Money is such an outdated concept! Much like countries.

Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:22pm

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.

Great point, you would be correct in applying this to current psychologically trends. However, the benefit that would be derived from doing certain job within the VP RBE would be that of all basic necessities being met and that your actions would eventually benefit your children and other and thus in turn your children will benefit theirs and others children. With this re-education you point out to current generations that their actions are to benefit future generations and this links with human biology and the need to evolve if evolution can be reasoned with it would have to grasp that to evolve and survive as a species it would need to co-operate:

QUOTE:As put by Tainter: “Competition makes controlled collapse unfavorable, making unfavorable marginal returns favorable.”

So human biology would at some point reach a stage where it would have to reconcile a difficult point. Does it co-operate with itself and lend forth a new form of evolution or continue to the inevitable competition which as put in your doc**ent - a dissolution because of the marginal product.

If the marginal product is expanded beyond here and now and accepted that current competitive system eventually implode, the evolution has to take a new step to survive - it would seek alternative methods perhaps reduction of the ego to accept that the species carries within it the power to maintain a collective consciousness (Speculative I know) or on a more literal angle it would create a division as it would (assuming a normal being could rationalise this) reach a conclusion where in order to evolve it must compete, yet would know this action is self defeatist in the long run, thus eventually ending it's evolution. If evolution is biological in its entirety this concept would be proved right, however the fact we can debate this issue perhaps suggests that evolution is something more and that it recognises that long-term it's desire to improve must make short term sacrifice, thus once this argument is presented and absorbs - the question re-asked - What would keep people in society doing jobs where the immediate goods or service have no real benefit to them? - one would have to conclude they they as a being have recognised their eventual survive in generations to come would only come through co-operation otherwise inevitable extinction which is the last thing evolution would accept.

You’re right, it is speculative. What’s even more speculative is that cooperation is created by or sustainable within TVP. I would like to speculate that what you mention here is achievable without TVP.

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.

Again great point and fair point. To assume technology would progress is erroneous, however to presume we'd stay on this planet is short-sighted. Thus new expansions and horizons - yet this does help back up your Marginal Product argument - when is enough, enough? However this assumes all humans place the same values on all things which they don't and because of that there are people who might for example, happily explore the galaxy for relatively 0 product margin if it provided enough stimulus to keep existence interesting. This point not only ties in with your excellent article but is something i will come back to if you wish to discuss it further.

My concerns are not about space exploration, nor is it that technology will progress. My concern is the belief of many that technology progression is a self-perpetuating existence, and the way that people operate based upon that belief.

Comment by A.V.Koshy on April 26, 2010 at 8:22pm

Jesus, I thought i was the biggest intellect in the wh*** world but obviously there are other cranks like me around. Sorry for this inane comment but you guys just made my day. And Jones you can take this out of the saving comments on your blog thing.
My hat's off to both of you,

Comment by Iron Helix on April 26, 2010 at 8:23pm

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.

Well I think that as there have been many know attempts through history of inventions and products being suppressed or the people involved disappearing because it would disrupt the status quo it is self evident that somethings out there do exist. To actually utilise it isn't the problem it's spreading it for all humanity to use, to develop it isn't the issues but not every person is mechanically minded and may not be able to build the technology which I would encourage. To see if what i am suggesting in this instance is true, why not pop on to youtube and type free energy there are so many many examples and some very compelling evidence. I'm not saying it's all true, but i'm not convince it's all BS!

I am naturally skeptical with the term “free energy”. I don’t need to be convinced that it’s BS… I automatically assume that. They who propose these things need to prove that it’s not. I seriously doubt that such technology has not spread if it existed because oil companies are kidnapping people. More likely it’s because it’s either faulty science or a fraud. If I’m wrong, and free energy devices are just waiting to be used, then this wh*** debate is largely irrelevant and I might as well go buy a Hummer.


The reason why I am responding to this is not because I’m afraid that the Venus Project is actually going to happen (I have 100% confidence that it won’t), but because I am concerned that people will read about these kinds of utopia projects and assume that everything will be ok, and that if things get bad, then there are movements like TVP just waiting in the wings. That to me is false hope. There may be solutions out there, but utopian fantasies are not solutions. They are just that: fantasies. Of course, you could say that’s my opinion. One person’s fantasy is another’s reality… sort of like Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. I’m not saying they aren’t real, just that there is a large lack of evidence that they are.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 9:21pm

Quote: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.


Some interesting points. Again stretching the long-term memory, one thought that Jacque contested with was the idea that resources could only be used upon global agreement of the pan of action. So what would happen for arguments sake is current problems globally would have potential solutions submitted and earth could select the project that had the most merit to the resources. This selecting allows democratic input and moderate rationing of resources without tyranny? Upon any submitted idea a team could then quantify whether there would be a marginal return or not, if the return was very low even if the project was very good, it would have to be rethought until a higher yield could be created or alternative solution to the problem was submitted.

Quote: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).

Ah in this instance do you not think that this is because of the global society we live? Only in the the last century has recycling and limitation of waste been really encouraged. Prior to that it was perfectly normal for humans to waste excessively as we have only started to notice it's effects more prominently now. (referring to the general population, as many groups have been campaigning for years it is only now that it has become a real concern - not delving any deeper than that at the mo.)

Quote: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?

In this instance I using croc's as an example of a business that designed it's product so well and to have limit of the waste it creates as well as the rationing of only what is needed resources. TVP to my knowledge would not being trying to monopolise one brand, but consolidate the unnecessary. Yes, you are correct in imply it probably is the consumers buying ineffective products over something more sound like a croc's for arguments sake. But is it also not society that encourages this. If society actively encouraged business to make long-term products, reducing waste output and minimising excessive resources being up taken, then perhaps the consumer would become a little bit more intelligent and rationalise their purchase. A majority won't and not always because of their own fault, lack of time, lack of money etc. Which leads on to the point that with consolidating a large amount of commercial business global efficiency could increase. Even more so is how it would function.

Lets take hiking equipment for an example. There are say 5 major brands across the globe. (There more but for now go with the flow) If we take a look of the competing most are trying sell the same Sh*t just in different ways. Their technology may be renamed and their materials may be slightly different but in reality the only the that changes are the last (Shape used to mould the shoes) Now First stage could be the companies pull together and become a major company. The R&D across the board can take all the research and apply it to the products to see what suites the product best. (This is usually hampered by copyright etc.) Now the market and consumer still has a selection of footwear, but those items that competed for sake of profit margins, has now been eliminated. This reduces massive resources used to make and design them, the R&D team can be re-tasked or reduced and the consumers option to purchase poor product is prevent and yet they are now provide with more effective shoe that has 5 majors companies inputs instead of 5 segments. The second stage would be the then have a global shoes company, which allowed for a custom shoe design. The aim would be to design a shoe to last the exact amount of time required for the end user. So a fashion biased person would want maybe a years use then a new shoe. Fine, but the technology used would only match its use, so no major long lasting rubber for example, however at this stage of the development the shoe would have been design to not only be able to last a lot longer say 25yrs but also have technology that allows it to be updated keeping the image fresh for the fashion conscious e.g. nanotechnology to alter the colour. The knock one effect would be from the second stage such a good fit that the health of the individuals feet is not impaired. This has lots of knock on effects, spine, circulation, good support, thus further reducing extended resources spent in the medical field needing to correct problems that a simply well design shoe could have prevented. (Assuming it was worn in compliance and to encourage compliance let the shoe suite the individual so they are more likely to wear it.)

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 9:36pm

Quote: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.

I don't fault the fact that implied is partially successful it is the methodology of application that I detest. So there is a shortage of oil, well we knew that, however companies like BP and others who have alternative energy sources for cars do not implement them. Hmmm strange surely if scarcity was what was wanted one would limit the cars produced and enhance public transport, not just make them more efficient which shows the Joven paradox at it's worse. Clearly in this state we have companies trying to initiate an implied scarcity to oil hence the rise in petrol/gas. However, the reality is is these companies which have the ability reduce the scarcity by implement new technology e.g. water run cars. Which do exist and youtube has tv footage from news stations not just a dodge cam corder. Now i'm not a mechanical engineer but it amazes me just our of curiosity one has tried to disprove these claims. In doing so secure their position at work and help other realise this avenue is a waste of time and effort. It might even spark of a different solution in the process - who knows.

Strict conservation probably would be utilised in the transition phase as I agree without some restrictions total unplanned resource usage would cause the system to fall apart. I would still consider that should the system be implemented then it seem feasible that with some (if not all) technology growth (I understand your previous points not ignoring them but there would be some growth) should allow some improvements in the efficiency of resource usage and allow perhaps small fluxes in the use of the resources.

Comment by sunnydupree on April 26, 2010 at 10:03pm

Benjamin and Iron yall rock! so much to think about. I think I have to say the answer to all of this is "42". LOL. I have to say that all the agents should read this blog. It is very thought provoking and well discussed! Excellent points of economic, sociological and psychological theories.
.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 10:07pm

Quote: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.

Again excellent point there are alternatives, but perhaps an optimistic sense of romanticism has clouded the rational judgement needed to solve the solution. However, are you proposing to reset the current currency system? Eliminate the interest? Although Zeitgeist is not a reputable source, that does not suffice enough to say it is incorrect. In fact it alone has opened more eyes to the complexities of banking and it's very clever ability to hide paper trails - rightly or wrongly. Now i would never say any source is 100% correct and would agree that there are areas of questionability. This does not change the fact that greed and power motivate this system, even if the catholic solution was implemented what would you have in place to prevent this reoccurrence? Furthermore how would you educate humanity to use the banking system to their advantage?

Quote: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 generalised way.


In this instance I know understand what you mean more clearly. Yes I concede that a numerical value would be placed upon all items not necessarily a currency figure which is what I thought you were saying.

Quote: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.

Ah man I love the way you put that last part: "TVP could ..... its abundance." Priceless and true, regrettably. However to contest this point would we know definitively this is human nature and not a sociological result of society in attributing material weal and success to freedom and high status. Furthermore could one not argue that the reduction of humanity to aspire to different heights? A brilliant artist is not always rich until he/she is dead, thus their brilliance can go unnoticed or heavily reduced. Yet because of the confines of the system, they were actually able to survive (maybe - unless it was starvation then that would be just ironic) and still aspire strongly and achieve the freedom they desired without excessive abundance. In fact there are probably a lot of people that do they just don't fit into the bunch of human nature . . . or perhaps indicate human nature isn't something inbuilt but something that has evolved and worse still it may not need evolved if the idea Enough was present in our nature to reach a level of fulfilment.

In regards to the slavery, from my perspective to be free would allow me to go anywhere and do anything as long as it did not interfere with another human being. Yet because of the constraints of the system i can only travel if i have enough money to do so, the will is now restricted to external influence, which exists because of a system, not nature. To elaborate, if i were a loin cloth wearing Neanderthal I could not travel to far from food and water and anywhere to cold, but i could take food with me and wear warmer cloths thus I have altered the parameters of the system of natures constraint but in the case of the modern man one can no longer do this. At least not from my perspective. Admittedly the system nature sets up is far more powerful as it is our home, the system of humanity changes through time to suit current trends and needs, but is not always needed for our survival. An in using your words 'Abundance does not mean freedom' quite so but how else does one achieve it in the parameters of this system?

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 10:11pm

Quote: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.

Aha! This is very interesting perhaps we are meeting a halfway point, so it is not the ideal of what TVP but its methodology. I agree some of its methods may not be completely sound, but I haven't seen a model to provide an alternative mechanism with which to transform the current failing system. Usually described as a 'pipe dream' I can empathise why, but it doesn't mean elements can be achieved in a new system taking on board parts from TVP.

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 10:51pm

Quote: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.

For the VP to work there would need to be some form of rationing which i think we can conclude from your persuasive arguments is a reality. It may not be attractive, but thinking to the earlier example if it had been democratically rationed to areas (Regions) of whatever type, then the society it aims to forge would accept that as the input is a global issue. If it was close or near even splits is there any reason that the 4 projects could share overall reduced resources and complete their goal over a longer time scale. [At this point of limited resources, in regards to geological surveys they surely cannot be entirely accurate as the composition of the planet must change constantly with all the chemical reactions taking place shift elements from one to another (even if very very slowly) Perhaps if humanity studied these processes then they could in turn mimic them and push forward projects by transmuting resources to to fill a deficit] The Mindset of TVP is to work in unity, if a project had been rejected then there would have been good reason, in fact enough rationalisation to hope that those who forwarded the project of their own would switch to suite the most effective solution not simply the one they wanted - the idea of transcending the ego. Furthermore in the example you provided, would it not have been decided that areas like this (timber farming) would be based upon the environmental factors naturally one would aim not to barrage the planet and turn it into a messy allotment, but surely having an effective system in place to harvest is better than having globally no real control or only limited control and which we have seen in rainforests for examples. This areas are in the way their are because of the demand needed by the world however demand is created but no real control is issued on how the methodology of supply this demand is made. At least not until very recently and even then corrupt people in power because of their need for abundance succ**b to a monetary gain and then the methodology fails. In TVP because you would not have a single person deciding this for an area nor would they be able to be bribed the new system prevents corruptibility from the standard sense. As to whether humanity would adapt and find ways around this, it's possible, but coming back to the idea of Enough is Enough.

Quote: 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,

Te problem with this argument is that it implies the earth being seen as divisions and not wh***. Yes regions may have problems and other regions may solve them, but overall the practice of restoring equilibrium is for the benefit of Everyone. Not just the two regions in question, but all regions as the balance would then allow stabilisation followed by normalisation of resources. Allow the earth body to return to optimum function and efficiency. In the event a solution is too costly, it is not a solution. Furthermore if no solution can be found, one has to ask more questions about the problem, can it be halved, is it a really issue or just and inconvenience? If it is globally threatening and it comes down to human life at what point would cost enter the field? I'd wager it only becomes too expensive when humans start to place too much numerical value on an individual. That is a scary thought. Dissolution seems to cover all manner of sins, at the point there is an acc**ulation of problems surely the society is more likely to change their overall methodologies which in itself is a solution where the cost of maintaining one society (this could include patterned thinking) was to great and so a new one is formed. As far as unsubstantiated assumption, well if you watch the recent London video Jacque Fresco actually states they have had the technology since 1927. So it cam from the designers mouth, which is a very big claim. In this instance it would be best for you to contact him over specifically technologies.

Quote: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.

Ah quite possibly i misses it as it was late as it is now. So in short your argument is that the methodology provided by TVP is limiting as it prevents other methodologies. Ok that is fair point as yes i suppose in the context you suggest there would only be TPV way. However from my understanding it the scientific method is truly scientific, it would allow postulation upon other methodology and if there was a suitable replacement then in theory TVP would have to concede to this better method or perhaps enhance it's system by integrating it. This is a point where i feel most people dislike TPV as it suggest exactly what you suggest, there is a variety but only in one form, i would be honest in stating that even i do not know entirely however - would you not concede that have lots of methodologies is an incredible waste of resources and worse still may never find a solution as the methodologies in themselves would compete?

Comment by Benjamin Michael Jones on April 26, 2010 at 11:14pm

Quote: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”.

This is a very bold statement to make. Seeing as the system has never been implemented nor even tried it is highly probable but is it not also possible that balance could be achieved with only minor fluxes in population attributes?

To relate to your strong suggestion of influence within the system, yes i can agree with that. TVP proposes work would eventually become much a honour because the need for workers would eventually decrease with automation of various areas of society. So these workers engineers would influence society to their will, there would however be barriers to instigate boundaries for safe keeping. For example an A.I. would monitor the work being carried out the programers of the A.I. would have been under the direction of what humanity would need for an effective A.I. system, another set of engineers would also keep the programers in check because if the A.I was suggesting or implementing the wrong procedure they would pick it up. Both would be under constant eye of humanity and all data and information would be available allowing all humans to check if they so wish.

Quote: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.

This is brilliant, ok so tell me have you ever worked with someone who earns the same pay and benefits and yet is a lazy sod? How is it please tell me that the monetary systems functions so much more effectively than TVP in this instance alone? The more persuasive argument would be that in doing a poor job you will not only be picked up on in the TVP but reminded how your sloppy work could have massive ramifications on the rest of the society. In our system we don't have that - we couldn't because countries are divides. Oh well it's only going to effect them. Not us or we? The mindset is the key thing that needs changing. Also your idea of they deserve more? Why people work hard i this society they deserve more but they don't get it, however in TVP the basic necessities of life are all met and if the system was implemented fully like JF suggests - your leisure time would have no real restrictions. So what more could be offered? You couldn't be given any more resources they are all shared, you could offer recognition but this may breed competition, the point might be that one would perhaps be given more responsibility in the role suggesting those of genuine merit gain the ranks not those who simply charm their way up the ranks. However, mentioning what we said before about humanities abundance issues could they simply be reminded they will never be satisfied and so must work in accordance with their own sense of satisfaction and not compare to that of others?

I would also agree to see a VP in action would prove a lot, but i think it would have to be done off this planet.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page