The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

and to prevent someone from hugging up all of the resources (intentionally or unintentionally) we have to have a system that is self regulatory

yeah good luck with that

[Seastallion]

The problem with Roddenberry and his Star Trek writers is that they are not by any stretch of the imagination economists and as far as I know, none of them have specialized knowledge in any related field. They can't even get a proper culture set up. Look, I'm a fan of Star Trek as much as the next guy...but I have to turn of parts of my brain sometimes. Sure, they got the sci fi down right....mostly...but some of the other stuff...don't think about it.

Well, you're making a mistake in believing that what I'VE been talking about CAME from Star Trek. It doesn't. The founder of the Venus Project has been working on this stuff for about 75 years, and he is no Trekkie. He's in his late 90's right now, and this idea has been his dream most of his life.

Human cultures are based on holistic interactions between individuals. There has to be a societal goal, and end. The more complex cultures are the result of an evolution brought on by demographic, geographic, technological and political factors over time. But in its core, all cultures (theoretically) have common threads.

We live in a highly complex culture which thus needs a complex method of distributing and utilizing resources in the most efficient manner. This "paradgim" is the result of trial and error. You can theorize anything, I mean anything. A Star Trek economy or a communist paradise. The problem is getting there. How do you get from here to there. How do you convince high schoolers that being popular (social capital which translates into greed later on) is not important?

There's this idea that somehow if we through enough education and awareness everyone would just flip the "off" switch in their DNA and stop being greedy for fame and fortune (social capital). The thing is that in every culture social capital is expressed in a certain way. Some use printed money, others use mates and stories and prowess, others use precious metals and objects, some use religious tokens and power (as in power to affect spiritual realms and objects.)

The idea of ridding money needs an alternative for social capital. What are people striving for? Insular satisfaction won't work...it never has. On an individual level, it might. But on a societal level...well...we are social creatures. Part of our identity is formed on having social capital. Everything that is done in each culture is to acquire material benefit for self and family. That is the core essence of human nature, that is where greed comes from. The desire to be number one is based on the insecurity of not having enough for self or family.

It's easy to undervalue just how important it is for us as humans to interact with others. We have to interact, we have to set up personal identities, and our identities have to have some sort of value. We have to specialize in complex societies to better manage resources...and to prevent someone from hugging up all of the resources (intentionally or unintentionally) we have to have a system that is self regulatory. So far the great human experiment has only developed one system. The money system.

Credits, IMO, is a money system. A credit is a share of resources you earn from inputting to society's productivity. If I teach ten engineers, they will move to build better machines and technologies to use to develop more resources for all. Thus I "earned" an allotment of those resources for myself. Maybe I'll build myself a nice house by the river.

Today, if I teach ten engineers, I get paid X dollars. I can then spend X dollars towards building a nice house by the river.

Some people have turned the Star Trek economy into a credit system. It doesn't work exactly the same as our dollar system, but it is still a monetary system. You put in the effort, get the right to use certain amount of resources, and you move on.

You are assuming that human interaction must somehow require money, and nothing is further from the truth. Only just over a century ago, we didn't have all the governmental social programs we have today, but other local alternatives DID exist and were far more effective before the government took over. The first hospitals were created by churches and private altruists. In any case, money in and of itself isn't the problem in today's society. The BANKS are, particularly the 'Federal' Reserve (to quote a film, "about as 'federal' as Federal Express..."). Also, human society has reached a peak point where machines are actually performing most of the industrial labor, rather than humans. The current paradigm of building crap to be replaced, is a relatively NEW thing. I still remember taking soda bottles to the store to get recycled and getting money back for them. Now it is all plastic junk. People used to bring their own bags to stores, rather than stores having plastic bags. People were living in a sustained way not that long ago. All of the elderly today, can remember a time when that was all true. Heck, I'm only 35 myself, and I can remember some of it.

I agree that until a Resource Based Economy is tested by building a city that functions under it, it will always be in question, which is why I hope it is done sooner, rather than later. Obviously beginning and transitioning into a new paradigm is never easy, and is often painful. Also one shouldn't make the mistake of assuming RBE is communism. Even communism used money, RBE does NOT. It is a scientific method of tracking and utilizing available resources in the most sustainable way possible. I suppose it might help to sort of think of it as a corporation where EVERYONE is a share holder and everyone has ONLY one share each. Also, there wouldn't be any other 'corporations', except possibly other cities, but they would be partners, rather than rivals. Virtually all technology would be open-sourced. I guess the patent office would go bye-bye, but it wouldn't matter since there would be no money to be worried about losing.

People could still be famous though. Arts, Film, Music, and Sports celebrities would still exist, but they would perform for the love of their respective field, rather than monetary gain. They would have the same sort of stuff as everyone else, not be living it up in a huge mansion. Still, they'd be popular. Celebrities would STILL get lots of fawning fans, and people throwing themselves at them. That wouldn't change. What WOULD change, is more people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to enter that world would get it. No more starving artist, as it were.

People would probably find ways to classify themselves apart from one another, but it would no longer be financial. There will still be community leaders, pastors, and various other leadership positions. However, society would look to solve problems with technology, rather than useless laws created by people that barely understand the problems, much less what to do about them. Drunk driving would be a classic example. We could build cars that can drive themselves, and also have technology to determine if someone is unfit to be driving because of chemical influences, but will be able to drive such persons where they needed to go. The drunk person could just sleep off their condition as they travel, or whatever.

In any case, there would be no lack for social opportunities.

...and to prevent someone from hugging up all of the resources (intentionally or unintentionally) we have to have a system that is self regulatory. So far the great human experiment has only developed one system. The money system.

The monetary system has not worked to that end at all. Our current situation is MORE than proof of that. It is the Bankers that are truly benefiting. I seriously recommend you check out the first two videos in the other thread I started a short time ago in the Off Topic Subforum, called, What is the REAL Matrix?

http://forum.gateworld.net/threads/8...-willing-to-go

[aretood2]

Well, you're making a mistake in believing that what I'VE been talking about CAME from Star Trek. It doesn't. The founder of the Venus Project has been working on this stuff for about 75 years, and he is no Trekkie. He's in his late 90's right now, and this idea has been his dream most of his life.

[vide=youtube;PIMy0QBSQo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIMy0QBSQWo[/video]

There's so many problems involved here. Where to start? Resources, though not all of them, are finite. That is a matter of fact. The technology to change that simply doesn't exist and at most recycling technology could provide the answer, but we'd still have a limited amount of recycle materials at any given time. As far as social scientists and biologists are concerned, greed and thirst of power is a real human problem that stems from our DNA. And then who's "we?" Who makes the choices? What about aesthetic issues like art, entertainment, leisure, recreation? How can you establish a technological method to deal with things that are so subjective and fluid?

That may sound like a minor concern, but once again. Social capital will have to be defined somehow, and that means some sort of prestige. Be it being a "good" Christian or a "cool" person or famous/talented. Social Capital is something we will always seek. You can see that in simple cultures that don't have a monetary system, so no, it's not a result of a monetary system.

That factor alone can and will offset the balance enough to wreak havoc. Also, in order for the idea of his city system to work, that would require mass migration. And frankly, a highly scientifically advanced people will most certainly require highly centralized population control to keep us from going about our carrying capacity. That alone goes against every fiber of humanity...that goes against genetics. Which means the psychological cost would be tremendous (suicide rates are much higher in developed countries than in developing countries).

The need to establish cultural identity is also an issue here. Once again, mass migrations would destroy all cultures. So let's ignore the fallout for a second and pretend full cultural uniformity That's hogwash. New generations always attempt to establish their own cultural identity (thus the exclamation "Kids these days!"). Slowly new cultures will evolve and deviate. So what happens when these new cultures start valuing different things? Particular or new resources are pursued, old or particular resources are ignored. The Venus Project is super uber duper reliant on global trade. If a discarded resource is naturally scarce and limited to the regions that are inhabited by a culture that refuses to produce it...dependant cultures are doomed. To prevent such things....war would erupt over control of that resource.

You are assuming that human interaction must somehow require money, and nothing is further from the truth. Only just over a century ago, we didn't have all the governmental social programs we have today, but other local alternatives DID exist and were far more effective before the government took over. The first hospitals were created by churches and private altruists. In any case, money in and of itself isn't the problem in today's society. The BANKS are, particularly the 'Federal' Reserve (to quote a film, "about as 'federal' as Federal Express..."). Also, human society has reached a peak point where machines are actually performing most of the industrial labor, rather than humans. The current paradigm of building crap to be replaced, is a relatively NEW thing. I still remember taking soda bottles to the store to get recycled and getting money back for them. Now it is all plastic junk. People used to bring their own bags to stores, rather than stores having plastic bags. People were living in a sustained way not that long ago. All of the elderly today, can remember a time when that was all true. Heck, I'm only 35 myself, and I can remember some of it.

No, not money, trade and barter economies work just fine for simple societies. And this illusion of a golden past is just that, an illusion. Plenty of people recycle. You still get paid for soda cans, and stores encourage people to buy fabric bags. We've stopped using some harmful stuff and are heading towards more environmentally friendly practices unlike the DDT that was used in the golden years of the past.

I agree that until a Resource Based Economy is tested by building a city that functions under it, it will always be in question, which is why I hope it is done sooner, rather than later. Obviously beginning and transitioning into a new paradigm is never easy, and is often painful. Also one shouldn't make the mistake of assuming RBE is communism. Even communism used money, RBE does NOT. It is a scientific method of tracking and utilizing available resources in the most sustainable way possible.

Here's the problem. When you say scientific, do you mean natural or social?

I suppose it might help to sort of think of it as a corporation where EVERYONE is a share holder and everyone has ONLY one share each. Also, there wouldn't be any other 'corporations', except possibly other cities, but they would be partners, rather than rivals. Virtually all technology would be open-sourced. I guess the patent office would go bye-bye, but it wouldn't matter since there would be no money to be worried about losing.

A credit based economy would simply work better in that sense. To be honest RBE sounds a lot like Free Trade and Free Market practices (the ideal, not what is actually done). Only that I have yet to see any mathematical models for it. Free Trade and Free Market does have the math to back it up as well as true and tried principles of human behavior.

People could still be famous though. Arts, Film, Music, and Sports celebrities would still exist, but they would perform for the love of their respective field, rather than monetary gain. They would have the same sort of stuff as everyone else, not be living it up in a huge mansion. Still, they'd be popular. Celebrities would STILL get lots of fawning fans, and people throwing themselves at them. That wouldn't change. What WOULD change, is more people who might not otherwise have the opportunity to enter that world would get it. No more starving artist, as it were.

Are you saying Will Smith and Morgan Freeman and so on only do it for the money?

People would probably find ways to classify themselves apart from one another, but it would no longer be financial. There will still be community leaders, pastors, and various other leadership positions. However, society would look to solve problems with technology, rather than useless laws created by people that barely understand the problems, much less what to do about them. Drunk driving would be a classic example. We could build cars that can drive themselves, and also have technology to determine if someone is unfit to be driving because of chemical influences, but will be able to drive such persons where they needed to go. The drunk person could just sleep off their condition as they travel, or whatever.

We have the technology for flying cars and rudimentary auto pilot on cars (If planes can land themselves and take off by themselves....think about it). You're ignoring the social capital involved in driving. Which is why the US lacks a real Mass Transit system.

The monetary system has not worked to that end at all. Our current situation is MORE than proof of that. It is the Bankers that are truly benefiting. I seriously recommend you check out the first two videos in the other thread I started a short time ago in the Off Topic Subforum, called, What is the REAL Matrix?

I'm not saying it's God's gift to man, just that it's the best humans can come up with (other than perhaps a credit based system which would be highly dependent on automation and technology) for complex societies. That doesn't mean that it's great, by far it is still pretty horrible. It's just that there is a limit to what humans can do to solve the world's problems.

Touchy feely arguments can only get you so far. You need to have something that's based on actual research and human nature. Until divine intervention becomes reality, many problems will always persist no matter what. The best that can be done is to hold on tight and try to deal with them until such a day arrives.

[Gatefan1976]

Without having to edit, cut and paste etc, the Tood makes a very important point in mentioning "social currency", it's very much tied to our ego and self worth and I feel will be the largest stumbling block in Resource based system. (yes Foley, that also covers your point about wanting "more" as well )

If we could work out a way to shift that paradigm even slightly from personal "wealth" in order to satisfy our "social ego" (keeping up with the jones'), to personal satisisfaction from our own achievements, it would be a good start.
Can it be done though? I simply don't know.

[aretood2]

Without having to edit, cut and paste etc, the Tood makes a very important point in mentioning "social currency", it's very much tied to our ego and self worth and I feel will be the largest stumbling block in Resource based system. (yes Foley, that also covers your point about wanting "more" as well )

If we could work out a way to shift that paradigm even slightly from personal "wealth" in order to satisfy our "social ego" (keeping up with the jones'), to personal satisisfaction from our own achievements, it would be a good start.
Can it be done though? I simply don't know.

With a credit based system, it could be sorta done, to a point, if you ask me.

Here's an example. I'm a teacher (just got a job ). I'm not a teacher for the money, obviously only an idiot would be a teacher for the money. Teachers get spat on so it's not for fame. So why am I a teacher? Because back in middle school I was told that in order to eat food and live in a warm place, I need a job. I was also told that if I get a good edumication, I could get a job that I would enjoy so much that I wouldn't see it as a "job" per se. Thus I became a teacher to meet those goals.

A credit based economy, while attempting to curb greed and lower socioeconomic status via advance technologies and abundance of resources, would still require me to work in order to eat. Only that in this system, I can't easily rob a bank. Credits aren't real. I can't get into debt, credits can't be speculated. If I am unable to work, other people in need of credits will take care of me.

There's still a lot in the credit system that needs fine tuning and even then greed and self interest will lend itself to crime and black markets. Not to mention most crime is not resource based (DUI's, rape, crimes of passion, domestic violence, abuse, etc...). It is only slightly better than a traditional monetary system (because it sorta is a monetary system).

Only evolution could arguably eliminate greed and such...or divine intervention.

[Gatefan1976]

With a credit based system, it could be sorta done, to a point, if you ask me.

With paper money becoming more and more "passé" we sort of are moving to a "credit based system", but a system that is still driven by inflation and "perceived market trends and needs". With the global banking infrastructure we have now, removal of inflation would be a huge step towards a "credit style" economy. The other issue of course is "value of time"

Here's an example. I'm a teacher (just got a job ). I'm not a teacher for the money, obviously only an idiot would be a teacher for the money. Teachers get spat on so it's not for fame. So why am I a teacher? Because back in middle school I was told that in order to eat food and live in a warm place, I need a job. I was also told that if I get a good edumication, I could get a job that I would enjoy so much that I wouldn't see it as a "job" per se. Thus I became a teacher to meet those goals.

First, Congrats to you Tood, and my sympathy to your future students
Secondly, you are right, when work becomes not "work" but an endeavour you *enjoy* because of your own choice, then the system has a much better chance of working.

A credit based economy, while attempting to curb greed and lower socioeconomic status via advance technologies and abundance of resources, would still require me to work in order to eat. Only that in this system, I can't easily rob a bank. Credits aren't real. I can't get into debt, credits can't be speculated. If I am unable to work, other people in need of credits will take care of me.

Agreed!

There's still a lot in the credit system that needs fine tuning and even then greed and self interest will lend itself to crime and black markets. Not to mention most crime is not resource based (DUI's, rape, crimes of passion, domestic violence, abuse, etc...). It is only slightly better than a traditional monetary system (because it sorta is a monetary system).

You may find that many of those crimes may peter out or become far less common however.

Only evolution could arguably eliminate greed and such...or divine intervention.

Which is why so many of these systems are established after a nuclear level holocaust, people don't WANT to change their paradigms, they are often forced to do so.

[Seastallion]

There's so many problems involved here. Where to start? Resources, though not all of them, are finite. That is a matter of fact. The technology to change that simply doesn't exist and at most recycling technology could provide the answer, but we'd still have a limited amount of recycle materials at any given time.

Are you aware that currently, a very small percentage (something like 10%) lays claim to about 80% of the world's resources? In addition, there are MANY resources that are barely being utilized at all, because of 'costs' to implementing them, but NOT actual resources. There is no need to be so dependent on oil for energy as we have been. The problem is that we haven't invested in the infrastructure necessary to utilize them. Most people know of them, but some may not be aware of all of them. Solar, Wind, Wave, Geothermal, Tidal; just to name a few. There ARE others. Did you know that an electrical car was invented in the early 1900's, but only went under because there were more gas stations that were convenient, than places to recharge the car? They did sale quite a few in Europe though, before going under. Trees are certainly renewable so long as people plant new trees to replace the ones used. Fresh water could be abundant if we'd just invest in the technologies that can make fresh water. They have them on U.S. Naval ships, and on land; they're called desalinization plants. If we can make big pipelines to move oil across the country, we can certainly do it for water. Did you know the U.S. government actually PAYS farmers NOT to grow food? If everyone had their own personal gardens, they could drastically reduce the costs of certain foods. In addition technology has been having more and more of a hand in producing foods as well. The whole POINT of RBE IS sustainability. The current system gobbles up resources like there is no end in sight, which is why companies are producing VAST amounts of JUNK specifically designed to wear out and break down, just so you HAVE to buy more. Under RBE, that would STOP. How many millions of cell phones get thrown away each year because of relatively minor damage, or simply because a new one was purchase? Under RBE, this would STOP. Cell phones would be designed to be modular, so if new upgrades came out or a component was damaged, you would simply unplug it, and replace it. Then recycle the old part back into the resource pool.

I'm thinking maybe you don't really understand what RBE is. Did you watch the video I posted above? The whole point of RBE is making use of the resources you have, and doing it in a sustainable way. You wouldn't worry overmuch for resources you didn't have, as you would simply adjust to doing without it, or find an alternative. Instead of fearing machines taking over our jobs, we would instead seek to utilize machines in every conceivable way possible, to allow humans to concern themselves with other things that machines can't do. Money would no longer be a factor in doing projects, only available resources and know-how would be. Obviously the resources availability would be analyzed to determine if a project was viable. That would be common practice. If a project was so big that it threatened sustainability it wouldn't be done.

As far as social scientists and biologists are concerned, greed and thirst of power is a real human problem that stems from our DNA. And then who's "we?" Who makes the choices? What about aesthetic issues like art, entertainment, leisure, recreation? How can you establish a technological method to deal with things that are so subjective and fluid?

Greed for money or power IS an issue, but it is as much (if not more) a result of culture as it is DNA. Mostly greed comes or jealously stems from inaccessibility to goods and services, rather than owning them. Why should someone be greedy for a yacht he can check out for his usage, just as easily as he could a book from the library? Things like cars aren't necessarily necessities. Many people living in cities today do not own cars, or want them. There are sufficient public transportation alternatives. In an RBE you won't be able to own EVERYTHING you want, but you WILL be provided with what you NEED, and many things you would want too.

The few who would want to acquire huge amounts of unnecessary THINGS simply for the sake of having them, would not do well in such a system. They would be cultural pariahs because such a culture would be founded on the ideal of everyone behaving in sustainable ways, and being a pack rat of unnecessary goods would be ridiculous. The days of people having 50 pairs of shoes for no reason other than vanity would be OVER. Each of the pairs of shoes a person would have would be based on function over fashion. Yes, the shoes a person did have could be aesthetically pleasing, and of a fashionable nature, but acquiring shoes just to acquire them would be unacceptable. You would maybe have 5 or 10 pairs of shoes depending on their intended function, and your actual need to use them. You wouldn't get hiking boots if you never hike to begin with, or at least not until you decided to start. If you needed a different fashion for a specific type of footwear, than you could maybe trade the old pair for an updated pair, allowing the old pair to be returned to the resource recycling pool. The society would teach against that sort of nonsense anyway. After all, it is about sustainability, sustainability, sustainability.

As far as who makes the choices, it would be the people most knowledgeable about the given topic. If you needed to decide what was the best way to wire your house, who would you ask, your local congressman or an electrician? People would still have lots of personal choices about aesthetics, probably even more than they do now. There are now machines that can print items exactly as you want them, on demand, rather than having to choose an item from an already manufactured selection. You could custom design your furniture, clothes, homes, and many other things. There are machines that can build the walls of a home from the ground up in far less time than it would take a crew of men to do it, and it could be done to a floor plan you specify before hand.

Things like art, entertainment, leisure, and recreation really wouldn't be all that different from now, with the exception that more people would have time and opportunity to actually participate and enjoy in those things than they do now. As I said before NO starving artist anymore. Their basic requirements are met, so they can devote their time and energy to making art for their own enjoyment, and that of others. Do people join drama clubs because they expect to get money out of it? NO! They do it because they enjoy doing it. They only charge admission to pay for costumes and sets and things like that. The actors in local drama clubs usually don't get paid for their efforts, beyond personal enjoyment. Often local craftsmen donate their time and labor to such groups because THEY also enjoy putting their skills to use in such activities as well. They get to show off their skill, and be appreciated for it. Isn't that why most musicians do what they do? Because they enjoy it? That they might get rich and famous is a nice bonus, but in a RBE, the singer wouldn't be anymore rich than anyone else, but they could still be famous for their talent. Such a culture would teach that singing for others is a great goodness, and the personal enjoyment is its own reward. Suppose such people needed protection because of the attention the got, well security would still be able to be provided. Most kids that want to be policemen when they grow up, don't do it with dreams of getting rich, they do it because they are inspired by the idea of being the good guy that protects others from the bad guys. That wouldn't change. People would be free to go after the dreams of their childhoods rather than having to settle for something less because of inaccessibility and the struggle for basic necessities.

Remember, machines would be doing most of the manual labor, not humans. Production capability is so far above what mankind has had access to in the past, that if it were utilized responsibly, it would free a very great many people to go out and do things they could have only dreamed about before. At the moment, many people fear machines because they really are taking away jobs from humans, and not nearly enough jobs are being created to replace the number of jobs lost, and those that are created require significant training and education, which not everyone has access to.

That may sound like a minor concern, but once again. Social capital will have to be defined somehow, and that means some sort of prestige. Be it being a "good" Christian or a "cool" person or famous/talented. Social Capital is something we will always seek. You can see that in simple cultures that don't have a monetary system, so no, it's not a result of a monetary system.

Again, people being able to live out their dreams will be a very large measure of that 'social capital' you're referring to. People can still do those things WITHOUT money, just as you said yourself, so it is NOT a valid argument against a RBE. Many people find fulfillment in the things they do, without needing to be rich or have mansions and such.

That factor alone can and will offset the balance enough to wreak havoc.

No, it wouldn't.

Also, in order for the idea of his city system to work, that would require mass migration. And frankly, a highly scientifically advanced people will most certainly require highly centralized population control to keep us from going about our carrying capacity. That alone goes against every fiber of humanity...that goes against genetics. Which means the psychological cost would be tremendous (suicide rates are much higher in developed countries than in developing countries).

Not necessarily. Where people live isn't the issue, it is about resource distribution. Money isn't necessary to do that, it is just a tool currently used to do it. In an RBE you could literally live and work anywhere you WANT to. You could live in New York, and work in L.A. With mag-lev bullet trains used within vacuum tubes, a train could get to between the two cities in about a half hour. Initially that wouldn't be possible, but as the RBE took root, it would become more than possible. Public transit systems would be maximized, so that for the most part, the only people using personal automobiles would be those traveling at the edges of cities, or in the more rural areas. Also don't forget, things like people having their own personal food gardens and such would be encouraged. Even that could be automated given the appropriate technological innovation. The only reason a person would have to go to the city would be to visit with other people, which is why many (not all of course) would choose to live in the city, for just that reason. Keep in mind, no one would be FORCED to live in a RBE society. People would CHOOSE to live in it, and with good reason. Someone like Nikola Tesla would have thrived mightily in such a society. He cared nothing for wealth, only about his work and how it could benefit humanity. He was almost too altruistic, because he ended up doing it to his personal hurt in the end, but that was because of the greed of others for money, most notably the infamous J.P. Morgan.

The need to establish cultural identity is also an issue here. Once again, mass migrations would destroy all cultures.

Again, your making assumptions that are unfounded. Saying you would need mass migration to make a RBE work has no basis in reality, other than your belief it would require it.

[Seastallion]

So let's ignore the fallout for a second and pretend full cultural uniformity That's hogwash. New generations always attempt to establish their own cultural identity (thus the exclamation "Kids these days!"). Slowly new cultures will evolve and deviate. So what happens when these new cultures start valuing different things? Particular or new resources are pursued, old or particular resources are ignored.

Proponents of RBE will tell you, that it is NOT a utopia, and it isn't. In fact, not only do they expect that a RBE society would evolve, they HOPE for it. Every generation will have it's own issues to work out, but money (or not enough of it) wouldn't be one of them. In the initial stages of a RBE experimental city, ONLY people that already have the proper mindset for a RBE would be allowed to participate. After it has proven its success, it would not be difficult to get people to "see the light" as it were. About 90% of the world population are already living in horrible conditions, NOT because the resources don't exist to improve them, but because they can't afford the COSTS. The old saying, "you need money to make money" is true, and guess what? Most people don't have it. It really is a case of the 99% vs the 1% as things currently stand. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Worldwide, you maybe have only 9% being actual Middle Class. In a RBE, everyone would effectively be in a Middle Class economic status. There wouldn't be any 1% UBER Rich, like the Rothschild family, which some estimate to be worth several hundred TRILLION dollars, being one of the oldest super wealthy banking families that control entire national central banks, including the Federal Reserve.

If a resource isn't needed, then it isn't needed. If someone else needed it, it could potentially be used as barter (non-monetarily) for other resources. In fact, non-monetary barter would be the main way that things would be traded between monetary and non-monetary societies. People still barter in this way all over the world today, without any money involved at all, even here in the USA.

The Venus Project is super uber duper reliant on global trade. If a discarded resource is naturally scarce and limited to the regions that are inhabited by a culture that refuses to produce it...dependant cultures are doomed. To prevent such things....war would erupt over control of that resource.

Again, you are falling under a false understanding of RBE. As I said before in a RBE you utilize the resources you have, even if that means building homes out of rocks. Or you find an alternative, so long as the main goal of sustainability is being utilized. As the old saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention. It really is amazing what can be done with limited resources when someone puts their mind to it. In a RBE things like recycling, standardization, modularization, and many other techniques would be used to get the biggest bang for ones buck to use a money-themed saying. Maximizing resources for the greatest gain would be guiding principle of a RBE. The additional resources left over could be used for non-monetary barter and/or luxury items. So yes, things like gold and such would probably be primarily used where they'd do the most good, such as in technological devices, unless there was a surplus to use in jewelry. I'm sure archaeological and historical artifacts would be exempt, unless a truly extreme and dire necessity warranted it.

No, not money, trade and barter economies work just fine for simple societies. And this illusion of a golden past is just that, an illusion. Plenty of people recycle. You still get paid for soda cans, and stores encourage people to buy fabric bags. We've stopped using some harmful stuff and are heading towards more environmentally friendly practices unlike the DDT that was used in the golden years of the past.

Really? All those plastic soda bottles, cheap toys, and many other things must be imaginary then. All those millions of discarded electronics filling entire trash heaps must be an illusion. That huge island of trash nearly the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean, must simply be a case of mistaken identification. The EPA, rather than being a force for good, is merely being used as a political weapon to strangle small business in favor of large corporations. I don't see this amazing change you're talking about. Corporations are only acting green because it is popular and they want good PR, not because they give a hoot about the environment. Corporations exist for ONE reason, and one reason ONLY. Too make MONEY. Nothing else matters. Pharmaceuticals don't create drugs to cure disease, they do it to TREAT illnesses. There is NO MONEY in curing diseases. Treating illness on the other hand is a GOLD MINE. The goal is to keep people buying your product, but if you have sold your product to everyone, then people will stop buying it because they already have it and don't need another. If you cure everyone, then you can't keep selling drugs. Corporations exist for ONE reason. Money.

Here's the problem. When you say scientific, do you mean natural or social?

Scientific, as in applying the scientific process using mathematics, algorithms, and applied sciences to solve actual problems, be they technological, agricultural, industrial, etc. Using super computers to track and identify available resources and calculate the best possible use of those resources to get maximum benefit out of them. What else would I mean? Were are NOT talking about Socialism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Fascism, Communism, or ANY of the previously attempted social ideological experiments. In every one of those, money is central to the system, has also been the cause of class-ism that has risen up in everyone one of them. In everyone of them it has been the have's vs. the have-nots.

A credit based economy would simply work better in that sense. To be honest RBE sounds a lot like Free Trade and Free Market practices (the ideal, not what is actually done). Only that I have yet to see any mathematical models for it. Free Trade and Free Market does have the math to back it up as well as true and tried principles of human behavior.

You've virtually contradicted yourself here. You basically said it sounded like the ideal version of a tried and true tested system. If the entire world utilized RBE, there wouldn't really be any trade in the classical sense. Distribution would be based on need, and all resources would be carefully tracked. If there wasn't enough of a particular resource to do a thing, it wouldn't be done. An alternative would either need to be found, or just do without. With production capability and efficiency being maximized most resources would probably end up being surplus in general. In other words ONLY just enough cell phones would be made for everyone that wanted one, and maybe a few extra just in case. On the other hand, things like foods would be in high abundance, and the surplus would probably either be safely sealed for future use, or recycled.

Are you saying Will Smith and Morgan Freeman and so on only do it for the money?

I don't know either of them well enough to say for certain, but I personally doubt it is the only reason they do what they do, but it is definitely a nice bonus. I'm sure most actors don't do what they do with the specific intention of being rich (they probably do hope for it, after all, who doesn't in the current system?), but I imagine there are a few who hope that they can be lucky enough to make it big simply for the economic benefits it could bring.

We have the technology for flying cars and rudimentary auto pilot on cars (If planes can land themselves and take off by themselves....think about it). You're ignoring the social capital involved in driving. Which is why the US lacks a real Mass Transit system.

Yes, we do, but what is the main hindrance to getting them to the public? Costs; money. So you're saying that the reason the US lacks a better mass transit system is because everyone wants a car, rather than ride on a train? I'd say that everyone wants to have a car when they need it, not necessarily own it, but under the current paradigm the only way to ensure that you always have access to a car is to own it as personal property. If I knew that I could always get a car when I needed it, I wouldn't care if I personally owned a car or not. I hardly use mine except to go to work, the store, or sometimes go visiting. Also, relatively cheap fuel has driven down the demand for a better public transit system, not people's desires for cars. If gas suddenly cost $300 / gallon, people would DEMAND a better public transit system, and there is a good chance it would happen.

I'm not saying it's God's gift to man, just that it's the best humans can come up with (other than perhaps a credit based system which would be highly dependent on automation and technology) for complex societies. That doesn't mean that it's great, by far it is still pretty horrible. It's just that there is a limit to what humans can do to solve the world's problems.

Touchy feely arguments can only get you so far. You need to have something that's based on actual research and human nature. Until divine intervention becomes reality, many problems will always persist no matter what. The best that can be done is to hold on tight and try to deal with them until such a day arrives.

I don't think money (more specifically paper money) is itself particularly bad, it is just too easily misused for nefarious purposes, as the current conditions attest. If you knew the truth about the Federal Reserve (and other international central banks), you'd understand that the paper money we use everyday is in reality, WORTHLESS. As in toilet paper, worthless. The green piece of paper that says 'dollar' on it, is an I. O. U. note, NOT actual lawful money. Dollars bills are not actual dollars (they are IOU notes) and used to say they could be traded for 'lawful money' which is in fact 31.103 grams of silver, at the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve bank. How many people want to bet that the dollar bill today, is ACTUALLY backed up by that amount of silver anymore? I wouldn't bet on it. Go ahead and try to trade in your dollar bill at any Federal Reserve Bank or the U.S. Treasury Dept. for lawful money. They'll know what you're talking about, but will just tell you 'they' can't do it, and you'll have to go somewhere else to attempt it.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detai...#axzz2a7lA7RM5

So world renowned inventor, artist, architect, and futurist Jacque Fresco who spent more than 75 years of his life developing the ideas behind RBE is just touchy feely with no real basis or foundation? Douglas Mallette, a proponent of RBE, and an engineer that has worked on the space shuttle program has no credibility? There are a lot of educated people who recognize the potential behind a RBE society and are working to educate the public about it.

[aretood2]

With paper money becoming more and more "passé" we sort of are moving to a "credit based system", but a system that is still driven by inflation and "perceived market trends and needs". With the global banking infrastructure we have now, removal of inflation would be a huge step towards a "credit style" economy. The other issue of course is "value of time"

These are things that have to be figured out. Take the transition from a barter system to a coin system. Instead of deciding how many chickens I should give you for your cow, now we can just use a precious metal to represent worth. Your cow is worth fivc silver pieces (you greedy monster) so I need only to sell a hundred eggs from my chickens to make enough to buy that overpriced cow. You may now buy that ox you need to plow your fields. You don't need to trade an ox for a cow because Jelgate doesn't want a Cow. So just pay him money (unless you had bacon...). Sorry for the inside joke.

Time then became valued. And supply and demand as well as trail and error and uprisings and revolts and oppression decided how time would be valued. Now strikes do that *goes to the picket line*

First, Congrats to you Tood, and my sympathy to your future students
Secondly, you are right, when work becomes not "work" but an endeavour you *enjoy* because of your own choice, then the system has a much better chance of working.

Thanks.

You may find that many of those crimes may peter out or become far less common however.

Exactly.

Which is why so many of these systems are established after a nuclear level holocaust, people don't WANT to change their paradigms, they are often forced to do so.

It's an evolution. Either mass extinction forces cultures to radically adapt, or it's a slow process over time.

[aretood2]

Are you aware that currently, a very small percentage (something like 10%) lays claim to about 80% of the world's resources?

Anyone who pays attention in middle school social studies knows that.

In addition, there are MANY resources that are barely being utilized at all, because of 'costs' to implementing them, but NOT actual resources. There is no need to be so dependent on oil for energy as we have been. The problem is that we haven't invested in the infrastructure necessary to utilize them. Most people know of them, but some may not be aware of all of them. Solar, Wind, Wave, Geothermal, Tidal; just to name a few. There ARE others. Did you know that an electrical car was invented in the early 1900's, but only went under because there were more gas stations that were convenient, than places to recharge the car?

Electric car? Sorry, didn't happen. I mean, not what you must be thinking. When people today say electric car they think a car fully powered by a battery or some energy source that is powerful enough to move a vehicle at high speeds over a long distance for a long duration of time. That is simply not the case here. Besides, where do you think those cars would get their power from in the early 1900's? I'll give you the two available options. Coal and Oil power plants.

Trees are certainly renewable so long as people plant new trees to replace the ones used. Fresh water could be abundant if we'd just invest in the technologies that can make fresh water. They have them on U.S. Naval ships, and on land; they're called desalinization plants. If we can make big pipelines to move oil across the country, we can certainly do it for water. Did you know the U.S. government actually PAYS farmers NOT to grow food?

Yeah, it's to prevent inflation and other nasty side effects to too much of one product.

If everyone had their own personal gardens, they could drastically reduce the costs of certain foods. In addition technology has been having more and more of a hand in producing foods as well. The whole POINT of RBE IS sustainability.

You mean like WWII victory gardens? Do you think that's lost on people somehow? Excuse me while I go water me vegetables.

The current system gobbles up resources like there is no end in sight, which is why companies are producing VAST amounts of JUNK specifically designed to wear out and break down, just so you HAVE to buy more. Under RBE, that would STOP. How many millions of cell phones get thrown away each year because of relatively minor damage, or simply because a new one was purchase? Under RBE, this would STOP. Cell phones would be designed to be modular, so if new upgrades came out or a component was damaged, you would simply unplug it, and replace it. Then recycle the old part back into the resource pool.

That's not why. Fashion changes over time. It would be a waste of resources to build an indestructible phone when the consumer will just throw it away for the new hip design. Remember, this is where social currency comes into play. Consumers want to establish an identity. Not to mention the development of new technologies. If Ford made is T-Model indestructible, he would have wasted who knows how many resources in making a car last fifty years when it is only needed or wanted for ten years.

I'm thinking maybe you don't really understand what RBE is. Did you watch the video I posted above? The whole point of RBE is making use of the resources you have, and doing it in a sustainable way. You wouldn't worry overmuch for resources you didn't have, as you would simply adjust to doing without it, or find an alternative. Instead of fearing machines taking over our jobs, we would instead seek to utilize machines in every conceivable way possible, to allow humans to concern themselves with other things that machines can't do. Money would no longer be a factor in doing projects, only available resources and know-how would be. Obviously the resources availability would be analyzed to determine if a project was viable. That would be common practice. If a project was so big that it threatened sustainability it wouldn't be done.

Yes, I did watch it. And I found too many issues with what he said. He needs to go back and study the principles of economics, psychology, history, and a crash course on sociology and anthropology. Environmental and human biology wouldn't hurt either.

Greed for money or power IS an issue, but it is as much (if not more) a result of culture as it is DNA. Mostly greed comes or jealously stems from inaccessibility to goods and services, rather than owning them. Why should someone be greedy for a yacht he can check out for his usage, just as easily as he could a book from the library? Things like cars aren't necessarily necessities. Many people living in cities today do not own cars, or want them. There are sufficient public transportation alternatives. In an RBE you won't be able to own EVERYTHING you want, but you WILL be provided with what you NEED, and many things you would want too.

A five year old does not like to see his friend play with another kid too much. I highly doubt his jealousy results from seeing his friend as a "good" or a "service." Jealousy exists because we always want more. We always take what we have for granted. This is why the rich want to get richer. They have everything, yet they want more. Culture just reflects this aspect of humanity, it isn't its cause. Religion has tried for thousands of years to change that...it has had little success beyond a minority of people.

As far as who makes the choices, it would be the people most knowledgeable about the given topic. If you needed to decide what was the best way to wire your house, who would you ask, your local congressman or an electrician? People would still have lots of personal choices about aesthetics, probably even more than they do now. There are now machines that can print items exactly as you want them, on demand, rather than having to choose an item from an already manufactured selection. You could custom design your furniture, clothes, homes, and many other things. There are machines that can build the walls of a home from the ground up in far less time than it would take a crew of men to do it, and it could be done to a floor plan you specify before hand.

Why would the crew of men want to do it?

Things like art, entertainment, leisure, and recreation really wouldn't be all that different from now, with the exception that more people would have time and opportunity to actually participate and enjoy in those things than they do now. As I said before NO starving artist anymore. Their basic requirements are met, so they can devote their time and energy to making art for their own enjoyment, and that of others. Do people join drama clubs because they expect to get money out of it? NO! They do it because they enjoy doing it. They only charge admission to pay for costumes and sets and things like that. The actors in local drama clubs usually don't get paid for their efforts, beyond personal enjoyment. Often local craftsmen donate their time and labor to such groups because THEY also enjoy putting their skills to use in such activities as well. They get to show off their skill, and be appreciated for it. Isn't that why most musicians do what they do? Because they enjoy it? That they might get rich and famous is a nice bonus, but in a RBE, the singer wouldn't be anymore rich than anyone else, but they could still be famous for their talent. Such a culture would teach that singing for others is a great goodness, and the personal enjoyment is its own reward. Suppose such people needed protection because of the attention the got, well security would still be able to be provided. Most kids that want to be policemen when they grow up, don't do it with dreams of getting rich, they do it because they are inspired by the idea of being the good guy that protects others from the bad guys. That wouldn't change. People would be free to go after the dreams of their childhoods rather than having to settle for something less because of inaccessibility and the struggle for basic necessities.

What? No Policewomen? Anyway, that's what I mean about touchy feely stuff. It's not really based on real social models. Just about everyone who goes to a profession does it for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. We are complex things, we are not one dimensional. A kid may want to be a police officer but perhaps she learns that she's a good investigator. So she decides to become a detective instead. The problem is that society only needs X amount of anything. If too many people become a police officer, then we have a waste of resources in law enforcement and a want of resources in other sectors. Someone is going to have to tell that little girl "Sorry, we already have the quota of kids who want to go into law enforcement, you'll have to pick something else." At that point your model there starts to break down.

Remember, machines would be doing most of the manual labor, not humans. Production capability is so far above what mankind has had access to in the past, that if it were utilized responsibly, it would free a very great many people to go out and do things they could have only dreamed about before. At the moment, many people fear machines because they really are taking away jobs from humans, and not nearly enough jobs are being created to replace the number of jobs lost, and those that are created require significant training and education, which not everyone has access to.

Most Americans have access to college education, most just don't understand how to take advantage of it. The issue is a bit more complex. I mean, My parents have an elementary education, came to this country with nothing, and I now am thinking about getting a masters degree. We never once got welfare or food stamps. And the funny thing is...they did a lot without speaking the language too. Sure they know it now, to a point. But still, how can they give me what I have and Americans born to American parents who were in turn born to American parents not be able to do that for their own children? The answer is simple, because there are more variables at play. Variables you discount.

[aretood2]

[QUOTE=Seastallion;13892913]Proponents of RBE will tell you, that it is NOT a utopia, and it isn't. In fact, not only do they expect that a RBE society would evolve, they HOPE for it. Every generation will have it's own issues to work out, but money (or not enough of it) wouldn't be one of them. In the initial stages of a RBE experimental city, ONLY people that already have the proper mindset for a RBE would be allowed to participate. After it has proven its success, it would not be difficult to get people to "see the light" as it were. About 90% of the world population are already living in horrible conditions, NOT because the resources don't exist to improve them, but because they can't afford the COSTS. The old saying, "you need money to make money" is true, and guess what? Most people don't have it. It really is a case of the 99% vs the 1% as things currently stand. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Worldwide, you maybe have only 9% being actual Middle Class. In a RBE, everyone would effectively be in a Middle Class economic status. There wouldn't be any 1% UBER Rich, like the Rothschild family, which some estimate to be worth several hundred TRILLION dollars, being one of the oldest super wealthy banking families that control entire national central banks, including the Federal Reserve.

The problem is that "not enough money" equals "not enough resources." Since the first towns came to be there have always been a divide between the 99% and the 1%, so to speak. It's nothing new. That division predates money, predates coins, and goes all the way back to the barter system. Why? Because reality demands it.

If a resource isn't needed, then it isn't needed. If someone else needed it, it could potentially be used as barter (non-monetarily) for other resources. In fact, non-monetary barter would be the main way that things would be traded between monetary and non-monetary societies. People still barter in this way all over the world today, without any money involved at all, even here in the USA.

TV's aren't needed, yet we have them. Yet we value whose poor and whose middle class based on unneeded things that they have. If food and medical care and shelter were the only things involved in deciding who's poor and who isn't, and if they were the only things sought after. There'd be less poverty in the world (It would still exist, but a lot less of it). The thing is that people place value on things like furniture, multiple changes of clothes, TV's, phones, appliances, etc... things that are human constructs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, just that they do. We don't need to use up those resources yet we do. Silver is only mined in certain areas. What if a culture does not want to mine their silver? How does the other culture that wants it get it? In the human mind, want is need.

Really? All those plastic soda bottles, cheap toys, and many other things must be imaginary then. All those millions of discarded electronics filling entire trash heaps must be an illusion. That huge island of trash nearly the size of Texas in the Pacific Ocean, must simply be a case of mistaken identification. The EPA, rather than being a force for good, is merely being used as a political weapon to strangle small business in favor of large corporations. I don't see this amazing change you're talking about. Corporations are only acting green because it is popular and they want good PR, not because they give a hoot about the environment. Corporations exist for ONE reason, and one reason ONLY. Too make MONEY. Nothing else matters. Pharmaceuticals don't create drugs to cure disease, they do it to TREAT illnesses. There is NO MONEY in curing diseases. Treating illness on the other hand is a GOLD MINE. The goal is to keep people buying your product, but if you have sold your product to everyone, then people will stop buying it because they already have it and don't need another. If you cure everyone, then you can't keep selling drugs. Corporations exist for ONE reason. Money.

You do know that plastic is recyclable...right? And making it is more environmentally friendly than stripping a mountain side. And that it can also be reused, not just recycled, unlike the metal based cans that STILL exist and are widely used. Somehow Smallpox and Polio were eradicated...how did that happen?

Scientific, as in applying the scientific process using mathematics, algorithms, and applied sciences to solve actual problems, be they technological, agricultural, industrial, etc. Using super computers to track and identify available resources and calculate the best possible use of those resources to get maximum benefit out of them. What else would I mean? Were are NOT talking about Socialism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Liberalism, Fascism, Communism, or ANY of the previously attempted social ideological experiments. In every one of those, money is central to the system, has also been the cause of class-ism that has risen up in everyone one of them. In everyone of them it has been the have's vs. the have-nots.

There's a reason why they call the natural sciences, natural sciences. Because they have very little understanding of social issues and concepts. You can't really use the different scientific methods of the natural sciences on people.

You've virtually contradicted yourself here. You basically said it sounded like the ideal version of a tried and true tested system. If the entire world utilized RBE, there wouldn't really be any trade in the classical sense. Distribution would be based on need, and all resources would be carefully tracked. If there wasn't enough of a particular resource to do a thing, it wouldn't be done. An alternative would either need to be found, or just do without. With production capability and efficiency being maximized most resources would probably end up being surplus in general. In other words ONLY just enough cell phones would be made for everyone that wanted one, and maybe a few extra just in case. On the other hand, things like foods would be in high abundance, and the surplus would probably either be safely sealed for future use, or recycled.

No, I said backed up by tried and true principles of human behavior. Not proven by tried and true principles. RBE has no principles of human behavior that have been sufficiently supported by evidence and mathematical (economics) models.

Yes, we do, but what is the main hindrance to getting them to the public? Costs; money. So you're saying that the reason the US lacks a better mass transit system is because everyone wants a car, rather than ride on a train? I'd say that everyone wants to have a car when they need it, not necessarily own it, but under the current paradigm the only way to ensure that you always have access to a car is to own it as personal property. If I knew that I could always get a car when I needed it, I wouldn't care if I personally owned a car or not. I hardly use mine except to go to work, the store, or sometimes go visiting. Also, relatively cheap fuel has driven down the demand for a better public transit system, not people's desires for cars. If gas suddenly cost $300 / gallon, people would DEMAND a better public transit system, and there is a good chance it would happen.

The fact that Europe has buses that go everywhere and the the US doesn't is proof of what I am saying. People in cities that don't have cars don't have them because of affordability. They'd rather save money for bread instead of buying a car. But plenty do have cars. But given the chance, money, most of the carless New Yorkers would most likely buy themselves a car if only to have the chance to say that they have a car. What you said only further backs this up. People will drive cars by choice. The only way they would opt out of cars is if there are issues of affordability. Your RBE thingy would actually ensure that everyone can have a car....but if everything is so well programed and planned, wouldn't mass transit be more efficient? So is someone going to tell the people that they can't have cars? Because frankly, cars take up a lot of resources.

So you'll have to force people into mass transit....force.....that means "Do this or else!" The money system does that on its own. And if it wasn't for the prosperity of the US in the 50's, we too would have a great bus system. It's due to abundance that we developed an addiction to cars as a country. Why do you think rich people have fifty cars? We would use up more resources if money wasn't an issue, resources that we wouldn't need. We would constantly demand more and more and more. This is why a credit system would work better, because you'd have to earn your resource allotment. That means you'd have to decide if you want that new car or a nice house by the river. That means that you'd have to budget the use of your resources against your own will. But that's okay, because no one is forcing you to pick one or the other...it's just the way it is.

But with RBE, someone will externally force you to pick. Look, I'm not saying that I am against it. If that's what we turn into, so be it. I am not making a value judgement. Just saying that I don't think it'll work as cleanly as you think it will.

I don't think money (more specifically paper money) is itself particularly bad, it is just too easily misused for nefarious purposes, as the current conditions attest. If you knew the truth about the Federal Reserve (and other international central banks), you'd understand that the paper money we use everyday is in reality, WORTHLESS. As in toilet paper, worthless. The green piece of paper that says 'dollar' on it, is an I. O. U. note, NOT actual lawful money. Dollars bills are not actual dollars (they are IOU notes) and used to say they could be traded for 'lawful money' which is in fact 31.103 grams of silver, at the U.S. Treasury or any Federal Reserve bank. How many people want to bet that the dollar bill today, is ACTUALLY backed up by that amount of silver anymore? I wouldn't bet on it. Go ahead and try to trade in your dollar bill at any Federal Reserve Bank or the U.S. Treasury Dept. for lawful money. They'll know what you're talking about, but will just tell you 'they' can't do it, and you'll have to go somewhere else to attempt it.

Everyone knows that. Sure, if you're not into thinking about economics, you don't think about it. But everyone who pays attention in Economics class knows that. Money is faith based. Money represents the time and effort or a resource. It's a place holder that has the same value across a large population that facilitates trade. X dollars shows that I earned the right to have any one item or service that is worth X dollars because I produced X dollars amount of services or products. The people that accept my X dollars have faith that I did, indeed, do (or a third party did) X dollars amount of work and that the resources it represents does exist in real life (that is that someone at least, connected to me and the X dollars, did do work). "lawful money" as you say it, doesn't exist because dollars are lawful money.

[aretood2]

So world renowned inventor, artist, architect, and futurist Jacque Fresco who spent more than 75 years of his life developing the ideas behind RBE is just touchy feely with no real basis or foundation? Douglas Mallette, a proponent of RBE, and an engineer that has worked on the space shuttle program has no credibility? There are a lot of educated people who recognize the potential behind a RBE society and are working to educate the public about it.

Fresco has a bases and foundation when it comes to designing and building modern marvels and amazing buildings that have never been seen before. But that's where is genius ends. I trust the economists and so on experts that say his ideas won't work just like I trust him to build a cool advanced efficient skyscraper that will pass the test of time. Same thing with Mallette. He can take me to the Moon, but he can't touch my finances. I trust that Hawkings knows what he's talking about when he talks about the stars, but I wouldn't let him advise a surgeon on how to operate on me in a million years (I'd have him thrown in jail for it) nor would I trust him if he tried to prescribe medication. He's an astrophysicist, not a Medical Doctor. Fresco is an engineer, not an economist.

[Seastallion]

Electric car? Sorry, didn't happen. I mean, not what you must be thinking. When people today say electric car they think a car fully powered by a battery or some energy source that is powerful enough to move a vehicle at high speeds over a long distance for a long duration of time. That is simply not the case here. Besides, where do you think those cars would get their power from in the early 1900's? I'll give you the two available options. Coal and Oil power plants.

Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-1990-1126-500,_Kraftdroschke.jpg



From 1904...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ectric_vehicle

Even today, electric cars are plugged into whatever electrical system is handy, whatever that might be. It was no different back then, those cars ran on batteries too. Read the article above. They managed to set automobile speed records of 62mph in 1899. The first 4-wheeled electric automobile was built in 1888, and an electric motor cycle was exhibited in the 1867 World Exposition in Paris.

Yeah, it's to prevent inflation and other nasty side effects to too much of one product.

Seriously? Every time the Fed prints more money they cause inflation, and this they do in a DAILY basis.



The devaluation of the American Dollar Bill since 1913 (The creation of the Federal Reserve)...

That's not why. Fashion changes over time. It would be a waste of resources to build an indestructible phone when the consumer will just throw it away for the new hip design. Remember, this is where social currency comes into play. Consumers want to establish an identity. Not to mention the development of new technologies. If Ford made is T-Model indestructible, he would have wasted who knows how many resources in making a car last fifty years when it is only needed or wanted for ten years.

Except in a RBE, the 'consumer' would be taught from childhood that you don't just throw stuff away. As I said before, it is as much about changing the way people think as it is producing things differently. Someone that would throw away a cell phone for mere fashion reasons is clearly wasteful. Phones in a RBE could be upgraded, and you could decorate it how you wanted, but you wouldn't just throw it away. In any case there would be various styles to choose from to begin with. Even if you decided you liked a different style, you'd just put the old phone back into the resource pool. This argument is invalid, because individualism would not be lost in a RBE, rather they would be increased with the technologies to design your things before they even get made or built.

Yes, I did watch it. And I found too many issues with what he said. He needs to go back and study the principles of economics, psychology, history, and a crash course on sociology and anthropology. Environmental and human biology wouldn't hurt either.

Well, that is between you and him. I would advise that you at least check at the FAQ on his website, if you want more detailed responses to your objections. A short video is hardly enough time to go into real detail about an idea as big as a RBE.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/faq

A five year old does not like to see his friend play with another kid too much. I highly doubt his jealousy results from seeing his friend as a "good" or a "service." Jealousy exists because we always want more. We always take what we have for granted. This is why the rich want to get richer. They have everything, yet they want more. Culture just reflects this aspect of humanity, it isn't its cause. Religion has tried for thousands of years to change that...it has had little success beyond a minority of people.

That is an over simplification. The "99%" has ALWAYS been in existence, with the maybe the relative exception of the caveman days, but even then there was some minor class division, but it certainly wasn't based on monetary economics, it was generally based on physical traits.

The Spartans would let their weak and deformed children die. Today we give people wheelchairs and prosthetics. *Pushed my glasses back up my nose...* Attitudes can change, if they are TAUGHT differently. People can be taught generosity and kindness. People can be taught to find fulfillment in doing things they enjoy, rather than obtaining new material goods, which they'd plenty of to begin with. Religion is simply a tool that has empowered a few men over the masses out of fear to do as they were told, not much differently than kings and other rulers.

Why would the crew of men want to do it?

In the current paradigm, money obviously.

What? No Policewomen? Anyway, that's what I mean about touchy feely stuff. It's not really based on real social models. Just about everyone who goes to a profession does it for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. We are complex things, we are not one dimensional. A kid may want to be a police officer but perhaps she learns that she's a good investigator. So she decides to become a detective instead. The problem is that society only needs X amount of anything. If too many people become a police officer, then we have a waste of resources in law enforcement and a want of resources in other sectors. Someone is going to have to tell that little girl "Sorry, we already have the quota of kids who want to go into law enforcement, you'll have to pick something else." At that point your model there starts to break down.

The only reason there is a 'quota' is because of lack of money in the current paradigm. There aren't many police dept's that wouldn't accept more police officers if money were no object. They don't hire because of a lack of funds, not for a lack of positions. Nor because of a lack of extra uniforms or guns, which could easily be made. So, your argument here doesn't work either. Said Police Dept. wouldn't have to pay their police officers anything, as aside from training, any police force would be pretty much voluntary.

Most Americans have access to college education, most just don't understand how to take advantage of it. The issue is a bit more complex. I mean, My parents have an elementary education, came to this country with nothing, and I now am thinking about getting a masters degree. We never once got welfare or food stamps. And the funny thing is...they did a lot without speaking the language too. Sure they know it now, to a point. But still, how can they give me what I have and Americans born to American parents who were in turn born to American parents not be able to do that for their own children? The answer is simple, because there are more variables at play. Variables you discount.

It would almost be funny, if it wasn't so sad. I'm an American that can trace my ancestry in this land in official documents back to about 1710, and with the Native American blood that flows through my veins many thousands of years before that too. My European ancestors on my dad's side first came to America from the British Isles in 1642, to Jamestown, Virginia under Sir William Berkley. I can claim as much ties to this land as just about anyone, with the possible exception of full blooded Native Americans.

I've also been forced to be on welfare at times as a child growing up, and never really had a permanent home or particularly nice things. I've never been on welfare myself during my adult life, at least not yet. In the past couple of years, I've had to go on Unemployment for the very first time. I agree with you, that there ARE resources to help people with schooling and such, but as you say, many people don't know about them. Or even if they do, they may not understand how to navigate the system to use them properly. Also, ironically, (at least these days) immigrants get assistance in many areas that natural born citizens do not. I've seen programs for immigrants to start businesses and other things, that aren't being offered to Americans, and if they are, I certainly would like to know about it.

[Seastallion]

The problem is that "not enough money" equals "not enough resources." Since the first towns came to be there have always been a divide between the 99% and the 1%, so to speak. It's nothing new. That division predates money, predates coins, and goes all the way back to the barter system. Why? Because reality demands it.

You can believe that if you want to. I've watched tons of science programs talk about how we had the technology today to feed everyone on Earth, and so on and so forth. I believe that is true. However, it isn't in the 1%'s interest to allow that to happen, as they use money to virtually enslave the rest of us. Every kid born today, is already something like $60,000 in debt, before they have even learned their first word.

TV's aren't needed, yet we have them. Yet we value whose poor and whose middle class based on unneeded things that they have. If food and medical care and shelter were the only things involved in deciding who's poor and who isn't, and if they were the only things sought after. There'd be less poverty in the world (It would still exist, but a lot less of it). The thing is that people place value on things like furniture, multiple changes of clothes, TV's, phones, appliances, etc... things that are human constructs. I'm not saying that they shouldn't, just that they do. We don't need to use up those resources yet we do. Silver is only mined in certain areas. What if a culture does not want to mine their silver? How does the other culture that wants it get it? In the human mind, want is need.

Turning everyone into a 1%-er won't happen for a very long time. But it IS possible to turn everyone to a Middle Class level of economics, which is MORE than sufficient for ANYONE. It all goes back to educating people to think differently about the world, and not just blindly grab for stuff that they don't actually need. We're really not talking about the distribution of goods, we're talking about how people think. They'll need to change it, obviously. I personally have 4 different pairs of shoes, and each serve a specific purpose, that isn't duplicated by the other pair. I don't actually care to have any more shoes. I'm fine with what I've got. There are things I want, either because I don't have them at all, or the ones I do have are broken or damaged in some way. Okay, I do have a small collection of swords, but if I could trade them in for a functioning RBE, I would in a heartbeat.

You do know that plastic is recyclable...right? And making it is more environmentally friendly than stripping a mountain side. And that it can also be reused, not just recycled, unlike the metal based cans that STILL exist and are widely used. Somehow Smallpox and Polio were eradicated...how did that happen?

Some of it is, but a great deal of it isn't recycled at all. It is poisoning the very fish we get from the Ocean, and in turn poisoning us as well. As to diseases, Polio was the last major disease eradicated, and that was in the 1950's. With all the advanced medicine we have today, one would think we'd have found a few more cures by now, but the pharmaceutical companies are interested in curing anyone. That would just cut into their profits of treating people.

There's a reason why they call the natural sciences, natural sciences. Because they have very little understanding of social issues and concepts. You can't really use the different scientific methods of the natural sciences on people.

You're right up to a point. However, most crimes today really shouldn't be crimes at all. Is being a drug addict a crime in and of itself? It shouldn't be. Prisons don't really cure drug addiction. Maybe there is a drug program that might help some people, but it wasn't the prison itself. Prisons are most privately owned corporations anyway, they need 'criminals' to thrive. Ever wonder how the government probably gets its money for 'black projects'? Maybe certain things related to 'Fast and Furious'? Kind of gives a whole new meaning to 'organized crime'.

No, I said backed up by tried and true principles of human behavior. Not proven by tried and true principles. RBE has no principles of human behavior that have been sufficiently supported by evidence and mathematical (economics) models.

Are you just saying that because you believe it is true, or are you saying that because you have evidence to back it up?

The fact that Europe has buses that go everywhere and the the US doesn't is proof of what I am saying. People in cities that don't have cars don't have them because of affordability. They'd rather save money for bread instead of buying a car. But plenty do have cars. But given the chance, money, most of the carless New Yorkers would most likely buy themselves a car if only to have the chance to say that they have a car. What you said only further backs this up. People will drive cars by choice. The only way they would opt out of cars is if there are issues of affordability. Your RBE thingy would actually ensure that everyone can have a car....but if everything is so well programed and planned, wouldn't mass transit be more efficient? So is someone going to tell the people that they can't have cars? Because frankly, cars take up a lot of resources.

People can have cars, they just wouldn't be hogging them during their down time. Personal cars would be a thing of the past for the most part, unless you lived in the wilderness where it might be a necessity. RBE does take into consideration where you live to determine such things. Someone in the inner city would definitely NOT need a car all the time, while someone living in the sticks would live so far from everyone else it would be impractical to send car back and forth for them, and easier to just let them keep it. Most people would live in the greater population zones though. So not such a big deal. The goal of RBE is to allow people access to the things they want, not necessarily personal ownership, although given the item and resource availability that may be possible. Obviously I don't want to share my underwear.

So you'll have to force people into mass transit....force.....that means "Do this or else!" The money system does that on its own. And if it wasn't for the prosperity of the US in the 50's, we too would have a great bus system. It's due to abundance that we developed an addiction to cars as a country. Why do you think rich people have fifty cars? We would use up more resources if money wasn't an issue, resources that we wouldn't need. We would constantly demand more and more and more. This is why a credit system would work better, because you'd have to earn your resource allotment. That means you'd have to decide if you want that new car or a nice house by the river. That means that you'd have to budget the use of your resources against your own will. But that's okay, because no one is forcing you to pick one or the other...it's just the way it is.

No force. If someone doesn't want to live in the RBE society, they can live in whatever sort of society they want. People that want to be in a RBE, however, will accept it as proper resource management. It's not like they wouldn't be able to ever drive if they wanted to.

But with RBE, someone will externally force you to pick. Look, I'm not saying that I am against it. If that's what we turn into, so be it. I am not making a value judgement. Just saying that I don't think it'll work as cleanly as you think it will.

Again, NO Force. People will only be in a RBE because they WANT to be. Those that believe that the future of the entire earth is a RBE, believe that because they believe it will be so successful, that the rest of the world will demand it, despite the protests of the 1%.

Everyone knows that. Sure, if you're not into thinking about economics, you don't think about it. But everyone who pays attention in Economics class knows that. Money is faith based. Money represents the time and effort or a resource. It's a place holder that has the same value across a large population that facilitates trade. X dollars shows that I earned the right to have any one item or service that is worth X dollars because I produced X dollars amount of services or products. The people that accept my X dollars have faith that I did, indeed, do (or a third party did) X dollars amount of work and that the resources it represents does exist in real life (that is that someone at least, connected to me and the X dollars, did do work).

Uh-huh

"lawful money" as you say it, doesn't exist because dollars are lawful money.

Gee, I wasn't aware that the laws that state that lawful money is 31.103 grams of Silver was repealed... Ever wonder why the government forced everyone to give up their precious metals in 1933? Maybe so no one would have any 'lawful' money? Then everyone would be 'forced' into your 'faith-based' money. Which is a way to say it is based on the back of human labor, i.e.- slaves. Indentured servitude at best. Every time the Fed prints more dollar bills, the prices inflate, and that 'faith-based' money is worth less and less.

1955: Price of gas; .23 cents per gallon
Price of a stamp: .03 cents
Today: Price of gas: $3.50 per gallon
Price of a Stamp: .75 cents

The price of ONE stamp today, could've bought both the stamp and THREE gallon of gas back in 1955. Talk about inflation...

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. -Thomas Jefferson

[Seastallion]

Fresco has a bases and foundation when it comes to designing and building modern marvels and amazing buildings that have never been seen before. But that's where is genius ends. I trust the economists and so on experts that say his ideas won't work just like I trust him to build a cool advanced efficient skyscraper that will pass the test of time. Same thing with Mallette. He can take me to the Moon, but he can't touch my finances. I trust that Hawkings knows what he's talking about when he talks about the stars, but I wouldn't let him advise a surgeon on how to operate on me in a million years (I'd have him thrown in jail for it) nor would I trust him if he tried to prescribe medication. He's an astrophysicist, not a Medical Doctor. Fresco is an engineer, not an economist.

I don't know, he was good enough to get onto TED. You know, where they bring the world's best innovators to share new technologies and ideas. They don't just let anyone speak on their program.

About our speakers- At TED, we search year-round for presenters who will inform and inspire, surprise and delight. Our presenters run the world's most admired companies and design its best-loved products; they invent world-changing devices and create ground-breaking media. They are trusted voices and convention-breaking mavericks, icons and geniuses.
(Taken from TED.com)