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.

 

The Ethical Planetarian Platform; Revision 001

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think it's a good thing to think up alternatives when it comes to how society could be run without money or other forms of currency. I think it's foolish to stem creative input with unecessary condemnation, when that creative input comes from conscious observation of our current grim climate. Not to say it's right, or correct, but at least it's a thinking effort towards a solution which addresses some of our main problems, most of which revolves over material gain. Any idea that can be revised, worked on, or build upon is worth it's space IMO.



Do you have any comment on Scientology or any other cults that were created in the last century?

An opinion on alternatives is fine, a doctrine is something entirely different.


Sure I have an opinion on them, but what does that have to do with my post? Doctrine is just that, and I live by none. Listening to a person's opinion has nothing to do with believing or following a (or their) doctrine. Again, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing; it is just a way to expand beliefs on what is possible, probing the limitations so to speak. Most people are stuck on the capitalism or communism thought frame which are both limiting and highly materialist in nature. Both invlove control either overtly or covertly. I guess you can say atm we all adhere to the doctrine of capitalism, no?
edit on 8-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms
 


And in fact, capitalism and communism (and socialism) are scarcity paradigms. So whether One chooses to adhere to one or another of these economic models, One still will have the same problems: power elite, poverty, greed, war, wage slavery or outright slavery, profit as motive over best solutions, inability for most to follow their bliss...

By stepping outside the scarcity paradigm and into abundance, One discovers a whole new social emergence - with the following (taken from The End of Entropy) observables emerging:

• Money falling into disuse
• Motivation from the heart as opposed to profit
• “Greed” becomes meaningless
• Peace
• Abundance for everyone
• Elimination of corruption
• Power over others supplanted by power over self
• Elimination of GMO’s
• Great reduction in violence
• Creative pursuits increased greatly
• A healed planet
• Reduced or eliminated hoarding
• Value placed on human-created art, textiles and products
• Focus on cures, not patentable chemicals that sicken for profit motive
• Human interaction with only those whose company is enjoyable (reduced social friction)
• Robotic stewardship of the planet
• Increased love and compassion
• Greatly reduced stress
• Wondrous works
• “Live and let live” behavior
• Most “laws” become unnecessary
• Corporate power eliminated
• Products made to last – no “planned obsolescence”
• Waste reduced to virtually nil
• Food nutrition increased for all
• One’s reputation becomes the “coin” one uses
• Personal responsibility for one’s own behavior
• Spiritual growth
• Slavery (outright or wage-slavery) abolished
• Human dignity encouraged
• Increase in charitable behavior
• Self autonomy
• Things are done because someone cares – from raising children to caring for others

Plus the arts and sciences will blossom as the many for whom these endeavors are their bliss devote themselves to these works.

Should anyone think that the above list is one describing anything even as bad as what we have now (let alone worse), that One is likely high on the power that One has over others.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I think a major road block to some is the belief about "human nature". Some might say that you hold Utopian beliefs that hold no real substance because corruption is inevitable. I personally disagree, but I do consider myself an optimist when it comes to human potential. Some believe that corruption is innate rather than something that is a end result of other contributing factors which lead to that end result. People need to look at our society and the history of human civilization (western of course) and ask what are the contributing factors that makes it possible for corruption to flourish? Corruption and power play go hand and hand and are the main reasons (not money, that would be one of the contributing factors) our society is in the shape that it is in. In order to truly find a way to solve this problem we must tackle it at it's source. I personally have no idea what that source is, I guess I am not that knowledgeable on the subject, but I am sure there are others here that have brilliant minds that would be willing to tackle such problems. Most important to any solution-finding is the ability to communicate ideas, theories and to group people together that have the know how on how things operate. When that happens no idea is too dumb or far fetched IMO; just something to build on or omit.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think a major road block to some is the belief about "human nature". Some might say that you hold Utopian beliefs that hold no real substance because corruption is inevitable. I personally disagree, but I do consider myself an optimist when it comes to human potential. Some believe that corruption is innate rather than something that is a end result of other contributing factors which lead to that end result. People need to look at our society and the history of human civilization (western of course) and ask what are the contributing factors that makes it possible for corruption to flourish? Corruption and power play go hand and hand and are the main reasons (not money, that would be one of the contributing factors) our society is in the shape that it is in. In order to truly find a way to solve this problem we must tackle it at it's source. I personally have no idea what that source is, I guess I am not that knowledgeable on the subject, but I am sure there are others here that have brilliant minds that would be willing to tackle such problems. Most important to any solution-finding is the ability to communicate ideas, theories and to group people together that have the know how on how things operate. When that happens no idea is too dumb or far fetched IMO; just something to build on or omit.


The interesting thing is, without money, "corruption" cannot be. Like "greed," in abundance, with no money, the term is meaningless. Anything close would be fraud.

I am with you on the "Human nature" thing. In reading A Paradise Built in Hell, by Rebecca Solnit, it became clear to me that Humans are loving, giving creatures twisted and debased by the system of money control under which we all struggle in the scarcity paradigm we are presently living in.

And what we can do, is circumvent that source - it will not matter what it is. If we get enough people behind this party, to the tipping point, we will wrest power unto Ourselves, regardless of who is holding it now.

With the Interweb, we now have that power to communicate ideas and virtually group people by interest in solving problems.

Thanks once more for your thoughts and input.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
New Socio-Political Party

Have you tired of the empty promises of politicians? Have you seen the “divide and conquer” successes in everything from school teams to country identities? Do you want the planet to coexist?

Perhaps you might consider the Ethical Planetarian Party.

What is the Ethical Planetarian Party? What are its goals and platform?

First, we stand for upholding the three Laws:

1. Do not willfully harm or kill another Being

2. Do not willfully take or damage another Being’s property

3. Do not willfully defraud another Being

In other words, we choose to maintain civil interaction, face to face. The biological parent has precedence in the case of our children, unless there is evidence that these same Laws are not kept with them as well. They are Beings, too. Beings are any who ask for rights, or have others of the same species ask in proxy if they are unable to ask, themselves. This is not license to mal-treat beings of “lower” Consciousness, for all Consciousness should be respected. The goal is for as much of Consciousness to spend as much of the time as possible comfortable.

A quick, clean and honorable death for the flesh a Being eats, having given comfort throughout the life for any domestic food.

Second, we are predicated on the idea that Humans should be free to take advantage of the abundance of the planet by eliminating money.

Third, we strive to allow religious choice, believing that there are as many Callings as there are Beings, and as long as the Laws are kept, how One approaches that which One is, is to be respected.

Fourth, we expect the use of technology under these Laws, with peaceful intent, including free energy – the key to eliminating money. We know much is presently hidden in fear that we might exact retribution or follow folly, but we are of the opinion, based on evidence, that when Humans have no money, generosity and loving behavior are expended to help those in need. With technology we both have personal awareness of and much science and anecdote grasped, we know we can eliminate money as a necessity and provide abundance for everyone.

We are out to eliminate poverty.

Fifth, we will bring forth a website where problems can be brought up locally and people can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone).

Also, issues with some set number of bumps up will be considered issues that need a wider awareness and go to regional sections. From there, continental, perhaps, and then global, as more are needed to be involved in solving the problem. Problems will beget the awareness to solve them.

Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws.

Sixth, we are staunch in our support of an organic planet. Though hybridization is an awesome tool, genetically modifying organisms is NOT. Without money, there is no motivation to create GMO. We know that organics can produce on par yield and better nutrition than their petrochemically “fertilized” brethren. Any non-organic approaches to problems will be highly discouraged, unless it is seen that such a solution is the best.

Beyond this, sustainability is our goal.

Seventh, we see that, without money, we can build machines – robots – to do all necessary work. Without work as an “ethic,” we substitute a “betterment ethic,” and encourage all to look for ways – within the three Laws and with organic solutions prized – to improve conditions on this planet for everyone, and offer these ideas for consideration and possible action.

Eighth, we understand that virtually all crime is, on one level or another, related to money, and without money as motive, virtually all crime will vanish – leaving the very few, passion-related crimes for us to deal with. We will deal with all crime publicly, and those who care can and will decide each case. Most such choice of behavior will lead to social pariah-hood for the perpetrators.

Ninth, we support open source in all things we program. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs.

Tenth, we understand that food waste is rampant with food distributed by profit, abundant as it is but poorly and/or untimely delivered. Without money, food distribution will be based on need and not profit, ensuring that waste is minimal, food is fresh for all (no one waiting for the wilted cast-offs), and readily available.

Though these approaches are revolutionary, we understand that if enough people are on board, a fresh, free, fun, and fulfilling life will be ours – and everyone else’s – as we choose. No one needs to change anything except where there is a problem – and then those who care are free to solve it within the three Laws.

Without money, bureaucracy will become unnecessary, vastly reducing paper use, and streamlining solutions. Jobs in banking, insurance, and other such money-related industries will disappear, and in their place, the opportunity to spend time as One wishes.

Transportation will be free – for ourselves, our food and product systems, and any other transportation needs. This offers the ability to go where One wishes, moving food to where it is needed, and other freedom we presently do not have, with transportation energy costing so much.

We are a planetary party and decry any solutions that maintain a “divide and conquer” attitude or outcome, including stateism, nationalism, partyism, teamism, etc. We are one species on one planet, and we seek to benefit the planet ethically and wholly.

To join, merely state that you are a member. All that is required, as a Party member is to inform others about the Ethical Planetarian Party – send this link, or copy and paste to email this content.


s+f I will be back to offer a more in depth critique. Are you familiar with Robert Heinlein's' 'For Us The Living'? It describes a society similar to the one which you are talking about. Be sure to check it out if you haven't.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mrphilosophias
 


Thank you, mrphilosophias. I look forward to your thoughts and ideas.

I appreciate the time you have taken to read.

EDIT to add: I have read a large part of Heinlein's work, but somehow have missed that. I will hunt it down.
edit on 3/8/2011 by Amaterasu because: add



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Hi,

Ever since i've watched some of the Zeitgeist movies and also went to one of the Venus Project lectures, i've been thinking about what a system like you've mentioned would be like.

In these last few years, it certainly seems like a lot more people are talking about these sorts of things and I for one would absolutely love to live in a system where money/currency was no longer in the equation. I'm sure that i'm not alone in thinking that there would be a very high percentage of people that would much rather be devoting their time on earth to doing something worthwhile rather than sitting in an office!

I'm a musician and I would love to be in a position where I didn't have to worry about finances and could spend my time creating music and playing live. Alas, that time hasn't come for me yet!

One thing I was thinking of too... if money wasn't a consideration, an engineer could take the time and design devices with excellent quality components and handiwork. Would this mean though that inventions would stagnate because there is no financial drive? I certainly don't think so, I know a lot of people really enjoy creating, whether it be art or electronics etc. So, I think that without limitations, we would just continue to excel and create better and better technology that serves us and not the other way around.

Anyway, sign me up!
I'd love to see something like this come to fruition!



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I agree, although on the same token I think our whole pop-culture and social paradigm (I guess that's the same thing?) would have to change/shift. Consumerism would be a thing of the past, and a locality based system would be needed. Energy would be another problem, along with the global world and their intentions.

Personally I think that in order for any shift to happen it would have to happen globally, being that the world is ultimately connected on almost all fronts. I don't believe that would happen willingly save for a cataclysm, complete global economical collapse, or some sort of true global revolution (not rebellion). I think the latter is the most unlikely of forms of change that would allow a new system to be agreed upon.

Too many people when they think of change, think of minor change within the same system. What's needed is a change of system altogether. Similar to video games in that lets say a company that made a popular game which has made $ in the past simply "tweaks" it's existing engine and adds a few new features. But rather than trying to improve on the existing engine, we need to pretty much scrap the whole engine altogether and make an entirely new one with lessons learned on the first. Something like a moneyless system would be hard to pull off, but certainly possible if people were truly be willing to change their WHOLE way of life and leisure.
edit on 11-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cruff
One thing I was thinking of too... if money wasn't a consideration, an engineer could take the time and design devices with excellent quality components and handiwork. Would this mean though that inventions would stagnate because there is no financial drive? I certainly don't think so, I know a lot of people really enjoy creating, whether it be art or electronics etc. So, I think that without limitations, we would just continue to excel and create better and better technology that serves us and not the other way around.


First, thank you for your response. [smile]

As for what people would do... Well, Linux is a prime example of a creation for free. People love to program things for Linux and give them away. They revel in the reputations they build in offering a better mousetrap. So it seems there are plenty of people willing to be creative in exchange for renown. Yes, the arts and the sciences will flourish. Without money as motive, things will be done to the best of our ability, with best solutions enacted against our problems, with leaders of the moment emerging. Waste will diminish as things are (again) made to last, theft-deterring packaging is abandoned, and better solutions are found - as opposed to the most profitable or cost-effective.

So you're right. No shortage of people willing to create.


Anyway, sign me up!
I'd love to see something like this come to fruition!


Awesome! Start spreading the word! Thanks!



posted on Mar, 12 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I agree, although on the same token I think our whole pop-culture and social paradigm (I guess that's the same thing?) would have to change/shift. Consumerism would be a thing of the past, and a locality based system would be needed. Energy would be another problem, along with the global world and their intentions.


[smile] I suggest you read The End of Entropy, found here: www.abovetopsecret.com... It is the foundational piece for this structural piece. Energy is addressed there.


Personally I think that in order for any shift to happen it would have to happen globally, being that the world is ultimately connected on almost all fronts. I don't believe that would happen willingly save for a cataclysm, complete global economical collapse, or some sort of true global revolution (not rebellion). I think the latter is the most unlikely of forms of change that would allow a new system to be agreed upon.


Of course it must happen globally. Nothing less would work. That's where the "Planet" comes in in "Planetarian. [smile] Oh, sure it would happen if these ideas spread to the tipping point. If enough of us are determined to put this in place, we will. And it will be a peaceful, inexorable revolution.


Too many people when they think of change, think of minor change within the same system. What's needed is a change of system altogether. Similar to video games in that lets say a company that made a popular game which has made $ in the past simply "tweaks" it's existing engine and adds a few new features. But rather than trying to improve on the existing engine, we need to pretty much scrap the whole engine altogether and make an entirely new one with lessons learned on the first. Something like a moneyless system would be hard to pull off, but certainly possible if people were truly be willing to change their WHOLE way of life and leisure.


Oh, I know it. That is why we all who support these ideas must spread them. These ideas are perpendicular to the present left/right, communist/capitalist scarcity paradigm dichotomy. But you're wrong that people would have to change that much. Except for jobs in banking, insurance, Wall Street, and other purely money-related businesses - where people just won't have to go to work - most of us will not have to change a thing if we don't want to. If they want to keep working, they may. They just don't HAVE to to survive. And if they WANT to make changes... Heh. They can do that too.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   


Oh, I know it. That is why we all who support these ideas must spread them. These ideas are perpendicular to the present left/right, communist/capitalist scarcity paradigm dichotomy. But you're wrong that people would have to change that much. Except for jobs in banking, insurance, Wall Street, and other purely money-related businesses - where people just won't have to go to work - most of us will not have to change a thing if we don't want to. If they want to keep working, they may. They just don't HAVE to to survive. And if they WANT to make changes... Heh. They can do that too.


Oh that's where I completely disagree. The way we eat, how we spend our time, how hard people work, where and what type of work they will want to do, our ability for travel, our entertainment, our educational system, our system of government, our system of production, what we do and how we utilize materials, how we interact with mother nature and ecosystems etc..

It's not as simple as saying, "hey lets all agree not to have money" and magical changes happen right afterwards. People would need to prepare themselves for a completely different type of living. My guess is that it'll be more simplistic, more communal, and local. There's a wonderful book that I think you would love, it's called "In Absence of the Sacred", which totally changed how I see modern society. I read it years ago but the wisdom from that book is calling louder and louder. The key to any transition IMO, is the new generation. If they can find a way to implement a new system that meshes the Native/tribal/shamanistic/communal (right brained, intuitive) with the mathematical/structural/scientific/technological (left brained, analytical) then we would experience a new shift in evolution. Technological achievements IMO cannot possibly extend further than our spiritual, or connectedness towards each other and other living things on this planet as well as the planet itself, and that's what has been happening the past 200 or so years.

When I speak about corruption, I do not believe it is all caused by money, though money surely has a place in it. I believe it happens because of our what I like to call "adolescent mentality". The whole human species is at this moment in time like teenager that has just passed puberty. Very reactive, highly emotional, largely hedonistic, self centered, inability for discipline, confrontational, hyper aggressive, hyper sexual, desensitized, materialistic, shallow minded, competitive (winner above all mentality) and spoiled. It's no surprise that advertisement caters to the 18-25 demographic, because that is what our society (particularly western culture) values most.A quick look at the bombardment of actors, singers and models that saturates us all day will quickly reveal what's wanted, craved, and valued in our society.

All that's to change though one way or the other, and that change is coming soon whether people are ready for it or not.


edit on 14-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: grammar like usual

edit on 14-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm sorry but I took the time to respond to your post in a point by point manner, while you simply asked me to read your book, without addressing my questions and concerns in a direct manner.

I have a hundred books I plan on reading before yours, which is no offense to you, as my time is limited (scarce), and we must humbly accept that many works of genius have come before us. If you wish to sell me on your paradigm, you must convince myself and others that you have put your ideas through the philisophical grinder of rationality. If you cannot answer a few simple questions from a layman such as myself, how do you hope to attract a nucleus of real thinkers to launch your movement into a global force?

Simply waving the magic wand of abundance and reference material doesnt satisfy me in the slightest, and I dont mean that insultingly to your work at all. (ive never written a book, sounds pretty cool.) Take the time to address my post point by point, and show my error, and perhaps youll have a convert. Remember, youre selling us on a radical idea, you cant just throw us a pamplet and expect us to do anything besides chuck it in the trash. Even if it is a wonderful idea.

Just exactly what is this 'abundance' paradigm, vs a 'scarcity' paradigm? In the middle ages, a sewing pin was extremely valuble and produced in small amounts, but after industrialization, a pin could be mass produced to near abundance, but it *still* cost something in order to produce. Tell me how, in your paradigm, a pin can be produced in abundance and given to anyone who wants it, without a 'cost'.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms


Oh, I know it. That is why we all who support these ideas must spread them. These ideas are perpendicular to the present left/right, communist/capitalist scarcity paradigm dichotomy. But you're wrong that people would have to change that much. Except for jobs in banking, insurance, Wall Street, and other purely money-related businesses - where people just won't have to go to work - most of us will not have to change a thing if we don't want to. If they want to keep working, they may. They just don't HAVE to to survive. And if they WANT to make changes... Heh. They can do that too.


Oh that's where I completely disagree. The way we eat, how we spend our time, how hard people work, where and what type of work they will want to do, our ability for travel, our entertainment, our educational system, our system of government, our system of production, what we do and how we utilize materials, how we interact with mother nature and ecosystems etc..


No changes there except as people prefer.


It's not as simple as saying, "hey lets all agree not to have money" and magical changes happen right afterwards. People would need to prepare themselves for a completely different type of living.


No, it's not that simple. It is a process. With the introduction of free energy, money would begin to lose value - money being an accounting of energy expended - and at some point will become more effort than it's worth to bother with. No need to change the way in which we live - though we will likely change anyway as better living will be chosen by those who now feel a profound lack.


My guess is that it'll be more simplistic, more communal, and local. There's a wonderful book that I think you would love, it's called "In Absence of the Sacred", which totally changed how I see modern society. I read it years ago but the wisdom from that book is calling louder and louder. The key to any transition IMO, is the new generation. If they can find a way to implement a new system that meshes the Native/tribal/shamanistic/communal (right brained, intuitive) with the mathematical/structural/scientific/technological (left brained, analytical) then we would experience a new shift in evolution. Technological achievements IMO cannot possibly extend further than our spiritual, or connectedness towards each other and other living things on this planet as well as the planet itself, and that's what has been happening the past 200 or so years.


I like to believe that spiritual growth will ensue. But I cannot say it WILL happen. I'll look for the book you mention next time I'm at the library.


When I speak about corruption, I do not believe it is all caused by money, though money surely has a place in it. I believe it happens because of our what I like to call "adolescent mentality". The whole human species is at this moment in time like teenager that has just passed puberty. Very reactive, highly emotional, largely hedonistic, self centered, inability for discipline, confrontational, hyper aggressive, hyper sexual, desensitized, materialistic, shallow minded, competitive (winner above all mentality) and spoiled. It's no surprise that advertisement caters to the 18-25 demographic, because that is what our society (particularly western culture) values most.A quick look at the bombardment of actors, singers and models that saturates us all day will quickly reveal what's wanted, craved, and valued in our society.


Or... What we are TOLD we want, crave and value... And as for corruption, I would love to see an example that has money/power/energy (three manifestations of the same thing) nowhere in its cause.


All that's to change though one way or the other, and that change is coming soon whether people are ready for it or not.


I agree that things will change. I'm working for the better option against many working for the worse.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I'm sorry but I took the time to respond to your post in a point by point manner, while you simply asked me to read your book, without addressing my questions and concerns in a direct manner.


No... I asked you to read a thread. It is short. As you may have seen, I tried to respond point by point, but when it became clear I needed to write again what I wrote in that thread, I thought it would be better if you first read that thread and then, if you had questions, I could better answer them.


Simply waving the magic wand of abundance and reference material doesnt satisfy me in the slightest, and I dont mean that insultingly to your work at all. (ive never written a book, sounds pretty cool.) Take the time to address my post point by point, and show my error, and perhaps youll have a convert. Remember, youre selling us on a radical idea, you cant just throw us a pamplet and expect us to do anything besides chuck it in the trash. Even if it is a wonderful idea.


Again... It is another thread here on ATS called The End of Entropy, linked in my sig. And like I said, I tried to answer you point by point but thought that if you read the other thread you would have most, if not all, of your questions either answered or reformulated such that I didn't have to resort to redundancy to address them.


Just exactly what is this 'abundance' paradigm, vs a 'scarcity' paradigm? In the middle ages, a sewing pin was extremely valuble and produced in small amounts, but after industrialization, a pin could be mass produced to near abundance, but it *still* cost something in order to produce. Tell me how, in your paradigm, a pin can be produced in abundance and given to anyone who wants it, without a 'cost'.


Free energy, robots producing it, robots delivering it, and people whose bliss it is to program doing the programming of the robots, people whose bliss it is to build robots building them...



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Appologies for wasted time if I misunderstood. But I found your last response very telling and am losing the desire to investigate further...

Robots. This is your one size fits all answer to every vexxing social problem that has plagued mankind since prehistory? The essential human economic condition of inifite desires and scarce resources that has been the focal point of so many tried and failed social human social orders is solved, once and for all, by HAL 9000?

Im sorry, but at this point things get a little silly. (either its me whos being silly and nieve, or the reverse) These metallic saviours of humanity will somehow eliminate scarcity *universally* in all areas of humanities infinite desires? Unless these robots have the capacity to read minds, produce free energy, and convert matter at will, while still remaining subservient to human demands, I find to be a little more than dubious, verging on irresponsible, intellectually.

So say money is removed and some sort of wishlist is introduced, instantly forfilling every want and desire humans have. Robots automatically handle every aspect of production, from design to resource extraction and so on. In the absense of a price mechanism, (that efficiently delivers resources to the areas in demand) how could your system handle my demand to own a fleet of super sea/space yaughts (hey scarcity is over right) staffed by genetically enhanced brazillian supermodels? If scarcity is indeed universally done with, surely your super robots will crank out my fleet in no time at all, since my time is scarce and I want my fleet tomorrow.

Of course such a *cost* would come at immense *cost* to any system, no matter how advanced. (even the replicator in Star Trek couldnt get things to taste quite right) How would it be decided, and on what grounds, if I could have what I wanted or not? Remember, youre saying that scarcity is over and abundance reigns, and therefor i should be able to get absolutely anything I want. Will your system accomodate me?

And if it doesnt? Who will decide who gets what? Who will program the resource allocation algorithms? More robots? Who will program them? Either its humans (the epic fail of central planning) or robots. (inifinte regression - who will program the robot programmers?)

If your system will *not* allow me to have my super sexy fleet of cyborg nymphs, that can only be because resources are *scarce* and thus a method must be used in order to deterine where these *scarce* resources go. In absense of money, (the highly sophisicated aggragation of overall supply/demand manifested by the millions of individuals expressing their preference through their own scarce resource allocation), some central planning is the only other solution to determine who gets what. And it is that central planning that is always subject to faliure, be it by evil men or non telepathic machines. No mechanism can determine who gets what, and at what cost, more effeciently than the free trade of scarce resources between voluntary partners. That trade is most efficiently facilitated by a money system.

So again, I ask you: can I have my fleet under your robo system? And if not, who makes the decision?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Appologies for wasted time if I misunderstood. But I found your last response very telling and am losing the desire to investigate further...

Robots. This is your one size fits all answer to every vexxing social problem that has plagued mankind since prehistory? The essential human economic condition of inifite desires and scarce resources that has been the focal point of so many tried and failed social human social orders is solved, once and for all, by HAL 9000?


Not HAL, dear. Here... Imagine these with free energy and peaceful applications:

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.pusstv.com...
www.youtube.com.../u/0/AF0WsvfG_nI
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...




So say money is removed and some sort of wishlist is introduced, instantly forfilling every want and desire humans have. Robots automatically handle every aspect of production, from design to resource extraction and so on. In the absense of a price mechanism, (that efficiently delivers resources to the areas in demand) how could your system handle my demand to own a fleet of super sea/space yaughts (hey scarcity is over right) staffed by genetically enhanced brazillian supermodels? If scarcity is indeed universally done with, surely your super robots will crank out my fleet in no time at all, since my time is scarce and I want my fleet tomorrow.


I would say you would put out the request on the web, and the ones who love to build the things you want will work with you to provide. If there is no one willing...well, you may have issues. But the likelihood of finding someone willing to create what you're looking for will be high. But just so you know, there is a process to moving into abundance. It will flow smoothly, however, if enough people are aware that that is the direction. The supermodel thing, though... You'll have to rely on your charm for that. That is not a material possession. And sorry - reasonable time to have what you want is to be expected. I mean, you may have to wait 15 minutes for a robot to deliver your groceries...


Of course such a *cost* would come at immense *cost* to any system, no matter how advanced. (even the replicator in Star Trek couldnt get things to taste quite right) How would it be decided, and on what grounds, if I could have what I wanted or not? Remember, youre saying that scarcity is over and abundance reigns, and therefor i should be able to get absolutely anything I want. Will your system accomodate me?


Again, if enough people are willing to provide - or if you can build it all yourself... You have the choice to do so. But what I can assure you you WILL have (as well as every other Human), is plenty of organic produce, as much room as you want in a house, and plenty to wear - as well as the freedom and ability to travel wherever you wish, be creative, pursue science, climb mountains, lounge on a beach, play baseball, create a video game, go fishing, raise children, play the oboe, build a robot, or...join with others to accomplish this. The more you better the planet and Humanity, the greater your "pay" in renown and respect.


And if it doesnt? Who will decide who gets what? Who will program the resource allocation algorithms? More robots? Who will program them? Either its humans (the epic fail of central planning) or robots. (inifinte regression - who will program the robot programmers?)


There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.


If your system will *not* allow me to have my super sexy fleet of cyborg nymphs, that can only be because resources are *scarce* and thus a method must be used in order to deterine where these *scarce* resources go.


The only resources that might be scarce so as to exclude you from reaching your goal is your charm (and surely that's not lacking...) or people willing to assist you. (But you can work that charm and overcome this issue too...)


In absense of money, (the highly sophisicated aggragation of overall supply/demand manifested by the millions of individuals expressing their preference through their own scarce resource allocation), some central planning is the only other solution to determine who gets what.


Not exactly. With that central website, needs are put up (problems to solve) and those who emerge as leaders in solving the problems will ensure the problem is solved. Those problem-solvers will gain great renown and respect.


And it is that central planning that is always subject to faliure, be it by evil men or non telepathic machines. No mechanism can determine who gets what, and at what cost, more effeciently than the free trade of scarce resources between voluntary partners. That trade is most efficiently facilitated by a money system.


Again... There IS NO SCARCITY. And the whole idea is to DEcentralize. But still have the capability to bring larger problems to higher awareness.


So again, I ask you: can I have my fleet under your robo system? And if not, who makes the decision?


People make the decision. Those on the web who might help. Those females meeting your ideals. So you may or you may not be able to have that. It depends entirely on you.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


quote]









I would say you would put out the request on the web, and the ones who love to build the things you want will work with you to provide. If there is no one willing...well, you may have issues. But the likelihood of finding someone willing to create what you're looking for will be high. But just so you know, there is a process to moving into abundance. It will flow smoothly, however, if enough people are aware that that is the direction. The supermodel thing, though... You'll have to rely on your charm for that. That is not a material possession. And sorry - reasonable time to have what you want is to be expected. I mean, you may have to wait 15 minutes for a robot to deliver your groceries...


Sorry should have clarified - those were cyborg supermodels I ordered~

So in the absence of monetary incentive I am to rely completely on the goodwill and aultruism of my fellow man to forfill my selfish desires. What possible incentive does anyone have to cooperate with me, a complete and total stranger? If some guy posted a request to come build his house for him, how many people would respond?

But of course, every man will have an army of robots at his bidding to carry out mundane tasks like building his house or walking the dog. So in your world of abundance, I should be able to have as many robots as is necessary in order to build my flotilla of cyborg love, so I suppose theres no conflict there.

You see, you say scarcity will not exist, but contradict yourself when you say that I might not get much human labour capital for my morally questionable project. What you are saying to me is that the hands and minds required to complete my project are scarce. I do not posses sufficient *resources* to enact my plan, and simply requesting them from others, who have their own lives, and every reason to not come build my wild fansy with me. (unless I offer them the poolboy job) So under your system of pure favours, my project, and many others that might be more beneficial to mankind than my harem, simply would not come into being.



Again, if enough people are willing to provide - or if you can build it all yourself..


I really could use a good accountant. (damn taxes) Are you willing to provide your services? For no exchange? Free of charge?

If I cant convince you to do my taxes without some sort of trade, what chance do I have to convince you to build by pleasure boat?

Perhaps robots do all that for me. Say I want my back rubbed for 6 hours a day, and I want the human touch. Must I rely on my charm to get the rub I could otherwise pay a skilled massuse to deliver? What incentive, besides monetary or resource gain, could I offer in order to get my much needed rubdown? (happy endings optional)

My point being human labour, which can never be eliminated completely, (unless we are to be the future humans of Wall-E) is always scarce because human lives are finite. Without money, I have no means to incentivise an indifferent stranger into helping me manifest my dreams, which may or may not be selfish in motive.

I gave some money out of my wallet today (which represents my investment of effort) to the Japanese. Crisis and catastrophe breeds aultruism. But there is no way that a week ago I would have given anything (my accumulated capital) to some Japaneese guy who just wanted to get his house renovated.

Investment of precious time and energy is earned and reciprocal, not given. Expecting strangers to help me build a mansion is delusional. That does not change that I want to live in a mansion. Robots though, right. I'll take a thousand.




There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.


I would assert the opposite and say that efficient distribution is only possible with a 'profit motive'. Only the price discovery mechanism can accurately show where resources are needed and at what *cost*. (which is always present, I dont care how many robiods you got) Rising prices indicate and aggragate demand which incentivises resources to flow in that direction, much like nature rushing in pressure to equalize a vacum. Central planning cannot achive this - it can only *guess* what should go and where and for how much, which always leads to an escalating cycle of reaction and over reaction, as the violence escelates and eventually leads to catastrophe. No computer can calculate the aggragate demands and preferences of humans, who posses free will and self determination. The price system can accurately reflect that demand.

We dont have that now though. What we have is a semi facistic, or better yet corperatistic system that has an overlay of totaltarian control over the levers of the economy while allowing some freedom of trade as an engine that it parasitically feeds on. Thus this parasitic behaviour leads to massive imbalances in what would otherwise be a harmonious system, responsive to the needs and demands of the people. The centrally controlled violence that commands the money supply is responsible for the massive corruption and misallocation of resources that is catastrophically present in todays system. Money is not to blame - monopolized violence that currently owns the money supply is. Money is a tool. Its currently being used as a weapon.

A stark exaple of this is the practice of farm subsidies in the west. It is estimated that meat products would be 3 or 4 more times expensive to the end consumer if government handouts (the result of theft in the form of taxes) were eliminated. Meat, as we all know, takes about 7 pounds of grain for every pound of flesh, and this cost is not accurately represented to the consumer because his taxes pay for the lowered price. Meat production currently causes massive enviromental destruction and the diversion of precious, scarce resources. This is not to mention the horrible and evil effects farm subsidies have on the 3rd world, whos only way out of poverty is agriculture, but cannot compete with the artifically low prices of subsidised 1st world produce. In this example, it is violence and redistribiution of resources (taxation represented in money) that causes this ongoing genocide and misallocation, not money itself.



The only resources that might be scarce so as to exclude you from reaching your goal is your charm (and surely that's not lacking...) or people willing to assist you. (But you can work that charm and overcome this issue too...)


I can garantee there is no one is this world charming enough who could convince me to build his pleasure yaught for free. (unless I got the poolboy position of course)




Not exactly. With that central website, needs are put up (problems to solve) and those who emerge as leaders in solving the problems will ensure the problem is solved. Those problem-solvers will gain great renown and respect.


Ok, that covers everyone who is motivated by the approval of others. (and nothing else) What about anti social pricks like me who generally dont give a damn what strangers think of me?

Screw it, ill order a million robots with tommy guns and kill anyone who looks at me cross eyed.




Again... There IS NO SCARCITY. And the whole idea is to DEcentralize. But still have the capability to bring larger problems to higher awareness.


Ive given you example after example where there IS SCARCITY. Your idea of DEcentralization is in DIRECT contraction with your idea of no money. Since scarcity always exists, even in abundance, (chimpanzees, when feeding at a ripe fruit tree, will often throw away all by the ripest fruits because the best and ripest fruits are always SCARCE) money is not only the best way to decide what goes where, but the only sustainable way. The only other alternative to a price system is a centralized allocation system, which is subject to all the flaws and horrors of central planning.

Where you see exploitation, i see mutual exchange and benefit. It is a marxist fallacy that all profit comes at the expense of the 'workers'. (whatever that means, i work and employ others, but I digress...)



People make the decision. Those on the web who might help. Those females meeting your ideals. So you may or you may not be able to have that. It depends entirely on you.


As a matter of pride I dont rely on the goodwill of strangers, as they are often corrupt and seek to aid for their own selfish reason, while masking their intent under the banner of goodwill. The only thing I can count on from strangers is their inherent motive for self preservation and self interest. Thus, if I person is not a loved one of mine I cannot ever expect that person to act in my interest while contradicting his own, even if such cases exist. To feel entitled to what is not earned is the highest form of selfisness.

I expect nothing from you and you will get nothing from me, beyond basic courtesy and non aggression. I, like others, are indifferent to your existense, and while I wish you no harm, I wouldnt give you a kidney. This is the only realistic expectation you can have from your fellow man. We owe eachother nothing, and thus aid and assistance must be earned through virtuous action and mutual benefit. Mutual benfit bewteen strangers can be accounted for by money. The monetary system allows complete strangers to cooperate harmoniously and to eachothers gain.



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



I would say you would put out the request on the web, and the ones who love to build the things you want will work with you to provide. If there is no one willing...well, you may have issues. But the likelihood of finding someone willing to create what you're looking for will be high. But just so you know, there is a process to moving into abundance. It will flow smoothly, however, if enough people are aware that that is the direction. The supermodel thing, though... You'll have to rely on your charm for that. That is not a material possession. And sorry - reasonable time to have what you want is to be expected. I mean, you may have to wait 15 minutes for a robot to deliver your groceries...


Sorry should have clarified - those were cyborg supermodels I ordered~


Ah. That makes a difference. [smile]


So in the absence of monetary incentive I am to rely completely on the goodwill and aultruism of my fellow man to forfill my selfish desires. What possible incentive does anyone have to cooperate with me, a complete and total stranger? If some guy posted a request to come build his house for him, how many people would respond?


Not "goodwill" and surely not "altruism." Bliss. There are many, many whose bliss it would be to tackle such a project as you describe. Even now on the web we see people casting their lines into its waters and finding total strangers offering to help - with nothing but sense of accomplishment and reputation as "payment." (Houses will be built by robots and any whose bliss it is to build houses - designed by those who love to design houses (no shortage there).) With materials and tools readily available, one is sure to find someone in the sea of billions who would offer, and likely a whole slough of them.


But of course, every man will have an army of robots at his bidding to carry out mundane tasks like building his house or walking the dog. So in your world of abundance, I should be able to have as many robots as is necessary in order to build my flotilla of cyborg love, so I suppose theres no conflict there.


Actually... You're right. [smile] No conflict.


You see, you say scarcity will not exist,...


Scarcity of materials does not exist. Sorry I left that implied rather than stated outright.


...but contradict yourself when you say that I might not get much human labour capital for my morally questionable project.


No contradiction. Given materials will be available (no scarcity there), it is up to you to make them come together as you envision. Enticing others to assist is likely part of that. Each of us must make effort to bring our dreams to fruition if we are to have them.


What you are saying to me is that the hands and minds required to complete my project are scarce. I do not posses sufficient *resources* to enact my plan, and simply requesting them from others, who have their own lives, and every reason to not come build my wild fansy with me. (unless I offer them the poolboy job) So under your system of pure favours, my project, and many others that might be more beneficial to mankind than my harem, simply would not come into being.


No... The hands and minds are in the billions. Like other raw "materials" you must put forth effort to refine and build with them. Frankly, there are people who would help you - and they may or may not want something in return, but it won't be money. It may be the chance to come along with you when you sail off into the sea of space. It may just be prominent mention when any reporting of your project is done. It may be already included, as in a sense of accomplishment.

If you doubt people would do such things as program or build just for the bliss of it and reputation, consider the phenomenon of Linux. It has grown, improved, and widened by people whose bliss it is to create such open-source perfection. No one made a dime off their contribution (though there have been efforts towards that end, there are in the peripheral software and not the system itself). They DID get sense of accomplishment, as well as reputation.



Again, if enough people are willing to provide - or if you can build it all yourself...


I really could use a good accountant. (damn taxes) Are you willing to provide your services? For no exchange? Free of charge?


Taxes, of course, will be dispensed with. Actually, accountants will go away, too. If we were living in a world where I did not have to pay for the necessities of life, and it was my bliss to account for others, I would do it in a heartbeat. Now, if you were a good friend of mine, and asked me to do your taxes for free, I'd do it in a heartbeat (I am very good at deciphering tax code...). But given I only know you vaguely in disembodied form, and need to worry about keeping a roof over my head and food in the belly... Not at this time, no.


If I cant convince you to do my taxes without some sort of trade, what chance do I have to convince you to build by pleasure boat?


In the scarcity paradigm, none. In the abundance paradigm, maybe not ME, but somebody out there would be fascinated by the project and have some expertise (likely, because if it is that One's bliss, that One has likely studied...). And likely a whole bunch of somebodies.


Perhaps robots do all that for me. Say I want my back rubbed for 6 hours a day, and I want the human touch. Must I rely on my charm to get the rub I could otherwise pay a skilled massuse to deliver? What incentive, besides monetary or resource gain, could I offer in order to get my much needed rubdown? (happy endings optional)


I know MANY who take bliss from massaging others. I'm betting you could check the web and make an appointment.... And if they're good, your praise will add to their reputation.


My point being human labour, which can never be eliminated completely, (unless we are to be the future humans of Wall-E) is always scarce because human lives are finite. Without money, I have no means to incentivise an indifferent stranger into helping me manifest my dreams, which may or may not be selfish in motive.


Human labor will still exist - as the bliss of an individual drives them. Robots are great for all function in which no one takes bliss. That is why the focus will shift from preparing for a career to following One's bliss, with attention to betterment. People in their bliss are NEVER indifferent.


I gave some money out of my wallet today (which represents my investment of effort) to the Japanese. Crisis and catastrophe breeds aultruism. But there is no way that a week ago I would have given anything (my accumulated capital) to some Japaneese guy who just wanted to get his house renovated.


Agreed. But in abundance, those whose bliss it is to assist in renovation will offer their skills on the web, and that guy whose house needs renovation can search for them and connect. Probably won't be you, though, I'm guessing.


Investment of precious time and energy is earned and reciprocal, not given. Expecting strangers to help me build a mansion is delusional. That does not change that I want to live in a mansion. Robots though, right. I'll take a thousand.


Oh, there are those who would be thrilled to help you build whatever you want. It is their bliss to build such things. And you will be able to find them on the web. And robots will figure prominently, I have no doubt.





There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.


I would assert the opposite and say that efficient distribution is only possible with a 'profit motive'. Only the price discovery mechanism can accurately show where resources are needed and at what *cost*. (which is always present, I dont care how many robiods you got) Rising prices indicate and aggragate demand which incentivises resources to flow in that direction, much like nature rushing in pressure to equalize a vacum. Central planning cannot achive this - it can only *guess* what should go and where and for how much, which always leads to an escalating cycle of reaction and over reaction, as the violence escelates and eventually leads to catastrophe. No computer can calculate the aggragate demands and preferences of humans, who posses free will and self determination. The price system can accurately reflect that demand.


This is all true in a scarcity paradigm. And I can prove that it is bad distribution that is the issue. Every month supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food. Every month, some people starve. They starve not because there is no food, but that the food that is produced is offered for sale until it spoils and must be thrown out. Distribution by profit, not need. In abundance - which includes free transportation - orders can be placed through the web, and where there is excess it can be moved to where there is demand. (Plenty of blissful problem-solvers out there who would coordinate this freely.)


We dont have that now though. What we have is a semi facistic, or better yet corperatistic system that has an overlay of totaltarian control over the levers of the economy while allowing some freedom of trade as an engine that it parasitically feeds on. Thus this parasitic behaviour leads to massive imbalances in what would otherwise be a harmonious system, responsive to the needs and demands of the people. The centrally controlled violence that commands the money supply is responsible for the massive corruption and misallocation of resources that is catastrophically present in todays system. Money is not to blame - monopolized violence that currently owns the money supply is. Money is a tool. Its currently being used as a weapon.


No... Money itself is not to blame. The LOVE OF money is. It is not highly probable (vanishingly small probability) that we can remove the LOVE OF money and keep money. By removing money, the LOVE OF money is excised. As long as money and the love of it exist, we WILL see elite and poverty. Without it, we will see equity and freedom for all.


A stark exaple of this is the practice of farm subsidies in the west. It is estimated that meat products would be 3 or 4 more times expensive to the end consumer if government handouts (the result of theft in the form of taxes) were eliminated. Meat, as we all know, takes about 7 pounds of grain for every pound of flesh, and this cost is not accurately represented to the consumer because his taxes pay for the lowered price.


And without money, and with the respect for Consciousness, the costs will be non-existent.


Meat production currently causes massive enviromental destruction and the diversion of precious, scarce resources. This is not to mention the horrible and evil effects farm subsidies have on the 3rd world, whos only way out of poverty is agriculture, but cannot compete with the artifically low prices of subsidised 1st world produce. In this example, it is violence and redistribiution of resources (taxation represented in money) that causes this ongoing genocide and misallocation, not money itself.


Look up Polyface Farms... Here, I did it for you: www.polyfacefarms.com... This is the vision I have of comfort for the Conscious beings (small "b" to differentiate from Beings, who are ones who ask for rights...) while maintaining harmony and high yield. If Humans did this, rather than the evil out of love for money, our planet would blossom and provide as needed. We could distribute based on need. "Pricing" would be moot.



The only resources that might be scarce so as to exclude you from reaching your goal is your charm (and surely that's not lacking...) or people willing to assist you. (But you can work that charm and overcome this issue too...)


I can garantee there is no one is this world charming enough who could convince me to build his pleasure yaught for free. (unless I got the poolboy position of course)


Of course not. That isn't YOUR bliss. But there ARE people who would find that something they would LOVE to do, given all the tools, materials and time.




Not exactly. With that central website, needs are put up (problems to solve) and those who emerge as leaders in solving the problems will ensure the problem is solved. Those problem-solvers will gain great renown and respect.


Ok, that covers everyone who is motivated by the approval of others. (and nothing else) What about anti social pricks like me who generally dont give a damn what strangers think of me?


You, as sociopath, may hunker in your domicile and ignore the world at large - in abundance you would be no drain. Have a nice life then, I guess it would be. But Humans, by and large are social, caring, Beings - many of whom would do something for the bliss of it, even for strangers.


Screw it, ill order a million robots with tommy guns and kill anyone who looks at me cross eyed.


Ah ah ah. That breaks one or more of the three Laws... You will be dealt with, methinks.



Again... There IS NO SCARCITY. And the whole idea is to DEcentralize. But still have the capability to bring larger problems to higher awareness.


Ive given you example after example where there IS SCARCITY. Your idea of DEcentralization is in DIRECT contraction with your idea of no money. Since scarcity always exists, even in abundance, (chimpanzees, when feeding at a ripe fruit tree, will often throw away all by the ripest fruits because the best and ripest fruits are always SCARCE) money is not only the best way to decide what goes where, but the only sustainable way. The only other alternative to a price system is a centralized allocation system, which is subject to all the flaws and horrors of central planning.


I beg to differ. First, I am not saying that everyone can eat lobster every meal. But I am saying that all will have the opportunity to do so occasionally. Yes, there will be scarcities of some specific items. First come first served on that. What I am saying is that there is easily enough food on this planet to feed all of us three times over (well, there would be if we didn't pay farmers to NOT produce...), and we can produce just as much organically and with higher nutrition than what's coming out of our fields and farms now. No one will go hungry. No one will have no place to live. No one will die of exposure because of inadequate clothing. And no one will be unloved (even in this scarcity paradigm, many care enough about the ones no body cares about to offer their time, money and ideas freely to help solve the problem of uncared for individuals). With the resources available in terms of food, clothing, shelter and transportation, the unloved will be given love.


Where you see exploitation, i see mutual exchange and benefit. It is a marxist fallacy that all profit comes at the expense of the 'workers'. (whatever that means, i work and employ others, but I digress...)


No fallacy. In a scarcity paradigm, it is the labor of Humans - their energy - that is represented in a company's profit. Money merely represents an accounting of energy expended.



People make the decision. Those on the web who might help. Those females meeting your ideals. So you may or you may not be able to have that. It depends entirely on you.


As a matter of pride I dont rely on the goodwill of strangers, as they are often corrupt and seek to aid for their own selfish reason, while masking their intent under the banner of goodwill.


Yes. In a scarcity paradigm, where money is the goal, this is often the case. There is no motive but bliss from goodwill without money.


The only thing I can count on from strangers is their inherent motive for self preservation and self interest. Thus, if I person is not a loved one of mine I cannot ever expect that person to act in my interest while contradicting his own, even if such cases exist. To feel entitled to what is not earned is the highest form of selfisness.


Agreed. In the moneyed scarcity paradigm, this has developed. In abundance, though no One will act without self interest, that self interest will be driven by bliss. And that means the motive will always be clear. And, as I have said, abundance is selfishness to the max - while also producing behavior that, under scarcity, might LOOK like altruism.


I expect nothing from you and you will get nothing from me, beyond basic courtesy and non aggression. I, like others, are indifferent to your existense, and while I wish you no harm, I wouldnt give you a kidney.


Of course you wouldn't. But I know many who would willingly do so - even for a stranger - if they could and it would save that stranger. It would be bliss to them to know they helped someone.


This is the only realistic expectation you can have from your fellow man. We owe eachother nothing, and thus aid and assistance must be earned through virtuous action and mutual benefit. Mutual benfit bewteen strangers can be accounted for by money. The monetary system allows complete strangers to cooperate harmoniously and to eachothers gain.


Indeed, we owe each other nothing - but if there were none who cared, none whose bliss it is to solve problems, we would see NO altruism. We would see NO organizations to assist others. We would see NO self-sacrifice ever. And though money has been used - in fact is a requirement, in one form or another, be it barter, shells, beads, gold, whatever, in a scarcity paradigm - to account for energy expended, in abundance need and bliss will be matched on the Interweb with no money required.
edit on 3/19/2011 by Amaterasu because: tags

edit on 3/19/2011 by Amaterasu because: punctuation

edit on 3/19/2011 by Amaterasu because: typo



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


*sigh*




Not "goodwill" and surely not "altruism." Bliss. There are many, many whose bliss it would be to tackle such a project as you describe. Even now on the web we see people casting their lines into its waters and finding total strangers offering to help - with nothing but sense of accomplishment and reputation as "payment." (Houses will be built by robots and any whose bliss it is to build houses - designed by those who love to design houses (no shortage there).) With materials and tools readily available, one is sure to find someone in the sea of billions who would offer, and likely a whole slough of them.


So you propose that money be replaced by 'bliss'. I'm not sure how to rationally respond to that.





But of course, every man will have an army of robots at his bidding to carry out mundane tasks like building his house or walking the dog. So in your world of abundance, I should be able to have as many robots as is necessary in order to build my flotilla of cyborg love, so I suppose theres no conflict there.



You see, you say scarcity will not exist,...


Gotcha. So under your system I could order a million billion robots to do my bidding. I can order more robots that the Earth has metal. Im sure the robots would build robot space ships to mine asteroids for more robot metals, all at my passing whim, since scarcity does not exist and I can have absolutely anything I want. Sounds great.




Scarcity of materials does not exist. Sorry I left that implied rather than stated outright.


So there is an infinite amount of salmon in the sea? An infinite amount of gold? How about plutonium? All I have to do is click a box on a computer, like adding a friend on facebook, and a crate full of plutonium will arrive at my door, delivered by (you guessed it) a robot in a funny hat? How much plutonium can I order under your system, exactly? If I cannot recieve my order as placed, who (or what) sets the limit? Robot (who is programmed by man) or man?

You see, if you stick to your premise that all will be provided as all is limitless, there should be no reason I cannot recieve my requested, highly radioactive material. If you impose limits (which would currently be imposed by the state ) youre infinite abundance platform instantly falls, as it would be clear that not all of mans infinite desires could be forfilled due to some limitation. (and this scarcity) If you are reasonable and acquiesce that some limiting factor exists that would disallow me from procuring my desired delivery of plutonium, you must explain to me by what mechanism that decision to disallow my order is made upon.

If you stick to your guns and irrationally pronouce that my delivery will indeed be at my door tomorrow, I'm certainly done talking to you, just as I wouldnt engage in a lenghty debate with a raving lunatic. If you accept that limitations will exist, now and forever, on certain items or goods, you simply *must* be clear by which standard, and by whos decision, I will be bound by.





No contradiction. Given materials will be available (no scarcity there), it is up to you to make them come together as you envision. Enticing others to assist is likely part of that. Each of us must make effort to bring our dreams to fruition if we are to have them.


How the hell would any human have the charm, charisma, or time in order to be able to personally convince thousands of people, who have their own lives and desires, to drop everything to come work on a project that they themselves will never personally gain from?

Oh right...bliss...





No... The hands and minds are in the billions. Like other raw "materials" you must put forth effort to refine and build with them. Frankly, there are people who would help you - and they may or may not want something in return, but it won't be money. It may be the chance to come along with you when you sail off into the sea of space. It may just be prominent mention when any reporting of your project is done. It may be already included, as in a sense of accomplishment.


I can offer a stranger nothing besides what he tangibly values, and that which I have a surplus of. But again, abundance...and laboring robots...two things that do not currently exist outside of your imagination.




If you doubt people would do such things as program or build just for the bliss of it and reputation, consider the phenomenon of Linux. It has grown, improved, and widened by people whose bliss it is to create such open-source perfection. No one made a dime off their contribution (though there have been efforts towards that end, there are in the peripheral software and not the system itself). They DID get sense of accomplishment, as well as reputation.


People who wish to offer their accumulated capital, in any form, are free to do so, with or without money. Without looking into the subject at all, though, I would think that the programmers of that system are not living the life of a pauper, and due to their great skill and knowlege (which is infinitely scarce) are now holding down jobs that pay them (in money, not bliss, which they may or may not have) extremely well.



Human labor will still exist - as the bliss of an individual drives them. Robots are great for all function in which no one takes bliss. That is why the focus will shift from preparing for a career to following One's bliss, with attention to betterment. People in their bliss are NEVER indifferent.


I suppose I must not be blissful then, as I am totally indifferent to 99.9999% of humans on Earth. (as I have never met them and thus are unable to judge if they deserve my compassion or not) And yet I have moments of bliss and am always mindful of betterment. My bliss and betterment simply does not rest on the fortune, or misfortune, of strangers.




Agreed. But in abundance, those whose bliss it is to assist in renovation will offer their skills on the web, and that guy whose house needs renovation can search for them and connect. Probably won't be you, though, I'm guessing.


If you meant the last sentence as some sort of slight, youve failed, as I take my unwillingness to submit to the selfish and unearned desires of others as a strength. So thanks!



There is no scarcity - only extremely bad distribution because of profit motive. I have no answers to these except to say that wherever it might go, if somehow there is an issue, it won't be worse than what we have now.


Hey youre the one proposing a universal salve to the human condition. You should have all the answers. If you are sane and admit you do not, like every other human, you should quit proposing universal solutions such as the abolition of money.

You say distribution is bad because of money. Im sorry, but before making bold claims about economics, I would request that you read a few books on the subject. Saying resources are inefficiently allocated due to their mode of transaction is exactly like saying that marriges are unsucessful because of sex, and therefore we should ban sex. Pricing is actually the *only* method we currently know of that can allocate resources effeciently, for reasons I wont explain here, and simply state this as fact. The only alternative to aggragate demands (represented by money) is some group (or computers) *opinion*, which is always subject to massive failure. Agree with better world concept, disagree with throwing baby with bathwater.




This is all true in a scarcity paradigm. And I can prove that it is bad distribution that is the issue. Every month supermarkets throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food. Every month, some people starve. They starve not because there is no food, but that the food that is produced is offered for sale until it spoils and must be thrown out. Distribution by profit, not need. In abundance - which includes free transportation - orders can be placed through the web, and where there is excess it can be moved to where there is demand. (Plenty of blissful problem-solvers out there who would coordinate this freely.)


I will ignore the many basic fallacies in your argument and just say this - man has no tool to decide where goods are needed most without the price discovery mechanism. Without it, we sink into the realm of centralized control and thus dictatorship.




No... Money itself is not to blame. The LOVE OF money is. It is not highly probable (vanishingly small probability) that we can remove the LOVE OF money and keep money. By removing money, the LOVE OF money is excised. As long as money and the love of it exist, we WILL see elite and poverty. Without it, we will see equity and freedom for all.


So you contradict your basic premise and admit that money, in and of itself, is not evil. It is just the importance we place on it.

So an enlightened man, by your admission, could use money to facilitate his trades without becoming a lover of money. Thus it is ignorance, and not dollar bills, that is the root of evil. On this we agree. But this has nothing to do with money itself.




And without money, and with the respect for Consciousness, the costs will be non-existent.


Wait. You just admitted that it is the love of money, and not money itself, that is the source of evil. So if one has 'a respect for conciousness' and also some paper in his wallet, is he incapable of moral behaviour?

As for costs...well some of your ideas are coming at the cost of my patience, which right now is becoming increasingly scarce. Yet no money has changed hands.




Look up Polyface Farms... Here, I did it for you: www.polyfacefarms.com... This is the vision I have of comfort for the Conscious beings (small "b" to differentiate from Beings, who are ones who ask for rights...) while maintaining harmony and high yield. If Humans did this, rather than the evil out of love for money, our planet would blossom and provide as needed. We could distribute based on need. "Pricing" would be moot.

[

To each according to their needs....hmmm...where have I heard that before.

Please, at least be honest with your potential constituents and rename your party the 'Blissful Abundant Communist Robot Party'. At least then the more naive might consider the implications of signing onto a program that has a higher killcount than Christianity.



Of course not. That isn't YOUR bliss. But there ARE people who would find that something they would LOVE to do, given all the tools, materials and time.


If this is a universal in human behaviour we would expect it to be expressed in some widespread fashion in the present. It is not.



You, as sociopath, may hunker in your domicile and ignore the world at large - in abundance you would be no drain. Have a nice life then, I guess it would be. But Humans, by and large are social, caring, Beings - many of whom would do something for the bliss of it, even for strangers.


If your definition of sociopathic is one who does not base his self value on the bias and falsehood of strangers bigorty, then I guess Im a sociopath. The fact that you find my individualism to be problematic and anti social tells me all I need to know about you and your ideas. You seem to feel I owe my fellow man simply because they exist. I know I owe no man anything besides that which they have earned from me, be it through mutual benefit or worthy virtue. Money may or may not represent this transaction.

If it is selfish to demand resiprocity in every one of my binding relationships, I suppose Ive earned your intended slur.




Ah ah ah. That breaks one or more of the three Laws... You will be dealt with, methinks.


And who will punish me?




I beg to differ. First, I am not saying that everyone can eat lobster every meal. But I am saying that all will have the opportunity to do so occasionally. Yes, there will be scarcities of some specific items. First come first served on that. What I am saying is that there is easily enough food on this planet to feed all of us three times over (well, there would be if we didn't pay farmers to NOT produce...), and we can produce just as much organically and with higher nutrition than what's coming out of our fields and farms now. No one will go hungry. No one will have no place to live. No one will die of exposure because of inadequate clothing. And no one will be unloved (even in this scarcity paradigm, many care enough about the ones no body cares about to offer their time, money and ideas freely to help solve the problem of uncared for individuals). With the resources available in terms of food, clothing, shelter and transportation, the unloved will be given love.


Im sorry but this farce is reaching monty python level absurdity. Your entire premise is that scarcity of any kind will not exist. Then, not a few keystrokes later, you openly admit that *many* items, such as lobster, will be subject to scarcity. So my main citique stands (that scarcity will always exist in some form) and my main question remains unanswered, so ill ask again - in the absence of money, by what mechanism will we decide who gets to eat lobster, and when?

As for love, well, true love is the ultimate scarce resource. Has it occured to you that the unloved among actuallly *deserve no love*? In fact, one might say they deserve hatred and isolation?

Does the pedophile priest deserve your most precious resource? (love/bliss?)
Does Hitler, after exterminating millions of people who may have actually earned their loving devotion, deserve love?
How about the rapist? Does your heart truly go out to him? Or his innocent victim?
What about the Fed chairman, who embodies all that you see that is wrong with the world currently? Does he deserve your undying faithfulness and appriciation?

If you love these people, and do not hate them, I would submit you do not know what love really is. Love is an involuntary reaction to virtuous behaviour. None of the above examples are capable of real love, and cannot be truly loved beyond some sick devotion to all that is wrong with the world. Again, not money.

Who will love the loved, in your utopia? The department of love? Will it be manned by robots?



No fallacy. In a scarcity paradigm, it is the labor of Humans - their energy - that is represented in a company's profit. Money merely represents an accounting of energy expended.


Again, before making claims about a subject, you should actually educate yourself in it. Money does not represent the energy expended. Money represents the value others place on the energy/time/resources expended. Money has no intrinisic value - it just represents trade. Trade = good.



Yes. In a scarcity paradigm, where money is the goal, this is often the case. There is no motive but bliss from goodwill without money.


If this is TRUE, please explain to me the obviously blissless societies that tried to abandom the price mechanism. Shouldnt previous social experiement in communism have ended in bliss and not mass murder and collapse?




Agreed. In the moneyed scarcity paradigm, this has developed. In abundance, though no One will act without self interest, that self interest will be driven by bliss. And that means the motive will always be clear. And, as I have said, abundance is selfishness to the max - while also producing behavior that, under scarcity, might LOOK like altruism.


And when Jesus arrives all the faithful will be beamed away to the planet bliss. Have your bliss account information handy though.

Seriously. You cannot define self interest universally as you can only define self interest in your own self interested terms. Others self interest may be radically different from your own.



Of course you wouldn't. But I know many who would willingly do so - even for a stranger - if they could and it would save that stranger. It would be bliss to them to know they helped someone.


If Im in danger of death, the last thing I would rely upon is someone elses bliss. In that case I would offer him my fleet of pleasure yaughts...but he would not be incentivised, as his own army of robot builders could make him one by next week anyways.



Indeed, we owe each other nothing - but if there were none who cared, none whose bliss it is to solve problems, we would see NO altruism. We would see NO organizations to assist others. We would see NO self-sacrifice ever. And though money has been used - in fact is a requirement, in one form or another, be it barter, shells, beads, gold, whatever, in a scarcity paradigm - to account for energy expended, in abundance need and bliss will be matched on the Interweb with no money required


So being that we do see acts of seeming altruism in a monetary world, we can conclude that the altruistic will act in that way regardless of the presence of money.

Replacing shells, salt, gold, rice or bank notes with 'bliss' solves nothing, and indeed just adds to the confusion of our existence. Money is a tool, If it falls into disuse through neccessity, then so be it. But as for now, in the real world we inhabit, money as a tool can be regarded as the facilitator of almost every great achivement (like the internet, or robots) you can imagine.

Until currency becomes obsolete, it will remain the cooperative hub and wellspring of civilization. To the extent that it is used as a weapon to dominate, or a tool to uplift, is dependant on our perception and responsible use of it. Just as a gun can be used to protect the virtuous and allow for positive growth in a secure enviroment, so to can money be used as a tool to be used positively by virtuous humans to facilitate trade to their mutual benefit.

I think your philosophy has identified the symptoms, but not the cause, of our current, agreeably catastrophic situation. I propose that violence, and especially centrally controlled, monopolized violence, is the root of our evils, and these evildoers tend to use money. It does not have to be so, as money can be a great servant to man, as apposed to the tool of enslavement that is today.

In short, it is not money that is evil, or even the love of money...but instead the love of violence that blights us as a species at every turn.



posted on Mar, 29 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Neo_Serf
 


I couldn't keep up with the messed up tags. (I have fixed tags on your posts too many times - but this one is the worst tangle yet.) If you could clear up those tags it would surely help. I did get as far as your saying that *I* said money would be replaced by bliss. Not exactly.

MOTIVATION will come from bliss not money. Money itself will not be replaced. It will be eliminated.

Fix those tags for me and I will respond.

Thanks
edit on 3/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: add



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join