substantial value, not just money. Money is just another commodity, I dont know why are you blaming it. If money would somehow ceased to exist, another commodity would take its place, provided its value is stable enough and it is practical. Or barter economy could arise, but this would not be very practical.
We can solve that problem with proper management of resources and with a resource based economy.
Basic income could provide all of humanitys basic needs, like food, water (and an internet connection ). It is already somehow implemented by welfare in a big part of the world, but this implementation is complicated and abused. Coupled with negative income tax, it could be even cheaper than welfare, and would not kill incentive to work as much. Basic income for poor countries would be much easier, due to their cheap living costs.
I read the wiki links and in both of the criticisms sections they discussed how such economic models lead to people not working as much. Besides, didn't you say socialism was the problem and now your advocating it? I'm seriously confused now.
Most important of all, it is not science-fiction like resource based economy is.
It's not science-fiction at all. The resources exist. The infrastructure and capacity to properly manage those resources exists. The only problem is the drive to properly manage those resources because we put value where value doesn't naturally exist. We cut down a valuable commodity and mine a valuable commodity that can be put to actual work and instead we turn it into pretty slips of paper and shiny metal discs that are of no practical use.
I can't eat slips of paper or metal discs. I can't live in them. They can't cloth me. They are worthless to my survival.
I'm calling BS on this simply for the math errors in the thread.
1 square mile = 640 acres
640 * 155 = 99,200 acres
99,200 / 3 = 33,066.667
33,066.667 *1,000,000 = 33,066,666,666.667 pounds of food
33,066,666,666.667 / 2 = 16,533,333,333.33333 amount of people fed on 2 pounds per year
16,533,333,333.3333 / 365 = 45,296,803.65296795 people fed on two pounds per day
So the math says you can feed 45.3 million people at 3 acres creating 1,000,000 pounds of food. You claim that 7 billion can be fed.
There is no way that 1,000,000 of food is created in one year off of 0.0046875 square miles, which is what 3 acres consists of. I can make a video of some green house and talk about unverified stuff to, that doesn't make what I say a fact or even remotely possible. This is obviously a HOAX.
[edit on 11-7-2010 by ninthaxis]
1 square mile = 640 acres
640 * 155 = 99,200 acres
99,200 / 3 = 33,066.667
33,066.667 *1,000,000 = 33,066,666,666.667 pounds of food
33,066,666,666.667 / 2 = 16,533,333,333.33333 amount of people fed on 2 pounds per year
16,533,333,333.3333 / 365 = 45,296,803.65296795 people fed on two pounds per day
So the math says you can feed 45.3 million people at 3 acres creating 1,000,000 pounds of food. You claim that 7 billion can be fed.
There is no way that 1,000,000 of food is created in one year off of 0.0046875 square miles, which is what 3 acres consists of. I can make a video of some green house and talk about unverified stuff to, that doesn't make what I say a fact or even remotely possible. This is obviously a HOAX.
[edit on 11-7-2010 by ninthaxis]
reply to post by sirnex
Friend with a truck helped me for free. Now please tell me exactly how moving in a resource-based economy would work.
Food is abundant, but its transport and distribution is not, and this is where most of its cost actually is. Who will distribute it for free? Resource itself is worthless, if not utilized properly, and I fail to see how resource-based economy would solve this.
How exactly?
Some socialism, if done well, can help the people. Of course the people would not work as much, but that is better than people living on a street and begging. There is a balance between socialist and capitalist policies we need to seek. No extremism ever led to anything good.
They are a means of exchange. It is irrelevant if they have real value or not, a percieved value is what is important in economy - you can exchange it for something with real value. But all of this does not matter, because instead of metal discs you could use things with real value, like food, and the economy would work the same. Commodity like commodity.
en.wikipedia.org...
Nobody set the money system in place, it arised naturaly. Until all the work is done by self-repairing conscious robots, it will be with us.
Um... So you hauled everything by hand and foot?
Friend with a truck helped me for free. Now please tell me exactly how moving in a resource-based economy would work.
How do you create resources that already exist? Oh you're referring to doling out fictitious units of value!
Food is abundant, but its transport and distribution is not, and this is where most of its cost actually is. Who will distribute it for free? Resource itself is worthless, if not utilized properly, and I fail to see how resource-based economy would solve this.
We can solve that problem with proper management of resources and with a resource based economy.
How exactly?
I read the wiki links and in both of the criticisms sections they discussed how such economic models lead to people not working as much. Besides, didn't you say socialism was the problem and now your advocating it? I'm seriously confused now.
Some socialism, if done well, can help the people. Of course the people would not work as much, but that is better than people living on a street and begging. There is a balance between socialist and capitalist policies we need to seek. No extremism ever led to anything good.
I can't eat slips of paper or metal discs. I can't live in them. They can't cloth me. They are worthless to my survival.
They are a means of exchange. It is irrelevant if they have real value or not, a percieved value is what is important in economy - you can exchange it for something with real value. But all of this does not matter, because instead of metal discs you could use things with real value, like food, and the economy would work the same. Commodity like commodity.
en.wikipedia.org...
Nobody set the money system in place, it arised naturaly. Until all the work is done by self-repairing conscious robots, it will be with us.
new topics
-
George Knapp AMA on DI
Area 51 and other Facilities: 4 hours ago -
Not Aliens but a Nazi Occult Inspired and then Science Rendered Design.
Aliens and UFOs: 5 hours ago -
Louisiana Lawmakers Seek to Limit Public Access to Government Records
Political Issues: 7 hours ago -
The Tories may be wiped out after the Election - Serves them Right
Regional Politics: 8 hours ago -
So I saw about 30 UFOs in formation last night.
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago -
Do we live in a simulation similar to The Matrix 1999?
ATS Skunk Works: 11 hours ago -
BREAKING: O’Keefe Media Uncovers who is really running the White House
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago
top topics
-
BREAKING: O’Keefe Media Uncovers who is really running the White House
US Political Madness: 11 hours ago, 24 flags -
George Knapp AMA on DI
Area 51 and other Facilities: 4 hours ago, 19 flags -
Biden--My Uncle Was Eaten By Cannibals
US Political Madness: 13 hours ago, 18 flags -
Louisiana Lawmakers Seek to Limit Public Access to Government Records
Political Issues: 7 hours ago, 7 flags -
"We're All Hamas" Heard at Columbia University Protests
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 13 hours ago, 7 flags -
Russian intelligence officer: explosions at defense factories in the USA and Wales may be sabotage
Weaponry: 17 hours ago, 6 flags -
So I saw about 30 UFOs in formation last night.
Aliens and UFOs: 10 hours ago, 5 flags -
The Tories may be wiped out after the Election - Serves them Right
Regional Politics: 8 hours ago, 3 flags -
Not Aliens but a Nazi Occult Inspired and then Science Rendered Design.
Aliens and UFOs: 5 hours ago, 3 flags -
Do we live in a simulation similar to The Matrix 1999?
ATS Skunk Works: 11 hours ago, 3 flags
active topics
-
Elites disapearing
Political Conspiracies • 28 • : hoobah -
African "Newcomers" Tell NYC They Don't Like the Free Food or Shelter They've Been Given
Social Issues and Civil Unrest • 14 • : GENERAL EYES -
God is watching.
Politicians & People • 28 • : glend -
George Knapp AMA on DI
Area 51 and other Facilities • 19 • : Brotherman -
It has begun... Iran begins attack on Israel, launches tons of drones towards the country
World War Three • 881 • : cherokeetroy -
Candidate TRUMP Now Has Crazy Judge JUAN MERCHAN After Him - The Stormy Daniels Hush-Money Case.
Political Conspiracies • 384 • : WeMustCare -
Election Year 2024 - Interesting Election-Related Tidbits as They Happen.
2024 Elections • 64 • : Zanti Misfit -
Biden--My Uncle Was Eaten By Cannibals
US Political Madness • 45 • : RazorV66 -
Truth Social goes public, be careful not to lose your money
Mainstream News • 119 • : Kaiju666 -
OUT OF THE BLUE Chilling moment pulsating blue cigar-shaped UFO is filmed hovering over PHX AZ
Aliens and UFOs • 42 • : Ophiuchus1