Urgent Evoke

A crash course in changing the world.

Money is such an outdated concept! Much like countries.

In this century, Money or more specifically 'Debt' is a major problem. Most this I refer to as issues, but money really is a problem no matter what way you look at it.

Many will argue money isn't evil and that it's people that misuse it or are corrupted by it. This sadly isn't so. The system we exist in is the problem, for as long as currency dominates our thought patterns we have an attachment. This creates an imprisonment psychologically and arguable spiritually. Can this problem be solved and how can we know for sure if currency is really out dated?

Firstly, let us look at the banking system and I'm going to pass this onto the Zeitgeist movement for the award winning doc**entary worth watching a few times in order to understand exactly how the system operates.



Upon understanding how currency is a problem, lets not look at how the human body functions. The human organism is a perpetual bio-chemical and bio-mechanical organism that exist on(in) multiple dimensions. So how does this complex being work? This being doesn't have currency . . . or does it? Actually the human body has something called ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate) which upon this bond being broken into ADP (Adenosine Diphosphate + Phosphate) creates energy. This the closest thing to a currency within the body. Why is the important to note as 'closest'? Well the human body has been so well designed that (Ignoring pathologies) most activities occur through it's brilliant design. For an example in order to help filter excess salt and water in the kidneys the body can increase the amount of salt excreted, water naturally wants to dilute (Osmosis) within the body and so follows the salt, this action doesn't actually take and energy (ATP) it is a secondary effect. In fact the Sodium-Potassium Pump is major use of ATP, but this one action actually causes a knock on of hundreds of other actions that don't require energy - all through design!*

It gets even better when one looks at how energy is made in the body as it is almost sustainable indefinitely with the correct inputs. Which in itself are also sustainable e.g. Farming creates food for use to eat, combined with clean water allows use to maintain the farm, also the farming itself is a form of exercise keeping the body healthy thus we can ascertain the cycle we mimic in life is a copy of what happens in our body [Yes we should farm more ^_^]

Why is this all worth mentioning, well my hero Jacque Fresco has actually done this and combine his engineering knowledge to enhance humanity but deigning a new system that surpa**** currency. Based a lot on the human body! By designing out the problems one can actively improve efficiency. A lot of people don't know that Nikola Tesla was so successful because all he kept doing was improving everything, each step on the way. The Venus Project goes that one giant leap into the future - those sci-fi fans of star trek will be impressed as it goes even further than the system they had as your see when you start the fun discovery of this incredible system.


HAPPY READING

*Please note this is a heavily simplified version I'd recommend your own research into the human body sincerely it is fascinating and brilliant.

Views: 728

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 12:02am
It is done:

http://delta-team.ning.com/profiles/blogs/money-is-such-an-outdated

Ask and ye shall receive .. apparently lol
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:08pm
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, […]

You are ignoring that solving problems is dependent upon energy resources. If increased extraction rates are the result of technology, more technology does not add to a resource pool, but potentially draws down preexisting supplies at an increased rate. Whenever I hear a variation of “technology will save us”, I have to remind them it was technology that lead us to the current predicament of dependency. A real solution would be to counter the increased efficiency with a proportional increase in cost (established by increasing use tax) to inhibit an increase in the overall use of the resource. TVP, I would imagine, would fall short in this since resources would be made more accessible to the population (increasing use and hastening depletion) rather than what is needed: making them less available and conserving what is left. If TVP were to forcibly inhibit the use of resources for the purpose of conservation, much of the “lure” for the project is lost.


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 –

Of course I was not referring to the biological systems of the human body, but rather the biological impulses of humans (i.e. human motivation as determined by evolutionary biology).


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.


So what? Is the implication that TVP is going to force Crocs shoes to be the only shoe available? The issue of efficiency is not the business, but the consumer. Businesses are naturally trying to improve their own efficiency. It’s the consumers purchasing products of inefficient design that lead to resource waste (e.g. SUVs or non-Croc’s shoes), not the products themselves. Who’s to blame that a Hummer gets 10 MPG? General Motors or the people who buy a vehicle that gets 10 MPG?
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:11pm
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.

Ironically, implied scarcity is exactly what is needed because it leads to greater conservation. Implied abundance is far worse than implied scarcity. It was the idea of abundance that was largely responsible for the tremendous waste of resources during the previous century, and it still continues today. Examples are the constant references to “hundreds of years of resources left” implying that current trends of growth and lack of conservation are acceptable. Obviously supply and demand has its problems, but so does TVP. I would actually largely support a TVP type movement if it enforced conservation, however the can be done within the current system through governments. Secondly, strict conservation is not the motive for TVP. TVP is based on a belief on an abundance of resources and largely panders to those who would benefit from such a belief. When that belief is proved to be wrong, TVP will find it very difficult to continue existing without resorting to measures counter to those of its mission statement. As for doing a geological survey of resources, that is done, has been done, and will be done without the need for TVP.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:13pm
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?

There are answers to debt-based money beyond eliminating money. Again, Zeitgeist is not a reputable source, however in this case the arguments made are correct in that money today exists only be creating a debt, and that debt, being interest bearing cannot be paid off without new money. If the new money is also debt-based, then a feedback loop is created of perpetually increasing debt. The answer to this is to either eliminate interest altogether, as it was during the Middle Ages under the Catholic Church, or to have money be created as a value, proportional to overall economic growth/contraction. If the issue is an ignorance of the topic, the TVP will face that issue just as much as a solution not involving the elimination of money.


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 , the 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.

It’s not irrelevant, because even in an RBE, you need some way of comparing the value of goods, be it the caloric value, the energy cost, or the value of the cost of human labour to produce. Even if the individual person was totally and completely aloof from decision making in regards to value, something, be it a robot/computer or a governmental body will still be applying values to things and making decisions about the direction of society based upon those values. My point was not to apply currency to a situation, but to demonstrate that even in an RBE, numerical value is going to be placed upon goods/services. It just so happens that currency is the current denomination of value and is meant to incorporate all aspects of cost/benefit in a generalized way.

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.

My point was that abundance does not mean freedom. You can make abundance available to everyone, but that does not mean they are free. A CEO has an enormous abundance of wealth, and he could choose to abandon his job at any time he so chooses. That a CEO does not choose to means that providing abundance to everyone is not going to stop the behaviors that are largely responsible for the problems of society. People would only demand more abundance. Slavery in this context is not slavery to money or a job, but to the idea (fostered largely by biological impulse) that more abundance is necessary. TVP again panders to this belief in abundance and to human desire for it. The TVP could not hope to satiate human desire for the drug that is abundance.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:15pm
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!

Maybe so, but it’s not going to happen under the false pretenses of TVP. TVP has a methodology of attraction based on a certain set of beliefs, as previously mentioned. Without an actual veracity to those beliefs, suggesting that TVP would accomplish the above mentioned goal is a bit of a fantasy, rather than an actual solution.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:17pm
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.

The process for determining what projects receive resources and attention is going to create disunion and competition. Although I would potentially support a rationing measure of resources, doing so is not going to be an attractive feature. What if one segment of society was so persistent in obtain resources for a certain need, but the rest were not willing to allocate the appropriate resources? Putting this situation on a global scale is going to increase the potential number of such instances. Here’s a thought. Let’s say a region of extensive forest is asked to provide timber to the rest of the planet. The region, by providing timber would have a marred landscape. Why should they submit to this, especially when there are no benefits for doing so? This type of situation can be multiplied across the planet, for whatever need for a resource or resource harvesting you can imagine. Unity in such an instance is going to be very difficult to achieve.

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.

Again, those are unsubstantiated assumptions. For most problems, there are solutions. However, it is a question as to whether the cost of the solution is worth the benefit. This is particularly poignant when the cost is being demanded of one aspect of society (or region), but the benefit is largely for another. If the solution is so costly that it benefits no one, then the problem (or an acc**ulation of unsolved problems) usually overcomes society, making dissolution of that society preferential if not necessary.

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.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but I was speaking metaphorically. To give my metaphor an example, let’s say that TVP is corn. We can plant the wh*** world with corn, supplanting all the other varieties of plant within the garden, but to say that diversity could be sought within TVP is like saying you can have many varieties of corn. The fact is it’s still corn. It’s a methodology that has a stated goal of removing all other methodologies, much like a religion wanting to supplant all other religions. TVP wants to make the wh*** planet operate under the TVP. That is eliminating diversity of methodology.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:18pm
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.</>

I’m sorry, but there are always subset populations. If aspects of TVP are dependent upon a certain group functioning a certain way, as I’m sure it would be, then that group has a power of influence within the TVP. I’m reminded of the quote from Dune: “To be able to destroy a thing, is to control that thing.” That subset does not have to be a class, as in the terms of a monetary system. It can be a profession. It can be a region. It can be an ethnicity. There are many possibilities for what can be a “subset population”.


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 .

This is why I would love to see a microcosm of the TVP. You could have it completely isolated from the outside world. If one was even inclined to work, why would they if there was no benefit to do so? And even if they were so inclined, why should they perform to expected standards, when they could put in a halfhearted effort for the same ‘nonbenefits’? And if they were expected to perform for the continuation of the society, why would they not ask for increased benefits for performing above par? “Seriously, I deserve it!” Most people should already know how that would play out. Making the situation global and putting a ‘Star Trek’ spin on it is not going to change the outcome.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:20pm
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.

I’m sorry, but there are always subset populations. If aspects of TVP are dependent upon a certain group functioning a certain way, as I’m sure it would be, then that group has a power of influence within the TVP. I’m reminded of the quote from Dune: “To be able to destroy a thing, is to control that thing.” That subset does not have to be a class, as in the terms of a monetary system. It can be a profession. It can be a region. It can be an ethnicity. There are many possibilities for what can be a “subset population”.


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 .

This is why I would love to see a microcosm of the TVP. You could have it completely isolated from the outside world. If one was even inclined to work, why would they if there was no benefit to do so? And even if they were so inclined, why should they perform to expected standards, when they could put in a halfhearted effort for the same ‘nonbenefits’? And if they were expected to perform for the continuation of the society, why would they not ask for increased benefits for performing above par? “Seriously, I deserve it!” Most people should already know how that would play out. Making the situation global and putting a ‘Star Trek’ spin on it is not going to change the outcome.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:20pm
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?


The Third Reich and Hitler was a faith based movement with a leader probably far less intelligent and perhaps a wh*** less moral (although some sources today suggest Hitler may have been duped into the situation which wouldn't surprise me as the are strong inconsistencies with history - however for the moment were sticking to standard history books) Faith moment is not a fair term as are a number of different member some of which are well educated too, it' not blind faith because they can and do question him regularly much as I would encourage you to do as if you can find something he can't answer i would love to know. It is a leap of faith to allow the concept into ones heart, but seeing as it has never been tried I would say that much like most of like, regardless of whether you call it faith or gut at the end of the day humans have always lived without knowing the answers - that is life.

It’s faith when it is not tried. Usually, before endeavoring to do something, there is period where it is tested first. When there are no tests, things can sometimes end badly. That’s why governments have agencies like the FDA. When I am told something cannot be tested, I have absolutely no faith in it, especially when it is my own belief that it can be tested, and that the results of such a test would prove to be contrary to the proponents.
Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:21pm
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.).


Coming back to this repeat argument you mention on high R&D i presume your referring to resources as i have mentioned repeatedly skills, (Including time to train), and resources are prioritised on a day to day basis constantly updated. So this infamous capital resources would probably never come about it would simply be re-tasked into other areas that required it. It's not like we wait to have funding then do the research - no the need is identified and constant progression in that field takes place, if more of society wishes to enhance the area by retraining then so be it - it would be optional.

“So this infamous capital resources would probably never come about[…]” What? For any project you must have an existing capital resource. If you don’t then you will not have an end product. Progression is dependent upon the extent of available resources. Insufficient resources means retarded progression. When surplus resources (the resources available after the cost in terms of resources has been factored into producing said resources) drop, then the next cycle of progress is stunted. When it drops to no net gain (i.e. no surplus) progress is going to halt altogether. TVP operates on the belief that surplus resources will always be sufficient to maintain progress. Forecasted trends, particularly as applied to energy resources, do not agree with this belief. That’s why faith is such a big part of the TVP.

The idea of the machine is a sequential one, initially not all fields could be replaced, but a majority could and then as we gradually master our current robotics more would become available through gradual understanding or perhaps the role would become obsolete and not longer be needed. This would be a gradual process but nonetheless a logical one.

Again though, this will probably come about regardless of TVP if it is beneficial and feasible to do so.

Comment

You need to be a member of Urgent Evoke to add comments!

Join Urgent Evoke

Latest Activity

N updated their profile
Sep 25, 2020
Sophie C. commented on Asger Jon Vistisen's blog post Stinging Nettle
"I love that you've brought this to attention. An extensive database of uncommon but resistant and hardy plants/foods could be developed and organized by climate. Ease of growth and processing should also be taken in to account. I will try to…"
Aug 19, 2020
Meghan Mulvey posted a blog post

Fourth of July on the Lake

This past weekend was the annual celebration at the lake house in Connecticut. It is amazing that the lake is still so clear and beautiful after all these years. The watershed association has done a wonderful job protecting these waters from the damaging effects of development.The wood grill was finally ready to cook on, so we didn't miss the propane tank fueled grill anymore. The food actually tasted fresher than in the past and was easy to keep fueled.Dad was very proud of the solar hybrid…See More
Jul 6, 2020
Asger Jon Vistisen posted a blog post

Stinging Nettle

In this blog post I will focus on a plant that is abundant in our nature, and which is immensely nutritious. It's of course the Stinging Nettle. Let's start with the chemical constituents of this plant:37 % Non-Nitrogen-Extracts19 - 29 % Ash9 - 21 % Fiber4 % Fat22 % ProteinOnce the leaves are drid, their protein content can reach an astounding 40 %, which is much higher than beef, which even under the best of circ**stances can never exceed 31 % protein. In addition the Stinging Nettle consists…See More
Apr 13, 2020
Jonathon McCallum posted a blog post

The meal

It is 7'oclock, I was late home from work due to an assignment that i wanted to get ahead on. By the time I get home I am feeling extremley tired and I cannot be bothered to make a proper meal. I walk to the fridge and open it to see what there is for me to eat. All of the out of date foodstuffs have been automaticaly thrown away by the fridge, they will be recycled tomorrow as animal feed or something. I see i have organic local eggs and some local cheese. Foods are vacc** sealded for easy…See More
Mar 10, 2020
Jean Paul Galea shared a profile on Facebook
Mar 1, 2020
Kevin posted a blog post

Future

FutureToday is 2020/1/1. It is just like yesterday. The war is still continuing. It has started since 2010. In 2010, that year was a horrible year. Almost every energy ran out. Every country’s governments were crushed down at the same time. There were riots everywhere. All of the big company’s bosses were killed xdeadx in the riots. Troops fought each other everywhere. Food was bought up xawayx at once. There were no more food supplies in any shops. The economy was all crushed down. All the…See More
Jan 1, 2020
Namwaka Mooto posted blog posts
Jan 13, 2016
T D updated their profile
Sep 3, 2015
Brook Warner posted blog posts
Aug 25, 2015
Santiago Vega posted blog posts
May 5, 2015
Santiago Vega commented on Santiago Vega's blog post Act 8
May 5, 2015
Santiago Vega posted photos
May 5, 2015
Rico Angel Rodriguez posted blog posts
May 2, 2015
Rico Angel Rodriguez posted a photo

public servants

The exchange works directly for state and public workers and servants. It gives them credit in exchange for the amount of public work they contribute to the community. The more constructive they are based off a base rate the more credit they recieve.
May 2, 2015
Brian Hurley posted blog posts
May 2, 2015

Follow EVOKE on Twitter




Official EVOKE Facebook Page




EVOKE RSS Activity Feed










© 2022   Created by Alchemy.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service