Money is such an outdated concept! Much like countries.

Comment by Catherine Gentry on April 23, 2010 at 3:31pm

Looking forward to learning more by checking out your referenced sites.

Comment by Iron Helix on April 23, 2010 at 7:22pm

Zeitgeist? Are people really citing that as a credible doc**entary?

I thoroughly despise thee cornucopian fantasies (e.g. the venus project). It always boils down to the idiom of "we can always have our cake and eat it too". If there was anyone who was actually serious about an RBE, there is nothing to stop them from forming their own community based on such a model. Of course they don't do that because of the obvious: a substantial drop in one's standard of living. Then of course, when these people would require the skills/resources only available from outside their RBE, their access to it would be limited, if available at all (e.g. doctors, refined products, skilled labour). Their solution is to incorporate as much as they can into the system, culminating with the wh*** world being devoured by it. Of course, they have no explanation as to how this is to be accomplished, but presumably it will happen in one of two ways: either willingly or by force… and of course, in the process, their own living standards would not be impaired.

The carrot for the Venus Project is that all material needs would be magically met, supposedly inherent in the system itself. No labour would be required on the part of the participants since they would have some sort of mechanized system of robot slaves providing basic necessities. That absurd premise is usually enough to dissuade most rational people from even investigating further, but there are some who are prone to faith-based ways of dealing with situations that eat this stuff up. Quite frankly, the wh*** thing is akin to a religion, because it requires ignoring logic and doubt in favor of faith and belief. The beliefs of TVP proponents just so happen to coincide with a cornucopian premise that the requirements that have been expected for life and civilization to sustain itself will no longer be demanded of TVP participants, yet at the same time, all their basic material needs will be met. Bread and circuses will be enjoyed across the planet and all will rejoice. So if this is the model to attract skilled peoples to the system, why should they be expected to perform when the very premise was that they wouldn’t have to? Everything in life has a cost/benefit ratio. If the benefits do not outweigh the cost of a good/service, then the good is either not produced, or the service is never rendered. Since no additional benefits are to be expected from the additional costs of skilled labour or refined products, then there will be a shortage of those things, and what is left would either have to be forcibly rationed, or would be exploited, forming social stratification and class systems, making the wh*** system nothing more than welfare on a global scale.

Of course this all ignores the very idea of resource scarcity and a...

So go ahead, drop out of society. No one can stop you from not using money. Prove to the world that your new RBE is the planet’s salvation. I think you will find that you will still be placing values on good...

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 24, 2010 at 12:52am

Hi Iron,

Firstly, let me say Thank You for challenging my thoughts. It is important to test me to see if an idea and vision can stand the test of battering because if it's any good - it should be able to. Your sense of realism is brilliant, I know that I am an idealist at heart, perhaps because I see the problems of society and feel many don't need to be there. Again this is simply an opinion. Moving swiftly on to the counter debate:

In the RBE, it success does not work within the current system as correctly pointed out, because it is a new system to replace the Monetary system. You would not try and improve Windows OS by installing Macs OS - you chose. One or the other. On this key point the Monetary system choses individuals whilst ignoring collectives. The RBE chooses an 'All or Nought' approach. This has problems, but arguable is where the key to success lies. In reference to your point about Skills/Resources the reason an RBE wants every one is so there is no scarcity of these necessities. You could pool mass engineers into an area or doctors if you had selection from the world far easier and people would probably be far more willing to also travel to new areas to use these skills if they weren't restricted with Visa, Housing, Wage etc. because regardless of where a skilled individual would go the total RBA would provide everything they required, allowing them to function. With reference to the Resources in question, yes there is a finite amount on Earth physically, however [At this point I would refer to the project handbook as much of what I stating is all in there] the current system does not effective manage resources hence why there is so much wasted. To help provide an example (Your going to hate me :) ) The 1p coin, this wonderful money item used in the 21st century is a representation of wealth. In the UK, it is worth very little, around the world it is worth various amounts. Well clearly there is already something wrong, because if I physically took this penny from one side on the planet to the other it would still be a penny. How then can it's value change? More important to this is worth noting from your first link:

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2008/01/cornucopians-and-their...
"A favourite example is the use of fiber optic cable in place of copper as copper ores have declined in quality"

Hmmm interesting since 1992 the 1p has 97% copper:
http://www.royalmint.com/corporate/facts/coins/1pcoin.aspx

So this 1p is much more valuable as a Resource(R) once smelted instead of used as exchange in the sense we use it. It would be far easier in the RBE to state that as all Rs are heritage to the people of planet earth so my 1p is your 1p and everyone else's. Now to prevent conflict, neither of us physically owns it, no because it resource is far more useful for humanity to be smelted and the use to build equipment for hospitals or another million odd uses. However, on this point you may counter Aha! Well we can all just switch to credit and no longer use physical currency. Well lets examine the problems with that. If it's just number on a screen does that really represent wealth, No! How could it?! Worse still who is to stop Banks from creating numbers on a screen which would mean they are ALWAYS wealthier ... wait a minute ... don't they already do that ...? Now the more philosophical question is this: If your working for Money, Numbers on a Screen or for Free what makes any of them different from slavery?

On to you next point, one which I partially agree with - How! How do we change. I understand the system in fact, as you can tell, to me seems brilliant, but there is this grey area of transition - Force? Freewill? Other what is the Methodology? Well this is the point where I think even the creators are stuck - it's like we have this brilliant idea but how do you convince people [Unaware Slaves] to challenge their current system to update it with a new more effective system. It is really difficult because you have to convince people to go outside of their comfort zone and embrace harsh realities and the say but there is hope, we can change. Most people when ever challenged immediately defend themselves without absorbing what has been said - The Ego. Now in this counter argument you would go, right well here we have a hypocrite, but what I'm doing is saying OK, I thought about your challenge, here is what I suggesting now, do you agree? Or can you you still see flaws in my thought process, if so where and how can I improve? Now to provide some more concrete thoughts on transition. Transition for TVP (The Venus Project) can only work with unification of the Planet. If world were to be as a species implementing the change would be a lot easier. So this really is Stage 1. There are many ways to do this the most difficult, but most effective is Choice. If people choose this option they will have no chance in it failing because Everyone will be behind it, any problems that do arise will have to be addressed and will the mass collective working on it hopefully solved very rapidly. The initial stage - Stage 0 is awareness. People need to know there are other options and it is possible, ironically in reality very few things are impossible. The biggest constraint to possibility is Time. Once you accept time is really needed for measure in distance and speed rather than just progress things become a little easier. This removes the rush and expands our horizons because we'd have to adopt the attitude, ok we can't do it right now, but with technology (Technology is juts an example could be mindset, politics etc.) in the future it may be possible. So what may be impossible today (TVP and RBE) may not be in the future - so are visionary idea impossible, no not really they are just the seed needed to grow, when humanity is ready they probably will evolve naturally. I suppose on a more personal note I just wish it was little faster sometime ^_^.

On to the point of reduced living conditions. I presume this comes from the idea of finite resources. Well the RBE would have to do a FULL Global a****sment and discover what is limited. Secondly, once you know what you haven't got, you know what you have got to work with. So we running out of brick to build house - we find something else, which we can see already if we look at shanty towns across the globe. Now if we share the Rs could we globally improve living conditions, yes. If we released technology and let it progress naturally could we improve the way we use resources, yes. Would this mean that by sharing technology/skills we could improve how we use the finite resources to the maximise their abilities for betterment of humanity... Surely that has got to be an YES! Now looking at living standards, what do we define as standard, people who expect the best and live in the best would be horrified with middle class living. Like wise a middle class person would be so grateful for what they have some pared to a poverty stricken individual. The actual requirement for human to live healthy are not unreasonable nor should excessive luxury be required. Life in moderation; reduce the extremes.

TVP I grant you is not perfect, there are probably things that have not even be thought about but may come up with it's implementation, but I implore you to consider - is it not worth a try compared to the sorry state were in today? If it went wrong to go back would be easy, in fact to even start trying might create and even better solution - heck even if it just reset the status quo it would be interesting to watch humanity change an evolve.

Now on to your concerns as TVP become a cult or religion. This concern has arisen when studying it and yes you are indeed correct that psychologically speaking those of faith type groups are more likely to accept it. However the entire project was create by a very qualified social engineer, someone who despises religion and is very logical two important links for you to check out:

http://www.thevenusproject.com/jacque-fresco/resume

http://www.thevenusproject.com/index.php (Check out the London lecture Oct 2009 1st Part)

Now if we start to accept yes there are those that are following this as a religion and not participating in humanity properly, but your always get that because of the current flaws of the system we live in at the moment, we can say that you will get this everywhere look at politics! The idea of robotic slavery is a interesting issues, but robotics as an industry is improving massively as is software, however it is also used today quite effectively and is ironically the result of a lot of redundancies world wide, so it is inevitable jobs that can be done by a computer or machine more effectively and efficiently will occur at some point. To still have a human doing them seems not only a waste of potential, but also fruitless because even rational minded businessmen will want to make as much saving as possible, humans are expensive, robots are cheap with a higher work output. The difference is TVP simply wants to embrace this change free people to go and retrain in these fields for example to progress them on more rapidly. Imagine if the population of China wasn't manufacturing basic clothing for example, but had machines to do it with minimal supervision the population could be re-tasked into Medical care, but oh no now we would have an excess of doctors . . . perhaps they could go to another part of the planet to help out where they have very few and haven't got the technology or don't have manufacturing to switch over from and help them instead? Hence why I sincerely believe TVP has been well thought out from an engineering POV as it is very thorough especially when you try and imagine the problems you have today and their course, then try and apply the same problem in the RBE. To date i've not had one I could not visualise a solution - if you have one thought please test me I need to know if this vision is worth pursuing or if it's worth just chucking in the towel and becoming another one in the rat race.

In reference to your points on Goods/Service I can empathise with you thought as I too thought this. I was actually well this society sounds boring there would be nothing to do and this would make life boring. However, the system we exist in is what perpetuates this cyclical consumption and mind set. If you had all your needs met to live, would you sit around and do nothing with your life? I wouldn't i'd have to find a purpose, people would adapt. I'd go on holiday more, learn a new language and dialect ;). I'd find a way to be useful for society to say thanks for providing me with everything I need. I've no doubt someone like yourself would probably do the same as that is probably why your on a site like this trying to help the planet and make it a better world, but I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time - won't ever be the last.

The concept you suggest of 'why should they be expected' well technically they wouldn't they could just do nothing as yes it would be provided, but the system would fall apart as would any system if people all did nothing. They would probably be more in the mindset of well i'd like to use my skills but instead of 9-5 work to live in a s*** house etc. I simply work 4 hours a day and enjoy my life a little bit more! So people would adapt. If we take this example further just a little bit, more time spent with the family, more time spent socialises and activities they enjoy promoting a sense of well-being could massive improve both quality and quantity of life.

The idea of a welfare global state is a good argument, success for this project would indeed hit a brick wall if everyone decided they no longer wanted to improve themselves in skilled area, however everyone reaches a level their happy at and so even in a monetary society one could reach a point when they have had enough, hence why we still have gaps in skilled labour people despond and decide that seeing as they really aren't getting anywhere there no point progressing. In our society people retrain mainly out of strife because they need to earn money to feed, clothe themselves. They don't always like their jobs and some aren't even any good, but if people could choose to retrain then those with the desire would naturally go on to do really well making them far better suited to perform the role. Also with the steady improvement of technology the skilled jobs would eventually either be replace with machinery, or superseded because of the change in global structure - things would progress so rapidly that it would be difficult to predict what happen.

Moving on to your first link - which is a really good link enjoyed the read:

Not only are people capable of great ingenuity when faced with great challenges, but they have already imagined and written down all the solutions to all the challenges to basic survival that we will face as a species for the next 7 billion years. Now, that might be properly classed as wishful thinking, perhaps the greatest piece of wishful thinking of all time. (Again one wonders about the oversight that in the past two centuries fossil fuel consumption has had a lot to do with giving people the time and power to discover and elaborate the basic knowledge to which Simon alludes--even if it now appears that that knowledge will not solve all of our future problems.)


Its worth considering from all the bashing the site mentions on the Cornucopian Ideal, that in this sentence it shows immediate examples of the Monetary System failing - reading the oversight part suggests strongly that the need for profits and power and control meant that those in positions of oil drilling and other area new that in order to maintain their life style something like free energy would ruin them and so even though technology and the knowledge has been around to help out humanity for next 7 billion years. This strongly suggests that these individuals knew the system and had no real desire to change it because they felt they would gain nothing from it. Their need to gain or have or win or control is what continues this misery. How could sciences and engineers have an oversight for the last 200 hundred odd years? Explain to me the logic in that?! There is none it is most likely human influence that has kept this cycle and because of years of condition of scarcity and ideas of Goods/Service, which at times still has flaws so even that needs improving.

Finally to close this as I'm now really tired your last link I've read before if you want I can pop up a separate comment to contest the article, which has some good points, but I believe last time I also found flaws in it. Your last point is also very good. Although we may not use money we would ascribe numerical values, again consider what I said earlier about Slavery. It also depends on how numerical values are used, however for me I must rest so I will simply finish.

Thanks very much for a thought provoking discussion.

Comment by Iron Helix on April 24, 2010 at 4:39am

Quote: “With reference to the Resources in question, yes there is a finite amount on Earth physically, however [At this point I would refer to the project handbook as much of what I stating is all in there] the current system does not effective manage resources hence why there is so much wasted.”

Won’t argue with you there. However, I seriously doubt that human biology (which is the drive for much of that waste) is going to change in a RBE. Secondly, I’d like to refer you to Jevon’s Paradox, where an increase in efficiency does not necessarily equate to less use of a resource. Particularly applied to a finite resource, historically, increases in efficiency more often than not do not lead to increased supply, but to an increased rate of extraction.


Quote: “To help provide an example (Your going to hate me :) ) The 1p coin, this wonderful money item used in the 21st century is a representation of wealth. In the UK, it is worth very little, around the world it is worth various amounts. Well clearly there is already something wrong, because if I physically took this penny from one side on the planet to the other it would still be a penny. How then can it's value change?”

Actually, its value doesn’t change. What’s changing is the value of what that 1p is purchasing. If what you’re asking is why something is valued differently from country to country, I’d say that would be due largely to supply and demand as applied to the locality in question. If skilled labour is in demand in one country more than in another country, then the pay is most likely going to be different.


Quote: “Well lets examine the problems with that. If it's just number on a screen does that really represent wealth, No! How could it?! Worse still who is to stop Banks from creating numbers on a screen which would mean they are ALWAYS wealthier ... wait a minute ... don't they already do that ...? Now the more philosophical question is this: If your working for Money, Numbers on a Screen or for Free what makes any of them different from slavery?”

Actually, I’d argue that those numbers on a screen actually do represent wealth. To use your own petard, wouldn’t you agree that the banks have a great deal of wealth at their disposal? If you don’t agree, then I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem with them creating numbers on a screen. That being said, philosophically, currency is a placeholder, much like the number zero. By using currency, you have a place to start with to attach value to things. Without it, value becomes arbitrary. Example: I tell you I have 10 units of something. It can be anything… apples, chairs, slaves, etc. Now, you have no idea what the quality or amount (in terms of let’s say volume in the case of the apples, or work output in the case of the slaves) is for these items. Ten apples one day can have a different value from one day to the next. However, If I tell you I have $10 worth of apples, you have a much better idea of what the value of the apples actually are. As to working for slavery, that’s simply a question of scale. Is an ancient hunter/gatherer a slave because he has to hunt (work) to survive? Is a CEO a slave because he works for a large house and fancy car? Does free will play into that? Does the hunter/gatherer have freewill to not hunt? Does the CEO have freewill to not pursue having an ornate lifestyle? I’d argue that the only true form of slavery is of the human mind to the human body. The one thing that compels humans to continue continuing on at any level (be it a hunter/ gatherer, a CEO, or an African chained in a cotton field) is the need to feed and reproduce. Intellectual curiosity keeps us interested while doing it, but by and large it is not the true motivation for continued life. All in all, I’d say the wh*** idea of slavery is largely irrelevant to the topic. TVP is not going to be relieving the need to “work” to survive. Surviving is being a slave to biology. The only thing in question is how much of a slave (i.e. how much work) does humanity need to be to survive, which is simply a question of scale.



Quote: “Transition for TVP (The Venus Project) can only work with unification of the Planet. If world were to be as a species implementing the change would be a lot easier. So this really is Stage 1. There are many ways to do this the most difficult, but most effective is Choice. If people choose this option they will have no chance in it failing because Everyone will be behind it, any problems that do arise will have to be addressed and will the mass collective working on it hopefully solved very rapidly. The initial stage - Stage 0 is awareness. People need to know there are other options and it is possible, ironically in reality very few things are impossible. The biggest constraint to possibility is Time. Once you accept time is really needed for measure in distance and speed rather than just progress things become a little easier. This removes the rush and expands our horizons because we'd have to adopt the attitude, ok we can't do it right now, but with technology (Technology is juts an example could be mindset, politics etc.) in the future it may be possible. So what may be impossible today (TVP and RBE) may not be in the future - so are visionary idea impossible, no not really they are just the seed needed to grow, when humanity is ready they probably will evolve naturally.”

It’s a nice thought to see humanity united, but again, there’s no real way to go about doing it. That it cannot be applied on a small scale is going to be enough to dissuade people. People have problems just getting along with their own families. Trying to unite the world seems more like a symptom of some sort of disorder (e.g. megalomania) rather than an actual plan for the future. The truth is it can be done on a smaller scale. It’s just that the results of doing so are counter to the beliefs of TVP proponents. A small scale TVP project means a small resource base, thus an insubstantial way of living. You can fit the entire world into that situation, but it still relies on an adequate resource base… the assumption being that on a global scale, the resource base will always be adequate to sustain society. Now the argument would be made that TVP would better handle inadequacies. If that were so, a small scale operation should also be able to handle inadequacies, which it would. However the results would still be counter to the beliefs of TVP proponents (e.g. free energy, no work, progressive growth, etc), which is why you won’t be seeing a TVP on a small scale: it gives it a bad image (and rightly so).




Quote: “On to the point of reduced living conditions. I presume this comes from the idea of finite resources. Well the RBE would have to do a FULL Global a****sment and discover what is limited. Secondly, once you know what you haven't got, you know what you have got to work with. So we running out of brick to build house - we find something else, which we can see already if we look at shanty towns across the globe. Now if we share the Rs could we globally improve living conditions, yes. If we released technology and let it progress naturally could we improve the way we use resources, yes. Would this mean that by sharing technology/skills we could improve how we use the finite resources to the maximise their abilities for betterment of humanity... Surely that has got to be an YES!”

This quote is the epitome of what I was arguing against in my treatise on evoke and diminishing returns. The assumption here is that technology always progresses, that it does so at a rate to counter whatever problems society may face, and that pursuing those levels of technology would always yield greater benefits than incurred costs. What is largely ignored is that technological progress is tied largely to available resources, particularly energy. Without the means to research technology (i.e. adequate resources), then hoping for future technological fixes does not make sense. Technology and the R&D for technology all has aspects of diminishing marginal returns. At some point, increasing technological dependence does not yield benefits greater than the costs of doing so. What’s really bad, particularly with TVP, is the idea that the wh*** world is being led down this set of train tracks, with no means of getting off. Evolution is the idea that different roads (genetic branches) will sometimes dead end, yet at other times will widen out and diverge further (increased genetic diversity). This leads to a greater ability for life to survive and adapt. To take the wh*** planet down one road is a formula for extinction. Unfortunately, the current paradigm of globalism is the same in that regard as compared to TVP.


Quote: “Now looking at living standards, what do we define as standard, people who expect the best and live in the best would be horrified with middle class living. Like wise a middle class person would be so grateful for what they have some pared to a poverty stricken individual. The actual requirement for human to live healthy are not unreasonable nor should excessive luxury be required. Life in moderation; reduce the extremes.”

Sure. But who are you to say that I cannot work to improve my own standard of living beyond that which you set as “standard” (hence creating inequality)? Here’s where tyranny sets in. If the population at large is dependent on a subset population, but that subset population finds that they would be better off to drop out of the larger system, then society al large must either forcibly maintain the social structure, or society collapses. Here’s a real kicker. Let’s say that this subset population forms a union and goes on strike. How is society at large going to function without caving in to the demands of the subset and create further inequality? “The rats begin to chew the sheets…”


Quote: “Now on to your concerns as TVP become a cult or religion. This concern has arisen when studying it and yes you are indeed correct that psychologically speaking those of faith type groups are more likely to accept it. However the entire project was create by a very qualified social engineer, someone who despises religion and is very logical two important links for you to check out[…]”

Ok, so he’s a well-educated Elmer Gantry. Because he’s educated, I’m supposed to ignore that the ideas of TVP are largely faith-based?


Quote: “The idea of robotic slavery is a interesting issues, but robotics as an industry is improving massively as is software, however it is also used today quite effectively and is ironically the result of a lot of redundancies world wide, so it is inevitable jobs that can be done by a computer or machine more effectively and efficiently will occur at some point. To still have a human doing them seems not only a waste of potential, but also fruitless because even rational minded businessmen will want to make as much saving as possible, humans are expensive, robots are cheap with a higher work output. The difference is TVP simply wants to embrace this change free people to go and retrain in these fields for example to progress them on more rapidly. Imagine if the population of China wasn't manufacturing basic clothing for example, but had machines to do it with minimal supervision the population could be re-tasked into Medical care, but oh no now we would have an excess of doctors . . . perhaps they could go to another part of the planet to help out where they have very few and haven't got the technology or don't have manufacturing to switch over from and help them instead?”

Not arguing with the idea that mechanized industry can replace human labour. What I would argue though, is that the cost/benefit ratio of mechanized industry is not superior to human labour. If it were the case, then that process would take place regardless of TVP. Again though, mechanized industry as a form of technology is going to have limits, as mentioned previously (e.g. high R&D, declining marginal product, dependent on existing surpluses of capital resources, etc.).



Quote: “Hence why I sincerely believe TVP has been well thought out from an engineering POV as it is very thorough especially when you try and imagine the problems you have today and their course, then try and apply the same problem in the RBE. To date i've not had one I could not visualise a solution - if you have one thought please test me I need to know if this vision is worth pursuing or if it's worth just chucking in the towel and becoming another one in the rat race.”

If I had to give you one problem, it would be declining marginal product. Again, I’d refer you to my expose on that topic.



Quote: “In reference to your points on Goods/Service I can empathise with you thought as I too thought this. I was actually well this society sounds boring there would be nothing to do and this would make life boring. However, the system we exist in is what perpetuates this cyclical consumption and mind set. If you had all your needs met to live, would you sit around and do nothing with your life? I wouldn't i'd have to find a purpose, people would adapt. I'd go on holiday more, learn a new language and dialect ;). I'd find a way to be useful for society to say thanks for providing me with everything I need. I've no doubt someone like yourself would probably do the same as that is probably why your on a site like this trying to help the planet and make it a better world, but I may be wrong, wouldn't be the first time - won't ever be the last.”

The problem is not that people would be bored. It’s that the benefits of producing goods and rendering services are going to be such that the costs, in terms of time and energy, are not justified. There are no benefits beyond satisfying a desire to produce a good or render a service. It becomes difficult if the desire isn’t even present. How many duties necessary for the continuation of society are there that people do not do because they desire to do them, but because it is beneficial to? Try removing those benefits and see what does and does not get done.


Quote: “Also with the steady improvement of technology the skilled jobs would eventually either be replace with machinery, or superseded because of the change in global structure - things would progress so rapidly that it would be difficult to predict what happen.”

This again is an assumption that technology progresses exponentially, without limit, and that that progress is justified in terms of resource and time expenditure. People like to think like this because that is what they have seen for their entire lives, and they naturally like to extrapolate that belief beyond the inevitable constraints of a finite planet.


Quote: “Its worth considering from all the bashing the site mentions on the Cornucopian Ideal, that in this sentence it shows immediate examples of the Monetary System failing - reading the oversight part suggests strongly that the need for profits and power and control meant that those in positions of oil drilling and other area new that in order to maintain their life style something like free energy would ruin them and so even though technology and the knowledge has been around to help out humanity for next 7 billion years. This strongly suggests that these individuals knew the system and had no real desire to change it because they felt they would gain nothing from it. Their need to gain or have or win or control is what continues this misery. How could sciences and engineers have an oversight for the last 200 hundred odd years? Explain to me the logic in that?! There is none it is most likely human influence that has kept this cycle and because of years of condition of scarcity and ideas of Goods/Service, which at times still has flaws so even that needs improving.”

If “free energy” were a feasible thing, what exactly is to stop someone, somewhere from utilizing it? Last I checked there are 180+ countries and approaching 7 billion people on this planet. The oil companies are not omniscient. They could not hope to stop someone, somewhere from developing such a technology, if it existed and were feasible.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 9:12pm

Quote: “With reference to the Resources in question, yes there is a finite amount on Earth physically, however [At this point I would refer to the project handbook as much of what I stating is all in there] the current system does not effective manage resources hence why there is so much wasted.”

Won’t argue with you there. However, I seriously doubt that human biology (which is the drive for much of that waste) is going to change in a RBE. Secondly, I’d like to refer you to Jevon’s Paradox, where an increase in efficiency does not necessarily equate to less use of a resource. Particularly applied to a finite resource, historically, increases in efficiency more often than not do not lead to increased supply, but to an increased rate of extraction.

In this instance TVP is referring to efficiency as a broad spectrum, for example to rate of resources is based on the assumption we don't switch to unitise different technology to solve different problems. This could be simply using something that already existing but in a different form, nor would I agree that that human biology is keen to waste far from it the human body recycles vast quantities of water, nutrients and electrolytes on excreting them as a last resort - society however, because of a monetary system only functions more effectively if there is planned obsolescence as this is what keep business's alive. To provide a direct example the manufacturer of Crocks Shoes went bust sometime last year because it made it's product to well, they lasted so long that people didn't need to replace them. That in my mind is sad as they failed doing the right thing. And in this instance a massive reduction of resources are save as the footwear didn't wear out as quickly mean that the half wasted shoes weren't ruined and then simply binned which meant that a majority of the footwear made to cover the current market with a healthy steady growth. Far more effective in resource management.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 9:21pm

Quote: “To help provide an example (Your going to hate me :) ) The 1p coin, this wonderful money item used in the 21st century is a representation of wealth. In the UK, it is worth very little, around the world it is worth various amounts. Well clearly there is already something wrong, because if I physically took this penny from one side on the planet to the other it would still be a penny. How then can it's value change?”

Actually, its value doesn’t change. What’s changing is the value of what that 1p is purchasing. If what you’re asking is why something is valued differently from country to country, I’d say that would be due largely to supply and demand as applied to the locality in question. If skilled labour is in demand in one country more than in another country, then the pay is most likely going to be different.


TVP is a good example of how the idea of supply and demand is a total fallacy. As you so wonderfully stated there are are finite amount of resources at any one time. [Which I partially agree with] However, demand and supply can fluctuate from implied scarcity than actual scarcity and in reality this is only perpetuated because of the monetary system that encourages us to create a high demand and limited supply to hike prices up. Look at the film Blood Diamond where there is a massive amount of truth where diamonds are hidden from the market to keep prices high. Yet there isn't really lack of supply however demand is still consistent. Worse still was the more diabolical effects of swine flu in the UK. The media hyped up the seriousness of the situation, the government then decided to buy high amounts of temperamental vaccines to help the country, but the priced soared because of the scare then plummeted after the amount had been brought by the government. Worse still they then released an update version (As vaccinations are constantly being improved) and now the government are stuck with massive debt and useless stock. All because of the false idea of supply and demand. This purchasing power exists because of a concept of scarcity but if one did complete a full geological survey of the planet you would then truly discover what is and is not scarce.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 9:41pm

Quote: “Well lets examine the problems with that. If it's just number on a screen does that really represent wealth, No! How could it?! Worse still who is to stop Banks from creating numbers on a screen which would mean they are ALWAYS wealthier ... wait a minute ... don't they already do that ...? Now the more philosophical question is this: If your working for Money, Numbers on a Screen or for Free what makes any of them different from slavery?”

Actually, I’d argue that those numbers on a screen actually do represent wealth. To use your own petard, wouldn’t you agree that the banks have a great deal of wealth at their disposal? If you don’t agree, then I suppose you wouldn’t have a problem with them creating numbers on a screen. That being said, philosophically, currency is a placeholder, much like the number zero. By using currency, you have a place to start with to attach value to things. Without it, value becomes arbitrary. Example: I tell you I have 10 units of something. It can be anything… apples, chairs, slaves, etc. Now, you have no idea what the quality or amount (in terms of let’s say volume in the case of the apples, or work output in the case of the slaves) is for these items. Ten apples one day can have a different value from one day to the next. However, If I tell you I have $10 worth of apples, you have a much better idea of what the value of the apples actually are. As to working for slavery, that’s simply a question of scale. Is an ancient hunter/gatherer a slave because he has to hunt (work) to survive? Is a CEO a slave because he works for a large house and fancy car? Does free will play into that? Does the hunter/gatherer have freewill to not hunt? Does the CEO have freewill to not pursue having an ornate lifestyle? I’d argue that the only true form of slavery is of the human mind to the human body. The one thing that compels humans to continue continuing on at any level (be it a hunter/ gatherer, a CEO, or an African chained in a cotton field) is the need to feed and reproduce. Intellectual curiosity keeps us interested while doing it, but by and large it is not the true motivation for continued life. All in all, I’d say the wh*** idea of slavery is largely irrelevant to the topic. TVP is not going to be relieving the need to “work” to survive. Surviving is being a slave to biology. The only thing in question is how much of a slave (i.e. how much work) does humanity need to be to survive, which is simply a question of scale.

I'd definitely agree that banks have massive wealth, however again in reference to Zeitgeist there is a very strong argument to suggest that banks not only create money out of thin air but also create an imaginary debt. This dept can NEVER be paid off as it would require money to be create and then brought into the system with out interest. If that is the case eventually all debt would be paid off and worse still why is it the banks can do this and the average Joe in the street cannot?

In context of your apple scenario I understand what you saying about the function of currency, but argue in a RBE this becomes irrelevant - again your applying currency problems in an RBE when this issues would have been transcended - because I wouldn't have anything neither would you there is no separation - the total sum amount is divided equally. Ergo the value is relevant in regards to it's function e.g. 100 apples 20 people for 5 days feed.

In hunter gather society the community functioned as an RBE which amazes me you used it to counter my argument. The point is to take it a step further and apply similar principles to a global community.In an H/G society the hunters provide food for everyone not just themselves as your said the CEO works for himself; his fancy car and house. His slavery is to 'ornate' as yo put it yes, but also to the expectation this is necessary, in the H/G society the necessity to live but H/G is completely open for choice of Freewill as it the CEO, but the necessity to feed the community one lives in compare to the need to have excess's compare to others in the community is a prime example of slavery. No one is a Slave in H/G except to survival, in the CEO example he/she is slave to their job, but their existence does not require these excess's they are more controlled in their way of life because they are constricted by a system the others are not. I Do however partially agree with you point on the mind to body but that is a massive philosophical issues and i won't touch on it here.

You last point is a good one yes, we would still be slaves to survive but on our terms we do what work we need to in order to main and progress society, not however continue a rat race. The question of how much is a good one as one would argue that in the proposed VP with the correct rearrangement of resources (including skills, time, technology etc.) that work rates could still remain high but increase free time for humans globally without compromising the necessities of life.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 9:57pm

Quote: “Transition for TVP (The Venus Project) can only work with unification of the Planet. If world were to be as a species implementing the change would be a lot easier. So this really is Stage 1. There are many ways to do this the most difficult, but most effective is Choice. If people choose this option they will have no chance in it failing because Everyone will be behind it, any problems that do arise will have to be addressed and will the mass collective working on it hopefully solved very rapidly. The initial stage - Stage 0 is awareness. People need to know there are other options and it is possible, ironically in reality very few things are impossible. The biggest constraint to possibility is Time. Once you accept time is really needed for measure in distance and speed rather than just progress things become a little easier. This removes the rush and expands our horizons because we'd have to adopt the attitude, ok we can't do it right now, but with technology (Technology is juts an example could be mindset, politics etc.) in the future it may be possible. So what may be impossible today (TVP and RBE) may not be in the future - so are visionary idea impossible, no not really they are just the seed needed to grow, when humanity is ready they probably will evolve naturally.”

It’s a nice thought to see humanity united, but again, there’s no real way to go about doing it. That it cannot be applied on a small scale is going to be enough to dissuade people. People have problems just getting along with their own families. Trying to unite the world seems more like a symptom of some sort of disorder (e.g. megalomania) rather than an actual plan for the future. The truth is it can be done on a smaller scale. It’s just that the results of doing so are counter to the beliefs of TVP proponents. A small scale TVP project means a small resource base, thus an insubstantial way of living. You can fit the entire world into that situation, but it still relies on an adequate resource base… the assumption being that on a global scale, the resource base will always be adequate to sustain society. Now the argument would be made that TVP would better handle inadequacies. If that were so, a small scale operation should also be able to handle inadequacies, which it would. However the results would still be counter to the beliefs of TVP proponents (e.g. free energy, no work, progressive growth, etc), which is why you won’t be seeing a TVP on a small scale: it gives it a bad image (and rightly so).

I can understand the concerns and agree with some of your proposed arguments. TVP from my understand aims to look at the bigger picture and i would agree with it's idea that it would be far greater as a system to deal in inadequacies compared to a localise RBE which would work but would neglect the aim of unification. The unification is not just about having a single government or leader but more a case of allowing competition being removed from the system - imagine if all the worlds scientist could work together instead of fighting for funding and projects - although you hate this argument (rightly so) it does strongly suggest with all those great minds working progress would be made quicker it's a simple numbers game, but also the speed of data transfer and everything else that goes with it!

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 10:12pm

Quote: “On to the point of reduced living conditions. I presume this comes from the idea of finite resources. Well the RBE would have to do a FULL Global a****sment and discover what is limited. Secondly, once you know what you haven't got, you know what you have got to work with. So we running out of brick to build house - we find something else, which we can see already if we look at shanty towns across the globe. Now if we share the Rs could we globally improve living conditions, yes. If we released technology and let it progress naturally could we improve the way we use resources, yes. Would this mean that by sharing technology/skills we could improve how we use the finite resources to the maximise their abilities for betterment of humanity... Surely that has got to be an YES!”

This quote is the epitome of what I was arguing against in my treatise on evoke and diminishing returns. The assumption here is that technology always progresses, that it does so at a rate to counter whatever problems society may face, and that pursuing those levels of technology would always yield greater benefits than incurred costs. What is largely ignored is that technological progress is tied largely to available resources, particularly energy. Without the means to research technology (i.e. adequate resources), then hoping for future technological fixes does not make sense. Technology and the R&D for technology all has aspects of diminishing marginal returns. At some point, increasing technological dependence does not yield benefits greater than the costs of doing so. What’s really bad, particularly with TVP, is the idea that the wh*** world is being led down this set of train tracks, with no means of getting off. Evolution is the idea that different roads (genetic branches) will sometimes dead end, yet at other times will widen out and diverge further (increased genetic diversity). This leads to a greater ability for life to survive and adapt. To take the wh*** planet down one road is a formula for extinction. Unfortunately, the current paradigm of globalism is the same in that regard as compared to TVP.


True - Technology does not ALWAYS progress, although i would argue it usually does. However the biggest problem i have with the argument you suggest against is the lack of broader scope. Ok so technology might not progress, but perhaps our situation would change and our way to deal with it. Apply your argument in an RBE it also fails - what costs - they only cost would be resources; time would be given freely. Resources would only be given to project that would yield a strong benefit to humanity its a logical process which is putting the most important projects first same as one would do it life in general.

A the point technological aspect does not yield benefits then an alternative solution can be attempted, however this does strictly apply to the RBE and TVP at present, again according to the designer, the technology he suggest is already present to put the idea into action the difference is looking into the future of an RBE which is impossible unless one is actually already living in that society.

In reference to your last point i've got to be honest and say that seems like a scar mongering attempt. Firstly TVP does not want to (from my current understanding) limit our road of evolution but speed it up, it would permit people to carry out their own endeavours however evolution is a science as is TVP it aims to progress humanity more scientifically as this tends to be more effective. If genetic diversity was found to be a key issue in evolution then TVP would simply embrace it as long as it was scientifically sound, if people chose to pursue other routes they may but the aim would still be to keep the planet moving so to speak and let them divulge their own paths in their spare time - no different from what occurs today.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 25, 2010 at 10:24pm

Quote: “Now looking at living standards, what do we define as standard, people who expect the best and live in the best would be horrified with middle class living. Like wise a middle class person would be so grateful for what they have some pared to a poverty stricken individual. The actual requirement for human to live healthy are not unreasonable nor should excessive luxury be required. Life in moderation; reduce the extremes.”

Sure. But who are you to say that I cannot work to improve my own standard of living beyond that which you set as “standard” (hence creating inequality)? Here’s where tyranny sets in. If the population at large is dependent on a subset population, but that subset population finds that they would be better off to drop out of the larger system, then society al large must either forcibly maintain the social structure, or society collapses. Here’s a real kicker. Let’s say that this subset population forms a union and goes on strike. How is society at large going to function without caving in to the demands of the subset and create further inequality? “The rats begin to chew the sheets…”


I would be inclined to look again at what TVP proposes there are no subset populations where the class idea comes from a monetary system, it is very frustrating when ideas from a current system are transcribed over to an RBE. If the the economy is share the concept of tyranny implies someone has control or ownership over others of more stuff - how could this be possible in an RBE. During the transition phase - yes this could be a problem this would mean that certain individuals abuse power and positions however the concept behind THV is scientifically engineering the problems out, if the implementation the RBE went smoothly the new societies offspring would perpetuate the cycle free of humanities pathological conditions of greed and jealous, the emotions may be present, but the ability to take or act on them would not work in the RBE, the individual may feel them but be unable to implement a negative action without great difficulty.

If for some reason the mass of workers that were needed set up a trade union, they wouldn't be arguing over wages, but living conditions and working hours however again if one follows the logical of the TVP it does not make sense as to how these could arise, no subset population - beyond communism, order establish by the people and scientific method of solution and problem solving, thus workers should all have more than adequate living conditions and same hours of work if this needed to be adjusted it could the only reason it would be question if there was a collective issue if one person felt they didn't like the situation they could leave or simply reduce their hours there is no obligatory motion to make people work the wh*** point is that it is an honour as society wold have shifted in paradigm .

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page