A New Socio-Political Party

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

1. I do see your point, a lot of people do prefer simple black and white laws and the ones you have identified are universal across all the different cultures. There are heaps of differences among the minor technicalities and other social norms. It is a good broad legal framework you have put together.

That was my aim. Thanks for your observation.

2. I too would expect a more environmental responsible approach when money is taken out of the picture. Considering how much debate can occur on the wording of a constitution I would like to see the word 'sustainable' in it somewhere to highlight the value of Earth goes beyond our generation.

The platform I posted is a rough draft. I am working on a revised edition and will incorporate your suggestion. Thanks again.

3. I too have many serious issues about how GMO is being released. It is a tough and complex one as there can be benefits, but there is still much to learn, manage and understand about the environment.

As you may notice, over everything else, "best solutions" are prized. Therefore, GMO is not banned per se. It just is not acceptable unless it is seen as the BEST solution. And adding it to our food supply is unlikely to be seen as best.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I like this party

Unfortunately, until there is MAJOR paradigm shift, it won't ever get elected.

However, it's ideas like these that wake people up and inform them of how simple most, if not all of the world's problems are and how easy they are to solve.

In terms of the party platform (besides being two feet tall, 5 feet wide and made of wood :lolI think it's also important that the idea of property be addressed.

As long as individual people "own" something, whether it be land, food, information, ect., then they will aspire to "own" more. Nobody, including any organization, whether it be private or public (government included), should "own" anything.

Back in the days of forager society, there was no concept of "property". Everything belonged to everybody. That is how we used to live, and that is how we must live if we want a paradise. As soon as people settled down and their was an abundance of resources, then people sought to own the abundance- that which they didn't need.

I don't exactly know how a modern world without property would work, but I think if everybody was willing, we would figure it out pretty easily.

Originally posted by Monts
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I like this party

Unfortunately, until there is MAJOR paradigm shift, it won't ever get elected.

I agree. But if we spread this info enough, we just have to hit the tipping point.

However, it's ideas like these that wake people up and inform them of how simple most, if not all of the world's problems are and how easy they are to solve.

I'm hoping many will pass along this idea.

In terms of the party platform (besides being two feet tall, 5 feet wide and made of wood :lol

I think it's also important that the idea of property be addressed.

As long as individual people "own" something, whether it be land, food, information, ect., then they will aspire to "own" more. Nobody, including any organization, whether it be private or public (government included), should "own" anything.

I disagree. I think that, as money is removed, "ownership" will become very less important in society. Once you take ownership rights away, outright, you have many unhappy people (and give license to others to take something of theirs...). I think ownership will be a casual, loose thing once the whole shebang gets going.

Back in the days of forager society, there was no concept of "property". Everything belonged to everybody. That is how we used to live, and that is how we must live if we want a paradise. As soon as people settled down and their was an abundance of resources, then people sought to own the abundance- that which they didn't need.

Again, I disagree. We are too ingrained with the idea of ownership. Forager societies were very small, and also were scarcity paradigm societies as well. We cannot take, say, NYC, and expect no ownership to function. In the forager societies, everyone knew everyone else. In NCY, the probability of randomly selecting two people and discovering they know one another is...heh...slim.

I don't exactly know how a modern world without property would work, but I think if everybody was willing, we would figure it out pretty easily.

I have written a science "fiction" story showing how it would work. It can be downloaded from here:

media.abovetopsecret.com...

A revised version of

The Ethical Planetarian Party

Is available here:

abovetopsecret.com...

Please add to that thread. Thank you.

Ok, i did read it..

Its not that i dont agree, i have also written about the.. possibilities contained here, and within us.

A worldwide instant perspective shift is absolutely ideal, but the issue is that of "other" possibilities that become more available. These are mostly speaking from a multi-generational perspective (2-3 generations).

If one, or several, nations/groups "hold" out and decide to carry on in the same "wolf down the earth" fashion, what is to be done? They will have access to the technology to fuel incredible levels of growth and expansion.

A race would be created between building technology capable of colonizing other planets, and stemming the massive population surge caused by the first few generations acclimation to the new "paradigm." While the "energy" may be "free," the discovered applicable technologies are not, and take time. Full and open co-operation still does not equal instant omniscient knowledge. And it would be difficult (at best) to estimate how long it would take for efficient mass-scale off world colonization to take.

I feel that this type of lifestyle, however, is the most logical choice when it comes to true progress of the race of humanity. there will still be issues, there will still be conflict, but they will change context. "How much" of a change of context will determine its success. the way i see it "heaven on earth" is us simply living in the way we should have been for a while now. There is much more to be experienced, even in such places.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
People living at a level of affluence tend to have fewer children than their counterparts in poverty. If we all had the choice, I think it's fair to say that most of us would move closer to an affluent lifestyle. In fact, population growth is likely to start dropping off, as the children, chosen by parents who want them, become cherished. A far cry from being abandoned in poverty, n'est pas?

This naturalization would take generations, however, and there would be substantial fuel for a massive explosion in population now. Its a very real problem, honestly. Not one without solutions, necessarily, but a consideration that would have to be made.

I honor Thee for Thy consideration. It is all I ask.

Many are moving towards this. Not all go about it in the same way, but there is success and strength in diversity The base perspective shift is a choice, one which every individual iteration must make. the tipping point has many factors involved, all chosen correctly if that time and place should occur.

Originally posted by sinohptik
Ok, i did read it..

Its not that i dont agree, i have also written about the.. possibilities contained here, and within us.

A worldwide instant perspective shift is absolutely ideal, but the issue is that of "other" possibilities that become more available. These are mostly speaking from a multi-generational perspective (2-3 generations).

If one, or several, nations/groups "hold" out and decide to carry on in the same "wolf down the earth" fashion, what is to be done? They will have access to the technology to fuel incredible levels of growth and expansion.

Sorry I missed this. I hope You're still on the board! LOL! The thing about releasing the tech to extract energy from the plenum is that it will affect the planet as a whole - not just some nations. Money around the globe will become moot, and power over others will evaporate. In its place We each will have autonomous power over self.

A race would be created between building technology capable of colonizing other planets, and stemming the massive population surge caused by the first few generations acclimation to the new "paradigm." While the "energy" may be "free," the discovered applicable technologies are not, and take time. Full and open co-operation still does not equal instant omniscient knowledge. And it would be difficult (at best) to estimate how long it would take for efficient mass-scale off world colonization to take.

I agree that We will seek to move into the universe, but I disagree that there will be a population surge. As the cost of the energy is removed down the line, higher and higher standards of living will be available to all of Us as things cost less and less, and higher standards of living are directly linked to lower birth rates - when One has a world of opportunity to do as One wishes, rather than being limited to TV and sex for entertainment... Well, I think You can see where that leads.

And though initially the devices and such will NOT be free, eventually they will be. From another of My posts here at ATS:

Money, being an accounting tool for meaningful energy expended, becomes moot when:

1. The thing it represents is applied directly (energy)

2. Human energy is no longer required (not saying Humans can't work; just that it would no longer be REQUIRED) when We add robots to the mix. This makes the "barter" days not a valid comparison.

As the plenum energy is added to the economy, money will deflate - but rather than the unsupported deflation of energy scarcity, this deflation will be supported by the direct energy availability.

The driving force in deflating the currency is that the cost of energy will be removed from all processes:

The energy to take ore out of the ground - 100% of the cost
The energy to process the ore - minus the cost of the ore (based on the cost of the energy to mine it), 100% of the cost
The energy to shape and mold the metals - minus the cost of the processed ore (all based on the energy), 100% of the cost
The energy to assemble the pieces - minus the cost of the pieces (all based on energy costs), 100% of the costs
The energy to ship the products - minus the cost of the products (all based on energy), 100% of the cost
The energy to stock the shelves...

Well I hope You can see My point here. Removing the cost of the energy all down the line eventually leads to no cost at all.

So... Releasing the overunity tech will indeed remove the need for money - specifically for the fact that We can replace Human energy use with robotic energy. In any time past, before the advent of robotics, removing the cost of external energy would NOT remove the need for money, because Human energy would still be required and would need to be payed for.

As to the timeframe... Well, that depends on a great deal. I would give it two years for most of the energy costs to be gone, and maybe ten for all the robotics to be in place.

I feel that this type of lifestyle, however, is the most logical choice when it comes to true progress of the race of humanity. there will still be issues, there will still be conflict, but they will change context. "How much" of a change of context will determine its success. the way i see it "heaven on earth" is us simply living in the way we should have been for a while now. There is much more to be experienced, even in such places.

Yes, indeed, Human spirit is presently chained to the yoke of the money system, creating vastly unequal opportunity. But the change will mostly take care of itself once the energy extraction tech is released.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
People living at a level of affluence tend to have fewer children than their counterparts in poverty. If we all had the choice, I think it's fair to say that most of us would move closer to an affluent lifestyle. In fact, population growth is likely to start dropping off, as the children, chosen by parents who want them, become cherished. A far cry from being abandoned in poverty, n'est pas?

This naturalization would take generations, however, and there would be substantial fuel for a massive explosion in population now. Its a very real problem, honestly. Not one without solutions, necessarily, but a consideration that would have to be made.

I disagree here. Our freedom from money could happen in as little as five years - IF We really make that the focus. And as I explained above, as We have more We can do besides watch TV and have sex, the less sex We'll be having. And few will have kids for any other reason than that they want them.

I honor Thee for Thy consideration. It is all I ask.

Many are moving towards this. Not all go about it in the same way, but there is success and strength in diversity

The base perspective shift is a choice, one which every individual iteration must make. the tipping point has many factors involved, all chosen correctly if that time and place should occur.

I think it will come naturally as the cost of things drops and then they lose cost entirely. I offer a framework in the hopes of giving a structure that all can be comfortable within, which will keep problems at a minimum.

But these IDEAS must reach a tipping point before anything will happen at all.