[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27801879]There is a reason. saving of resources, time and making it more available is a reason. Give a reason why someone would make a bigger hard drive but also make a whole new computer for the soul reason of running it unless it was impossible to do other wise.[/QUOTE]
because there is no incentive to do so when computers are free in the first place
learn
some
god
damn
reading
comprehension
you have not understood even one of my posts
Here, look, if you're going to respond to this post, respond to this part:
[b]Nobody would consider conservation an issue in a society where resources are perceiveably infinite due to complete lack of scarcity[/b]
No incentive? look at the mod community. Most dont plan on making money but yet they still make fun games. simply wanting a better computer is a reason for a person who knows things about computers to do so. Good computers could also come from scientists wanting to have better more precise experiments on computers.
and about the conservation thing. Its easier on the user to create a system that uses less resources because no one wants to download all there stuff to a new computer when they could just put on another part saving resources and even if they could not just add a part they could easily send the part back so it could be recycled. This could be applied to other things conserving resources. now you say no one would seem resources an issue if they could get everything they want. Well first in this system no one really sees global resources a issue when they buy something. But in this system the first thing we are going to do is see how many resources are on this planet. knowing that we have a finite number of resources will then be put into the design of items. like the examples gave. You say I dont get what your saying but you dont seem to get what Im saying. conserving resources can be build in to the system.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27806111]No incentive? look at the mod community. Most dont plan on making money but yet they still make fun games.[/QUOTE]
Compare the mod community to the entire gaming industry. That's the difference between incentive and non-incentive production.
Add on the fact that 95% of mods are left uncompleted after their makers got tired of working on it, and you start to get a pretty good picture of life in post-scarcity society.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27806111]But in this system the first thing we are going to do is see how many resources are on this planet. knowing that we have a finite number of resources will then be put into the design of items. like the examples gave. You say I dont get what your saying but you dont seem to get what Im saying. conserving resources can be build in to the system.[/QUOTE]
WHO IS DECIDING THESE THINGS?! There is no government! Artificial intelligence doesn't exist! There is no way to naturally limit production short of with a monetary economy!
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27808134]Compare the mod community to the entire gaming industry. That's the difference between incentive and non-incentive production.
Add on the fact that 95% of mods are left uncompleted after their makers got tired of working on it, and you start to get a pretty good picture of life in post-scarcity society.
WHO IS DECIDING THESE THINGS?! There is no government! Artificial intelligence doesn't exist! There is no way to naturally limit production short of with a monetary economy![/QUOTE]
If the mod community got unlimited resources like the the engine to every game out there there could be wide spread mod help. having many modders teaming up to make a game.
Who is deciding what the structure of a computer will be like? science. science with the help of people who know a thing or 2 about computers. What you think because there is no government that people wont want to get together to solve problems? there are groups that do this today without getting paid. A group can try to create better computer hardware and software for the use of personal use and to advance there scientific research. with the help of science they could find the best way to creat a computer to have power with resource consumption in mind.
I think I know how a transition to an infrastructure like that could happen.
You start with pooling money into an international fund, for neuroscience and engineering. Once you have infrastructure and social planning all worked out, the rest of this funding goes to start building the first cities that will be self-sustaining, and also able to produce a surplus. This would take some strategic placement obviously. Use that surplus to help build more cities. As more cities go up you need less surplus from each one.
There's probably a hole there somewhere, I don't know. Does that seem reasonable?
Well if we are going to be dependent on money as we are making cities when are we just going to say. Ok money is worthless now? I guess when we get to the point were resources are getting produced but I would be a little scared still using money as we are transitioning.
[QUOTE=Latency;27808314]There's probably a hole there somewhere, I don't know. Does that seem reasonable?[/QUOTE]
the hole in your reasoning is that the only people who would want to switch to a moneyless system are the people who don't have much money. That's not your fault, though.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27808279]If the mod community got unlimited resources like the the engine to every game out there there could be wide spread mod help. having many modders teaming up to make a game.[/QUOTE]
You mean those game engines that commercial gaming studios create for the purpose of selling a game commercially for money?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27808279]Who is deciding what the structure of a computer will be like? scie[/quote]
oh look, you've missed the point again. surprise surprise.
The engineers (scientists don't design computers, god damn) in question do not have to worry about issues of resource management. There's no government or institution in charge of managing resources, so nobody can tell them to be more resource-conscious.
why would people suddenly worry about resource conservation any more than they do now? Why would people worry about being able to upgrade, when they can make just more computers for free, people can order them for free, and the supply of material is supposedly limitless? And why would they make them at all, when they can spend their life idly consuming instead?
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27808798]The engineers (scientists don't design computers, god damn)[/QUOTE]
Engineering is a field in science.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27808798]the hole in your reasoning is that the only people who would want to switch to a moneyless system are the people who don't have much money. That's not your fault, though.
[/QUOTE]
Well everyone who isnt rich. But even the rich have to deal with the system they are in. they still have to work.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27808798]You mean those game engines that commercial gaming studios create for the purpose of selling a game commercially for money?
[/QUOTE]
Yes people make game engines to make money. Just because someone does something and gets paid for it doesnt mean no one would do it without it. Instead of gaming companies only using there own engine and working on a few specialized engines we would be able to save a lot of time. also an uprage to the few engines would happen faster and effect more then if you had hundreds of engines by hundreds of companies.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27808976]Engineering is a field in science.[/QUOTE]
scientists still don't design computers, god damn
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27808976]Yes people make game engines to make money. Just because someone does something and gets paid for it doesnt mean no one would do it without it.[/QUOTE]
There is literally nothing stopping people from making game engines on their own, for free.
And they do.
And they suck. Because instead of a large team of paid professionals with a common monetary goal building an engine while being organized by managers, you've got a small team of questionably motivated programming enthusiasts who have no reason to work on the engine besides the fact that they felt like it.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27808798]why would people suddenly worry about resource conservation any more than they do now? Why would people worry about being able to upgrade, when they can make just more computers for free, people can order them for free, and the supply of material is supposedly limitless? And why would they make them at all, when they can spend their life idly consuming instead?[/QUOTE]
Why would a person who makes computers worry about how many resources they used when making it? well like I said before some of the savings in resources would come automatically without money because someone would design the computer to work as long as possible without breaking down and eaily upgradable so it wouldnt be that hard to upgrade later. which again would save resources. I explained this many times. Now why would an organization want to save resources when testing to see how to make a computer. well first the design process itself would not take that much energy and 2nd Its obvious that you cant make computers out of gold. even if it had a a useful to make a computer out of gold you if we knew the amount of resources in the world and see that we dont currently have enough resources to make something then we wont. Like i said design the system that way. Now why would people care about upgrading? because first if there are people that spend there time recycling then in an environment were sustainability is seen as such a good thing and because the system they are in could not survive if we only used an object once a person would at least recycle. but it wouldnt even be necessary. If you dont like your computer just send it back and its resources will be used again in other computers. and I bet your going to say I dont understand your point again and say the same thing again.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27809123]scientists still don't design computers, god damn
There is literally nothing stopping people from making game engines on their own, for free.
And they do.
And they suck. Because instead of a large team of paid professionals with a common monetary goal building an engine while being organized by managers, you've got a small team of questionably motivated programming enthusiasts who have no reason to work on the engine besides the fact that they felt like it.[/QUOTE]
Well first why make an engine from scratch when there are engines out there that are better and 2 the reason why large game companies can is because yes they have the professionals. they think why do it for free when I could do the exact same thing and get paid for it. doesnt mean professionals cant do it without getting paid. also since there is free education and all that then there would be more people with the skills to make games.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27809153]Why would a person who makes computers worry about how many resources they used when making it? well like I said before some of the savings in resources would come automatically without money because someone would design the computer to work as long as possible without breaking down and eaily upgradable so it wouldnt be that hard to upgrade later. which again would save resources. I explained this many times. Now why would an organization want to save resources when testing to see how to make a computer.[/QUOTE]
this post, in bullet points:
• People who design computers won't worry about resource conservation
• People who design computers will design them with resource conservation in mind
• People who design computers won't design them with resource conservation in mind
They won't worry about upgradability or the life of the product because if something breaks or becomes obsolete people can order another one for free
refer to my post at the bottom of page 5 - we have gone full circle.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27809153]Why would a person who makes computers worry about how many resources they used when making it? well like I said before some of the savings in resources would come automatically without money because someone would design the computer to work as long as possible without breaking down and eaily upgradable so it wouldnt be that hard to upgrade later. which again would save resources. I explained this many times. Now why would an organization want to save resources when testing to see how to make a computer. well first the design process itself would not take that much energy and 2nd Its obvious that you cant make computers out of gold. even if it had a a useful to make a computer out of gold you if we knew the amount of resources in the world and see that we dont currently have enough resources to make something then we wont. Like i said design the system that way. Now why would people care about upgrading? because first if there are people that spend there time recycling then in an environment were sustainability is seen as such a good thing and because the system they are in could not survive if we only used an object once a person would at least recycle. but it wouldnt even be necessary. If you dont like your computer just send it back and its resources will be used again in other computers. and I bet your going to say I dont understand your point again and say the same thing again.
[editline]1st February 2011[/editline]
Well first why make an engine from scratch when there are engines out there that are better and 2 the reason why large game companies can is because yes they have the professionals. they think why do it for free when I could do the exact same thing and get paid for it. doesnt mean professionals cant do it without getting paid. also since there is free education and all that then there would be more people with the skills to make games.[/QUOTE]
I've seen this go back and forth like 10 times. And it keeps going down to this one point...
Piggy, your lack of experience, knowledge of motivation, and knowledge of how the world works is what giving you your assumptions.
It comes down to you believing people will still do their jobs despite there no longer being a monetary system. In the end, you can use modding world as an example, but that hardly fits the case. The world consists of a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs can be fun to work with, however many jobs are not fun, and people wouldn't dare do them without being paid. And you honestly can't say robots will do them. Robots work in a very limited range, there are things they just can't do. This kind of stuff isn't even practical, and would take more work in robotics than just hiring some one to do the task.
Not to mention this systems allocation of resources is totally flawed. Apparently there is no value of anything, thus I, the armature robotics worker can request 1000 tons of steel for my project with 3 other 16 year olds back in my house. Right? Wait, even on a more practical example. Say I had 3000 professional employees ready and willing to work for free, I, being the head of the organization would have to request materials and resources. But from where? A central storehouse where volunteers process every material and resource known to man? And every time some one requests resources they ship the requested materials out to him or what? If anything resources would drain MORE quickly than they are with our current capitalist system, especially when everyone has access to the resource pile.
American and European (with Asian country exceptions) cultures are unique. I'll be the first to admit, not everyone can like an American (or European). Our current way of life consumes more resources in order to be able to play video games, to be able to have jobs as artists, to be able to have robots. Think about when you bring the millions of people from Africa under the new world order? Then all Africans will have access to the same shit Americans have? Would ever African have to have pristine living conditions just as the Americans do? Will they have video games and robots? It would never work. Even building a low quality American house for every African would cost thousands of trillions of dollars worth of resources. It just isn't even remotely possible.
A world without order, without government, without money, without restraints, and a world where a jobless person has the same resources as a brain surgeon just plain and simple won't work.
And if this system does occur (which it won't), I want resources to build me a 10 story house on the beach, with a giant super yacht in the back ocean, and don't count on me having a job. Who gets to decide who gets what?
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27811850]I've seen this go back and forth like 10 times. And it keeps going down to this one point...
Piggy, your lack of experience, knowledge of motivation, and knowledge of how the world works is what giving you your assumptions.
It comes down to you believing people will still do their jobs despite there no longer being a monetary system. In the end, you can use modding world as an example, but that hardly fits the case. The world consists of a lot of jobs, and a lot of those jobs can be fun to work with, however many jobs are not fun, and people wouldn't dare do them without being paid. And you honestly can't say robots will do them. Robots work in a very limited range, there are things they just can't do. This kind of stuff isn't even practical, and would take more work in robotics than just hiring some one to do the task.
Not to mention this systems allocation of resources is totally flawed. Apparently there is no value of anything, thus I, the armature robotics worker can request 1000 tons of steel for my project with 3 other 16 year olds back in my house. Right? Wait, even on a more practical example. Say I had 3000 professional employees ready and willing to work for free, I, being the head of the organization would have to request materials and resources. But from where? A central storehouse where volunteers process every material and resource known to man? And every time some one requests resources they ship the requested materials out to him or what? If anything resources would drain MORE quickly than they are with our current capitalist system, especially when everyone has access to the resource pile.
American and European (with Asian country exceptions) cultures are unique. I'll be the first to admit, not everyone can like an American (or European). Our current way of life consumes more resources in order to be able to play video games, to be able to have jobs as artists, to be able to have robots. Think about when you bring the millions of people from Africa under the new world order? Then all Africans will have access to the same shit Americans have? Would ever African have to have pristine living conditions just as the Americans do? Will they have video games and robots? It would never work. Even building a low quality American house for every African would cost thousands of trillions of dollars worth of resources. It just isn't even remotely possible.
A world without order, without government, without money, without restraints, and a world where a jobless person has the same resources as a brain surgeon just plain and simple won't work.
And if this system does occur (which it won't), I want resources to build me a 10 story house on the beach, with a giant super yacht in the back ocean, and don't count on me having a job. Who gets to decide who gets what?[/QUOTE]
Amen.
All of humanity has been striving to improve on the previous generation. Robots are supposed to halt that? Bollocks.
One point about gov't though; if you're referring to self-governance, that's one thing, but the world can well do without centralized government.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27809279]this post, in bullet points:
• People who design computers won't worry about resource conservation
• People who design computers will design them with resource conservation in mind
• People who design computers won't design them with resource conservation in mind
They won't worry about upgradability or the life of the product because if something breaks or becomes obsolete people can order another one for free
refer to my post at the bottom of page 5 - we have gone full circle.[/QUOTE]
Why wont they? Dont you think if people had the ability to see how many resources there on the planet they would care how they effect it? I mean there are people today who care about how much resources they use. You are just assuming people wont care how much resources they use. A person who designs something will care about how many resources they use for simply not wanting to harm the earth. If the culture put sustainability as a good will cause people to care what they are inventing. Now a parent cares about there kids and grandchildren right? and like I said before ecven if peopel do just through there old stuff away even though it would be inconvenient and harder on the designer then just making an upgrade for something. They would still be able to at least recycle the things they through away.
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27811850]It comes down to you believing people will still do their jobs despite there no longer being a monetary system. [/QUOTE]
No I dont believe everyone would be down with doing pointless boring tasks all day. But since 23% of America does volunteer and since people like to support a system that helps them more then with systems that dont plus there is free education and free time on there hands then I think im not being naive when saying that I could get 5% of the population to do non boring work that interests them.
[quote]a lot of those jobs can be fun to work with, however many jobs are not fun, and people wouldn't dare do them without being paid[/quote] You mean like serving food or washing dishes? those can be done by machines and have been. Or do you mean the service industry? most of that involves money which would be useless in a moneyless system.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27823502]Why wont they? Dont you think if people had the ability to see how many resources there on the planet they would care how they effect it? I mean there are people today who care about how much resources they use. You are just assuming people wont care how much resources they use. A person who designs something will care about how many resources they use for simply not wanting to harm the earth. If the culture put sustainability as a good will cause people to care what they are inventing. Now a parent cares about there kids and grandchildren right? and like I said before ecven if peopel do just through there old stuff away even though it would be inconvenient and harder on the designer then just making an upgrade for something. They would still be able to at least recycle the things they through away.
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
No I dont believe everyone would be down with doing pointless boring tasks all day. But since 23% of America does volunteer and since people like to support a system that helps them more then with systems that dont plus there is free education and free time on there hands then I think im not being naive when saying that I could get 5% of the population to do non boring work that interests them.
You mean like serving food or washing dishes? those can be done by machines and have been. Or do you mean the service industry? most of that involves money which would be useless in a moneyless system.[/QUOTE]
Volunteering looks good on college applications and resumes. There are also some corporations that offer incentives and minor perks for employees who volunteer.
Volunteer firefighters in many situations can obtain residency, meaning they live at the fire station as long as they sign up for enough shifts. Volunteer neighborhood watch corps have members who join with a goal of gaining easier entry into a police academy.
Assuming that everyone who 'volunteers' does so out of the goodness of their heart and without any kind of ulterior motivation is mistaken.
There is no direct statement that the Zeitgeist movement cannot get the Venus Project off the ground, but there is plenty of doubt as to whether it would be sustainable, let alone achieve what it states.
A population will grow to fill the capacity of its surrounding environment. Humanity will consume and waste whatever a robotically automated support structure will provide.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27824127]Assuming that everyone who 'volunteers' does so out of the goodness of their heart and without any kind of ulterior motivation is mistaken.
There is no direct statement that the Zeitgeist movement cannot get the Venus Project off the ground, but there is plenty of doubt as to whether it would be sustainable, let alone achieve what it states.
A population will grow to fill the capacity of its surrounding environment. Humanity will consume and waste whatever a robotically automated support structure will provide.[/QUOTE]
yes I understand that not all people who volunteers but I know a lot of people who volunteer do.
I also not everyone has to have a 100nd kids. Sure catholic culture tells people to have a millions kids But this doesnt mean another culture, especially one that they believe says that it would be best for the environment to have not to many and it is seen as a good thing to have either one or 2 kids then that will be about the average people will have. and like I said about the consume and waste thing. Understanding that there isnt enough oil to go around would cause people to make cars use other energy sources since no one wants to ruin the there world for there kids. Also most things we make can be broken down and recycled.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27823502]Why wont they? Dont you think if people had the ability to see how many resources there on the planet they would care how they effect it?[/QUOTE]
you might be the most naive person I've ever talked to.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;27824486]you might be the most naive person I've ever talked to.[/QUOTE]
So you are saying people dont care for there children? There are of course always alternatives. If there isnt enough oil to run cars use electricity. Dont you think people will look at the resources required to make something before they make it? If someone is going to spend time building something of course they are going to want to see what resources are required to make something. Can you give me an example of a product that can only work on a resource that is extremely rare and yet cant be recycled?
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27824675]So you are saying people dont care for there children? There are of course always alternatives. If there isnt enough oil to run cars use electricity. Dont you think people will look at the resources required to make something before they make it? If someone is going to spend time building something of course they are going to want to see what resources are required to make something. Can you give me an example of a product that can only work on a resource that is extremely rare and yet cant be recycled?[/QUOTE]
I would probably eat my offspring rather than raise it (which is why I have a dog instead of kids). Perhaps you didn't see this post:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055727-Why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists-(part-35).?p=27802887&highlight=#post27802887[/url]
Anyway, that was just to illustrate my point that everyone has a different mindset and some are more extreme than others.
Where do you think electricity comes from? The vast majority is produced from burning fossil fuels - primarily heating coal and fuel oil.
How many people will care about resource limits when they don't have to worry about them because a computerized system manages it all? We have that situation now in the western world. How many people are aware of the reason for prices increasing? That's a warning system to alert people to shortages, limits of the accessible natural resources.
Let me reiterate that in a different way: we live in a resource-based economy already. If we didn't we could go on consuming whatever we want, whenever we want and to unlimited excess for as long as we want. However, because productivity and consumption are limited by available resources, we have a resource-based economy.
Money acts as a feedback mechanism which provides a reading on the health and balance of that resource-based economy. Without it and until an improved system is devised (which Zeitgeist does not offer outside of a whimsical fantasy of a centralized computer system overseeing everything), money will remain a critical component of any economy.
I still want an answer to my question I've asked twice about me being jobless and how I demand resources for a 10 story beach house with a giant super yacht. Is it possible? And we will just recycle it when I die amirite?
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
Also, currency, government, businesses, etc have been around for literally thousands of years. Removing these things is a step backwards.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27824440]yes I understand that not all people who volunteers but I know a lot of people who volunteer do.
I also not everyone has to have a 100nd kids.[/QUOTE]
What? I don't know if English is your native language or not, or if you're just not the best writer, but... grammar!
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27827248]I still want an answer to my question I've asked twice about me being jobless and how I demand resources for a 10 story beach house with a giant super yacht. Is it possible? And we will just recycle it when I die amirite?
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
Also, currency, government, businesses, etc have been around for literally thousands of years. Removing these things is a step backwards.[/QUOTE]
You'll never die because the robots will cure all diseases and then you can eat asteroids for lunch while pooping construction materials. See? It's a self-sustaining system.
I still say government be damned. Somalia has been very successful, even under some of the most adverse circumstances anywhere. Although government has been reintroduced over the past few years, which I foresee causing a slowdown in progress there. Government is as useless today as religion for future progress.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_(1991-2006[/url])
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Somalia[/url]
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27827243]I would probably eat my offspring rather than raise it (which is why I have a dog instead of kids). Perhaps you didn't see this post:
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055727-Why-do-people-laugh-at-creationists-(part-35).?p=27802887&highlight=#post27802887[/url]
Anyway, that was just to illustrate my point that everyone has a different mindset and some are more extreme than others.
Where do you think electricity comes from? The vast majority is produced from burning fossil fuels - primarily heating coal and fuel oil.
How many people will care about resource limits when they don't have to worry about them because a computerized system manages it all?[/QUOTE]
They will when they realize they will be running out of electricity. you think a group of scientists wont want to fin an alternative fuel if its running out? You might say well why if they wont make money well there are 3 reasons. 1 because they want there computers to be running. 2 There are organizations today that are non profit and they spend time trying accomplish something out of the good of there heart (or at least the founders) what makes you think no one will want to do the same but with a more important mission. and 3 its nice to know that you helped the world in a major way (oh and ladies are attracted to world savers)
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27827248]I still want an answer to my question I've asked twice about me being jobless and how I demand resources for a 10 story beach house with a giant super yacht. Is it possible? And we will just recycle it when I die amirite?
[/QUOTE]
Would you all ways want to live in a yacht? I would say no. It would get boring after a while. you might want to then live by a beach, in a small town, by a jungle or anywere you want. Because of this houses would have different people in them at different times. I cant imagine you wanting to live in the same old place forever and because of this people would get to live in cool places without having to waste a huge amount of resources.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27827372]They will when they realize they will be running out of electricity. you think a group of scientists wont want to fin an alternative fuel if its running out? You might say well why if they wont make money well there are 3 reasons. 1 because they want there computers to be running. 2 There are organizations today that are non profit and they spend time trying accomplish something out of the good of there heart (or at least the founders) what makes you think no one will want to do the same but with a more important mission. and 3 its nice to know that you helped the world in a major way (oh and ladies are attracted to world savers)[/QUOTE]
[list=1]
[*]Yes, but shouldn't the computers be handling the resource management issue?
[*]503(c) organizations produce some of the wealthiest individuals conceivable. There's money in charity. Lots of money. Tax-free money. A 'volunteer' for a NPO might drive a Ford Focus, but the organizers have BMWs and Mercedes.
[*]Women adore a**holes. They use world savers.
[/list]
That last point reminded me of badly I want to be able to get back out again. Robots! Fix me a single malt scotch on the rocks!
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;27827372]Would you all ways want to live in a yacht? I would say no. It would get boring after a while. you might want to then live by a beach, in a small town, by a jungle or anywere you want. Because of this houses would have different people in them at different times. I cant imagine you wanting to live in the same old place forever and because of this people would get to live in cool places without having to waste a huge amount of resources.[/QUOTE]
Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks!
NO, fuck that. I want a house to myself. Who is to say that my yacht is of value? Materials have no value, thus my yacht is valueless. Thus I want 4 super yachts and a 15 story house to myself.
I find that most people have put to much focus on the second half of the movie which presents a possible solution. After looking around a bit, I have my doubts about the Venus Project or "Resource-based economy" solution, mainly due to there being a massive amount of social diversity which would lead to conflicts in human rights and the importance of what resources went to. There is a possibility that if everyone had a high standard of living and lots of recreational time, people could be willing to work without having to be paid, given that what they live in, what they eat, and what they use is what they get in return for working. But again, I think I could find more problems that would arise with the system. I think the only time when we will know for sure what to do is when we are met with the problem face to face. Anticipating what we should do is a little hopeless.
And I want 400000 pounds of refined uranium for my private research. Please tell the robots to send the delivery to my 15 story house on the ivory coast. Thanks.
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hostel;27827532]I find that most people have put to much focus on the second half of the movie which presents a possible solution. After looking around a bit, I have my doubts about the Venus Project or "Resource-based economy" solution, mainly due to there being a massive amount of social diversity which would lead to conflicts in human rights and the importance of what resources went to. There is a possibility that if everyone had a high standard of living and lots of recreational time, people could be willing to work without having to be paid, given that what they live in, what they eat, and what they use is what they get in return for working. But again, I think I could find more problems that would arise with the system. I think the only time when we will know for sure what to do is when we are met with the problem face to face. Anticipating what we should do is a little hopeless.[/QUOTE]
No according to this even if I don't work I deserve the same things a brain surgeon deserves.
[QUOTE=miscreanity;27827463][list=1]
[*]Yes, but shouldn't the computers be handling the resource management issue?
![/QUOTE]
Well they can distribute but you know its going to be some time before they are able to completely solve all resource shortages. so while distribution and numbers of resources will first be given the computers. Figuring out a substitute for oil will be given to people. even though It seems we already have the answer to that. wave power, geothermal and the other junk should be able to hold its weight after a few years of research. Im very hopeful about geothermal. get are selves some drills and the whole world would be able to be powered by that thing forever.
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27827524]NO, fuck that. I want a house to myself. Who is to say that my yacht is of value? Materials have no value, thus my yacht is valueless. Thus I want 4 super yachts and a 15 story house to myself.[/QUOTE]
First I dont think anyone would do that. You are assuming people will be a dick for the simple reason of being a dick. also you cant live in all 4 yachts at the same time. while you live in one a group of families will live in those. But really why would you want to live in the same place for very long? the world is a big place. why not try to see as much of it as you can. many people say that if given money the first thing they would do is go around the world.
You can't expect all 6,897,500,000 people in the world to not take advantage of this system.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27827681]You can't expect all 6,897,500,000 people in the world to not take advantage of this system.[/QUOTE]
I can expect most not to. at first I would expect a few people to go nuts and ask for a lot of things but about a generation in the culture and understanding that there is no use for a Tv to be in every room of your house will set in. The people who originally push for a movement like that would get that. and even the man with 15 boats wont hold onto them forever. Eventually he will probably snap out of it and if he doesnt then well he will die one day.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;27827539]And I want 400000 pounds of refined uranium for my private research. Please tell the robots to send the delivery to my 15 story house on the ivory coast. Thanks.
[editline]2nd February 2011[/editline]
No according to this even if I don't work I deserve the same things a brain surgeon deserves.[/QUOTE]
If it's ownership without monetary, then ownership would then become part of human rights. It has taken countless centuries to determine what human rights are necessary. What we have come to at this time is that our rights are relevant, meaning that if what you or I do doesn't affect another individual in an unavoidable negative nature, then we should have that right. It is that principle that has slowly allowed gays to have rights and maybe someday the rights for people to smoke weed recreationally. The principle can more or less be applied to ownership or request. If that 400000 pounds of refined uranium you want infringes on someone else's rights - IE health, life, liberty, happiness, all those colorful things, then you could either not have that much or none depending on what you would want to use it for. Here is where ownership changes; Let's say you can have that 400000 pounds of refined uranium, but others want to use it too, then you must share it so everyone may indulge in the rights they have.
In short, if what I "own" infringes on other people's rights, then the terms of ownership must change. Owning something that can be hazardous to others is a right you do not have because it is infringing other's rights. In another sense, owning too much of something that can be hazardous. If you own too much food, other's go hungry.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
