The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Efficiency is a metric. What are you purporting to measure?

Well, there are countless of indicators, measurements, statistics, etc, Here are some sources:

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainability_metric_and_indices

http://www.storyofstuff.com

http://www.worldometers.info/

But as I already stated, we don't need complicated numbers. Fact is that, at least regarding food, enough of it is produced so not a single member of human society should be hungry anymore, yet, food doesn't reach everyone. Why? Politics and Costs.

Here, some numbers that speak for themselves:

Overweight people in the world: 1,129,542,073
Undernourished people in the world: 890,211,904
People who died of hunger TODAY: 22,009

This simple metrics illustrate that the efficiency of distribution is poor, in this system.

Ok I will give you one more. This illustrates the % of people living with less than 2 dollars a day:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_und_2_a_day-economy-population-under-2-day

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

BDZ: I think you said something to the affect of you not really subscribing to everything The Venus Project proposes although I do realize you find it interesting and I see you agree with a lot of it.

Indeed. Lots of questions remain unanswered, I understand that it is a work on progress but there are some BIG claims on the texts that are available now that need to be based on some hard facts, and so far this remains unclear.

I can’t wait for the forums to open up at the website so I can talk more about it there. I just found this forum on a google search so I decided to chat about it here since it seems like a lively discussion so far. Plus James Randi is cool

I hope we will start to see detailed accounts of how some things will be solved. I would love to participate in the forums if they keep it far away from "the era of Aquarius" fans, I mean, what we call "WOOS" in the JREF. Such forums should be dedicated to solve problems and see who is willing to participate, and doing what, in a first community.

I think we are posting in here for the same reasons. There are critical thinkers in here (or there are supposed to be) so I thought it would be a good place to find out why TVP is a bad idea. So far the arguments against it are elementary at best but I hope to be enlightened soon.

Yes, I have seen some answers about "it is impossible", or a "fantasy" but they appear to come from personal opinions rather than facts, which will prove that it is impossible indeed.

Almost every job in the world could be automated using machines, robots, technology but if everyone would lose their jobs why would it happen? Why would we work on that?

This is a bold claim. To assert it, years of studies should be implemented, it is very easy to talk from wishful thinking. Now, I'm not saying it can or it can't be done, all I'm stating is that, IMO, is to soon to claim this as a fact.

About the airplane thing: Good point. What I meant is that its time and energy consuming. We expend a lot of time and energy to get fossil fuels plus they are non-renewable resources because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed.

So what, if there are no monetary costs involved, what stops us from continue to use fossil fuels? If anything I would like to see the creationf of a new airplanes like the Concorde, because if money is not an issue we should be able to travel around the globe faster and safer.

The complete automation of many labor jobs would require a redesign of certain aspects of current urban designs.

Undoubtedly. I have said this too. Some JREF members seem to believe that their world would be unchanged in a different society. Well, no, a whole lot of stuff should be redesigned from scratch, and this will take loads of time. Generations.

The Venus Project has some good info on city design that would make automation much easier. It would be challenging to retrofit machines to work in current designs but new cities, buildings etc would be much easier because they would be built from the ground up to be automated.

I will look for that info, sounds interesting.

When it means the alleviation and liberation of humans from outmoded labor so that they may spend their time doing meaningful things with their lives instead of labor that makes them ignorant, then all option should be considered.

Absolutely agree. Still, this is not as easy as is it to say it.

First, you will need to explain why I am not greedy, violent or war like. Of course, you don’t know who I am but I assure you I am not that way. Is everyone you know greedy? I doubt it. How do you explain the people who are not greedy, war like, violent or oppressive? Are they not truly human then?

Exactly. I have already explained that "nasty" people will continue to do "nasty things" but the point is which percentage of population actually commit crimes? And it is logical to assume that a great deal of such crimes are related to things that are inherent to this society, and that in another one such crimes would not exist.

There is no such thing as human nature. We are conditioned to act the way we do through experience. If you grew up in violence, you will be violent. Yes, there is always choice. People choose their own actions but that choice is based on that persons experience.

I disagree. There is no choice. We born with clear tendencies and our culture shapes us but does not change us. We are still in the infancy regarding neuroscience and I believe still far away from being able to understand what constitutes "human nature".

We are talking about a whole new society here. It has never been done with this level of technology involved and of course, it could not have been done because technology was not at the level it is at today so comparisons to past attempts are totally irrelevant. How can we compare this to anything else when there has never been anything else like it tried before?

Agreed. We can't judge in advance, stating anything about how humans will behave requires ad-hoc hypothesis, as we have not experienced it.

No Money. No competition for labor. No “jobs”. No politics. Eventually there would be virtually no laws. No advertising. People will act differently. You may not even be able to comprehend the affect this will have unless you think about it a lot or actually see it in action. Perhaps re education would not even be necessary.

Indeed, it would be a powerful change. Still, in the same manner that I'm skeptic about those who naively say "it cant be done" I'm skeptic about statements like "there would be virtually no laws". I believe we lack the data and can't claim to know what would happen.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I would still like someone to explain how the current system is broken when it has resulted in millions of people in Asia being elevated from short lives of starvation and poverty (with millions more in the queue, of course) to a half-decent and improving lifestyle? Not perfect, but I need far more evidence before replacing our capitalist system with a utopian fantasy.

I posted some numbers above, but here, this is how many people lives with less than 2 dollars a day:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_pop_und_2_a_day-economy-population-under-2-day

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Firstly, if automation is/was profitable, then that is what will be done, and the economy will grow, not shrink. The reasons for automation are numerous, but a central reason is it's cost-effectiveness. If you can make a machine for $100,000 that replaces five workers who earn $50,000 per year, you the business owner have saved money. The money saved can then go into investing in other areas, thus expanding the economy (in simple terms).

Wrong example. Let's go back and assume, hypothetically, that it can be done, but the costs of labor are far lower than the implementation of the automated system. Who would want to implement an automated system to get out of business?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Hmmm, it seems my illustration of the problems of a moneyless society was conveniently ignored.

And yet you managed to succinctly explain why! I was "conveniently ingnoring it because (I presume) was so devastating to what is being discussed here that it was best to simply let it go!!!

Well... sorry to burst your (ego) bubble, but in my case, it was simply that I didn't see your post. So, lets see.

Bottom line is that a society where people only do what they find to be "fun" is never going to work. Peoples desires and goals are completely disassociated from the needs of reality and outside of using "incentives," like money, to get people to do the unfun jobs the only way to get them done will be to use force. Frankly I'd rather work in a crappy job because I'm getting paid to do it than to be told to do it or I get shot.

First things first, you hate your work? This is the only reason I could see on why you would make this statement:

Work = necessary but "fun less" activity.

Well, the statement is absurd.

Regarding the use of force... how do you KNOW? Because you don't nobody knows what would happen, so lets paste your "conveniently ignored" post to see if we can add some light:

Originally Posted by Travis
In Town X, before the establishment of the moneyless society, there is one baker who provides the town with bread.....except the baker doesn't want to be a baker, he always wanted to be a archeologist and with the elimination of money he might as well go do that.......so now Town X has no baker and no bread.

Ok, enough, the rest of your argument simply falls on its own weight, it is absurd (unless it was written as a joke, but somehow I don't think this is the case). The point you are trying to make is that if nobody want's to perform a particular work this new society would have to force someone to do it.

Your baker doesn't count, what about those people who LOVE to bake? Maybe you wanted to put here a really really nasty work, so I will answer that such jobs would have to either dissapear (machines will perform them) or they would require another kind of incentive, instead of money.

There, not really a problem after all.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I assumed everyone except the hippy agreed with it.

Change that to hippies, since another one showed up.

If you can't keep this about ideas, and come with intelligent posts, you better stay out of the thread, is that simple.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I still think a major motivation behind buying into the Venus project nonsense is laziness: They don't want to have to work for a living.

You just don't get it, Travis.
In the Venus plan, no one will have to work, it will all be done by robots!

Two interesting concepts arise, lets see them:

1) "You have to work for a living". This is an absurd statement. So when you stand up from bed to have a juice, you are working (by this dogmatical statement). Absurd, you stand up from bed because you want, and you drink a nice juice because it suits you, you are thirsty and you like it.

2) Every productive activity is performed EXCLUSIVELY because there is money involved.

It is simply lame to believe nobody would need to move a finger, a la Wall-E, so absurd that frankly, I'm not even sure why I'm answering. Oh yes, I remember:

And that is why I maintain these two alleged "Critical Thinkers" are not Critical thinkers at all: There whole attitude of "When Reality Conflicts With My Theory, Reality Must Be Disposed Of".
It is the total disregard of reality that gets to me about those two.

Apples to apples dude, if you are blatantly ignorant about what I have actually stated and how what I'm posting here differs from what MrMix is saying, then by all means, do something better with your time, maybe get an extra job to get more money! Not that you are interested, but you if you were actually READING you would have noticed by now that I have my own doses of doubts regarding how they are expecting to solve some problems. I have stated this countless times, I didn't came with answers but with questions.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The definition of work precedes the invention of money.

People that don't need any money often find reason to preform useful work.

Some people that could have made a lot of money find reason to eschew that lifestyle for an 'earthier' lifestyle that involves lots of grunt labor.

Volunteerism is alive, in spite of lack of monetary incentives.

To some extent, a large extent, even, we have invented the need for toil.
We are very puritanical that way. Must keep busy. Keep the day job even though you win the lottery.

Bravo!!! Not everybody is obtuse in the JREF, what a relief. This society is FULL of samples of people performing every kind of job because they WANT, not because they will get PAID. As I have said before, every rich individual would have to be lazy if we are to believe that if you don't have to "work for a living" you would do NOTHING PRODUCTIVE with your life.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Volunteerism is subsidized by monetary incentives. How do things like Opensource software projects get done? By guys who do it when they aren't doing their real jobs. Take away that real job from them and see how much enthusiasm they have to do that volunteer work.

Don't take it personal but you can't be that obtuse. You are claiming that it is possible, and thus contradicting yourself. In a non monetary society, where things like housing, food, health care and education are completely solved for every individual... people will do things like Opensource BECAUSE they already have the equivalent of the results of their "real jobs"!

 

[Mr_Mix]

I would still like someone to explain how the current system is broken when it has resulted in millions of people in Asia being elevated from short lives of starvation and poverty (with millions more in the queue, of course) to a half-decent and improving lifestyle? Not perfect, but I need far more evidence before replacing our capitalist system with a utopian fantasy.

I never said the current system is broken. It just sucks. It creates stratification, exploitation, subservience, imbalance, greed, and aberrant behavior of all kinds. Also, it’s unsustainable on a multitude of levels.

I read an interesting article the other day that stated that China’s rich/poor gap is getting wider and wider these days. Sound familiar?

No amount of evidence could even exist to convince anyone to adopt a Utopian fantasy because there is no such thing as a utopia. Perfection is impossible. It does not exist.

Firstly, if automation was profitable, then that is what will be done, and the economy will grow, not shrink. Automation results in lost jobs which shrinks the economy.The reasons for automation are numerous, but a central reason is its cost-effectiveness. If you can make a machine for $100,000 that replaces five workers who earn $50,000 per year, you the business owner have saved money. The money saved can then go into investing in other areas, thus expanding the economy (in simple terms).

Yes. True, automation is better for the business owner because they spend less on paying employees but full automation on a global or national level means no workers, no jobs, and no money being spent in the economy. It wouldn’t and cannot work in this system. There would be no one to buy thing from the business because everyone has no job to buy stuff. This economy needs consumers. Mass consumers.

Secondly, there is not a finite amount of work to be done. You seem to think that if automation takes place there will be no more work, and everyone would lose their jobs (suggesting a finite amount of work). Instead, you get displaced workers which re-train and/or move on to a different field (perhaps as a maintenance tech who fixes the new technology).

It’s simple. If automation took place there would be no work. Machines would do all the work. There would be, I dunno, %97 less jobs and they sure won’t be replaced by tech jobs. We don’t need a world of techs to maintain this new system. We would do other, more meaningful things with our time instead of many of our jobs we have now. Those jobs would be gone. If there was no money, and we used technology and the carrying capacity of the earth in an efficient way, it wouldn’t matter that there was no money. We wouldn’t need it.

Money is just in idea for a system, a system which is failing, cannot continue for much longer and does not need to continue for much longer. (Geez, don’t I sound rhetorical hehe)

You have it backwards: money provides a strong incentive to create new innovations. There is a truckload of money to be made on innovating a power-drill that is easy on the operator's arms and shoulders, or engineering a safer, more stable ladder.

I’m not sure you understand. In this new society there would not be a need for easiness on an arm or shoulder because there is no arm or shoulder. It’s the safest because no humans are doing the work so they will not get hurt. See where I’m going with this?

Cancer is an awful thing also, but it exists. Just because you don't like the world as it is, doesn't mean you can just wish it away. Evolution continues, but there is a huge gap from where we are and the crime free utopia of VP and the point again is that there is no "how to" that will get us from here to there other than humans evolving to a much different creature.

The cancer/aberrant human behaviour analogy doesn’t work for obvious reasons.
Actually the gap between acting civilized and acting like violent ****s is pretty narrow. Take away the money and hence the need to compete then we act much different. We are products of our environment and maybe %5 -%10 chemical make up. We are the way we are because of what we experience. We experience a need to compete with one another our whole life. Compete in school, for money, for jobs, and for survival. We are not like a pack of lions who must compete with other packs for food and such. We do not instinctively dominate in a group. Yes, many have. Yes many still do. Again, we are a product of our environment but we are sophisticated animals. We can work together if we change our environment.

I would say that a resource based economy and the research done by TVP is a great start for a “how to”. There isn’t a real “how to” if it has never been done before anyway I suppose.

There is a huge range of personalities and human tendancies. History has clearly shown that power and greed are part of the human being. Some more so than others. The fact that there have been Gandhis doesn't erase the fact that there have been Hitlers.

History is history. Are you greedy and power hungry? Are you? I am not. I know many people who are not. So it is not a part of this human being or many other human beings this human knows even though we are in a environment that rewards this type of behavior. Why is that?

Take away the things that cause the competition and you eliminate the need for such behavior at all.

As a side note, Gandhi was a racist. He loathed blacks...but I get your point.

And it can't be done with today's technology. There are two things that make VP science fiction:
1. There is no level of technology today that will enable no one to have to work. The elimination of money will not cause an explosion of technological advances that will change this.
2. Even if #1 was possible, a society where there is no crime as the VP promises would not exist because of greed, self interest, and power will still exist in humans. These tendencies will result in politics and crime. No amount of training, retraining, education, programming, etc. will wipe these tendencies out.

These are very interesting points.

There most certainly is a level of technology that could allow us to not work laborious jobs for money but of course it’s not here today. We do not live in a society that would allow for that level of automation or research into that level of automation. We cannot afford it. The elimination of money most certainly will create a tremendous increase in our level of technology as well as the elimination of planned obsolescence and many other unwanted phenomena. The elimination of money will be coupled with the elimination of subservience and the elimination of the holding back of new and better technology. The price tag is gone from everything humans do so it is no longer a question of “How much will this cost?”.

Change that to hippies, since another one showed up.
I still think a major motivation behind buying into the Venus project nonsense is laziness: They don't want to have to work for a living.
The idea that Mr Mix has about maglev replacing airplanes is a good example of ignoring reality, the reality being it is sort of hard to build a railroad across the Atlantic.
And that is why I maintain these two alleged "Critical Thinkers" are not Critical thinkers at all: There whole attitude of "When Reality Conflicts With My Theory, Reality Must Be Disposed Of".
It is the total disregard of reality that gets to me about those two.

Your comments about being lazy show me how much you seem to misunderstand this topic. If I was lazy then why would I have written 1,000 or so words on this post alone? Lazy people spend time on things especially when they are not getting paid? I wonder why I spend so much time studying things I find interesting and learning about things constantly. Or why I ride a bicycle 80 city blocks, half uphill, everyday to work. Maybe I do it because I’m lazy...

Maybe I should just put my head down, shut up and keep earning my living by the sweat of my brow and keep my employment in a dictatorship company my whole life. Hmmm...

People have it ingrained in there heads from childhood that if they don't get out there and earn a paycheck then they are being lazy. Just like if they are told they will go to hell if they don't believe in god. Its all they know cause its all they have been told. Dangerous stuff. Don't work on anything you love. Just when you get paid, that is the only work that counts. Anything else is laziness. Go to the gym? Lazy. Read books about interesting topics? Lazy. Shame on you! *Sigh*

That's false.

So, there is a challenge in bringing clean, efficient transportation across the globe that we must confront. Should we just scrap this whole idea because of a transportation issue? Tunnels, bridges. These are impossible to even think about? I dunno, but that alone is not going to through me off just yet.

Sorry I’m not as critical as thou dudalb. I am unaware of any certain criteria needed before posting in this forum.

Like I said before, I’m here because I saw a good post in a google search for Z: A not because I think I am a superior critical thinker although I do think I am critical. I’m sure you disagree. It happens.

The reality we live in will likely fail soon and, yes, it will be disposed of if people lose confidence in their elected officials and begin to think of a better way. This monetary, fascist, corrupt system, this reality, will fail and then the time will be ripe for change. No revolution is necessary. Just the collapse of this house of cards. It has already begun.

What are you talking about? According to Mr. Mix, maglev trains require no fuel.

It would be a passive, fail-safe magnetic levitation system, using only unpowered loops of wire in the track and permanent magnets on the vehicle to achieve magnetic levitation instead of a jet plane which uses fossil fuels. That’s the idea I was getting at. It’s all in development right now too. Sounds interesting.

Clean transportation is something that everyone should have anyway, no matter if it’s a resource based economy or a monetary system. The transportation is wayyy down at the bottom of the list of important topics in a system like this. I can think of more immediate concerns and potential issues that would come up before I would get to that.

I hope I’m not expected to have all the answers for all the potential problems in this type of system. After all, I just started thinking about it the other day hehheh. If there are a series of negative posts that nitpick minor points instead of talking about the big picture I would begin to question the motives of the posters. Know what I mean? Oh well.

 

[Travis]

First things first, you hate your work? This is the only reason I could see on why you would make this statement:

Work = necessary but "fun less" activity.

Well, the statement is absurd.

How so? Patching asphalt roads is not fun but necessary. Running the water treatment plant is not fun but necessary. Catching feral rats is not fun but necessary.

Some people love their jobs. Many do not. Most of those jobs that the many do not love still need to be done.

Ok, enough, the rest of your argument simply falls on its own weight, it is absurd (unless it was written as a joke, but somehow I don't think this is the case). The point you are trying to make is that if nobody want's to perform a particular work this new society would have to force someone to do it.

That's the gist of it and it's not absurd.

Your baker doesn't count, what about those people who LOVE to bake?

They're gonna bake 8 hours a day, every day, just because they love to? I've never encountered, or heard of, anybody who loves baking that much.

Maybe you wanted to put here a really really nasty work, so I will answer that such jobs would have to either dissapear (machines will perform them) or they would require another kind of incentive, instead of money.

As to the last two points:

1) They will disappear as machines will perform them

Who designs these machines for free? Who builds them for free? Where would the materials necessary for their production be obtained...for free? How does one even design a robot to do such tasks as sponge bathing a paralyzed old dude or fix down telephone lines in the middle of a storm?

2) they would require another kind of incentive, instead of money

So we are going to pay people, only not with money. What with? Apples? Drugs? Sex? What's to prevent someone from stockpiling or trading in a black market whatever this incentive will be?

 

[Travis]

Don't take it personal but you can't be that obtuse. You are claiming that it is possible, and thus contradicting yourself. In a non monetary society, where things like housing, food, health care and education are completely solved for every individual... people will do things like Opensource BECAUSE they already have the equivalent of the results of their "real jobs"!

Whew. You are piling the naive on thick.

They have houses? Who is designing the houses for free? Who is building them for free? Who is supplying the builders for free?

They have food? Who is growing it for free? Who is transporting it for free? How is it being distributed?

They have health care? Who is going to endure the rigors of training to be a doctor if there is no advantage to it? Who is going to research and develop drugs and procedures?

They have education? One of the biggest problems with education today is that teachers are not paid competitively and they leave for less stressful jobs. Now we're supposed to believe that teachers will get paid the same as every other job, nothing, and yet will show up in droves to educate the masses of children just because they love to?

 

[Mr_Mix]

they would require another kind of incentive, instead of money

So we are going to pay people, only not with money. What with? Apples? Drugs? Sex? What's to prevent someone from stockpiling or trading in a black market whatever this incentive will be?

Nobody will be paid anything! Incentives are not about material objects they well get. They will already have every material object they want. Even their wants would naturally change in this environment. No advertisements, you see? Nothing to sell. No money.

These jobs you speak of will not exist. Catching rats? Really? Why would we need a rat catcher or a road paver. Maybe we won't use pavement. Maybe we will and it will be done automatically by machines. Transportation would be way different. I think your are still stuck on the whole work-as-paid-labor thing. All these jobs would not exists.

You brought up an interesting issue. The black market. Would there be one? Why? Drugs would be legal. No laws, no prisons, lawyers...gone. Why would there be a black market if everyone had everything they wanted and there was no money? Hehheh. You're havering a hard time with this aren't you? So did I at first. There is no scarcity. The carrying capacity of the earth requires no need for scarcity of anything. Nothing you need or want is scarce in this system. Scarcity does not exist. Scarcity cause competition, war and suffering. There would be no need for hording and people would clearly see that. Everything you have is available continually so why stockpile? It would be totally unnecessary. Criminal organizations would have no purpose to exist. They would have nothing to do. What would they do?

Here come more comments of a Utopia right?

Look, this is not perfect. Perfection does not exist. It is just way better that the system we have now.

Of course, this does not happen overnight but it doesn't happen in centuries either.

 

[Travis]

I see that we have dismissed with any pretension of dealing with reality.

Nobody will be paid anything! Incentives are not about material objects they well get. They will already have every material object they want.

Really? Who's going to make the Aston Martin DB9 that I'll have for free? How is Airbus going to give me my own private A380?

Even their wants would naturally change in this environment. No advertisements, you see? Nothing to sell. No money.

You have heard of humanity....haven't you? Someone will find something that isn't provided to everyone (will all the men get an Anne Hathaway look-a-like? Will the ladies get their own Gerard Butler?) and they will provide it.....at a price. What that price will be is up in the air but you can bet they will find ways to advertise their service somehow.

These jobs you speak of will not exist. Catching rats? Really? Why would we need a rat catcher or a road paver.

We'll need them because I'm betting on both the continued existence of rats and the implausibility of flying cars ever being practical and safe.

Maybe we won't use pavement. Maybe we will and it will be done automatically by machines.

I'd still like to know who's building all these machines for free with materials that is somehow magically provided.

Transportation would be way different.

Right, your going to run a maglev to my tiny town and my house.

I think your are still stuck on the whole work-as-paid-labor thing. All these jobs would not exists.

You keep saying that but have not yet explained how in the world you eliminate all those drudgery jobs. You do realize that you can't just wish them away?

You brought up an interesting issue. The black market. Would there be one? Why? Drugs would be legal. No laws, no prisons, lawyers...gone.

After a guy disembowels his neighbor for complaining about his dog barking too much how will this society deal with him? How will it deal with the guy who kills kids for fun? What about abusive parents?

Why would there be a black market if everyone had everything they wanted and there was no money?

So how are they going to get people to fight to the death in sadistically unfair gladiatorial battles? Because there are people that will want that and according to you all things are provided for eliminating the need for underground events of that type.

Hehheh. You're havering a hard time with this aren't you? So did I at first. There is no scarcity. The carrying capacity of the earth requires no need for scarcity of anything. Nothing you need or want is scarce in this system.

Good. It's nice to know there will be plenty of 1200 kiloton B83 nuclear warheads around that I can detonate over the people of Angola for no reason other than my own amusement......and if I don't do that you can bet someone will. People are bastards.

Scarcity does not exist. Scarcity cause competition, war and suffering.

Um no. competition war and suffering are manifest because of that innate human condition I just alluded to above. People are bastards. Guys will compete for the pretty ladies and the ladies will compete for the choice guys. Competition, you see, predates money....in fact it predates humanity.

Also there will still be someone who will become a religious nutbag and decide some whole segment of society is in collusion with evil and needs to be exterminated......or maybe they think their robot built toaster talks to them and told them to wage war.

Do those magic robots cure psychosis?

There would be no need for hording and people would clearly see that.

Until one guy does hoard a bunch of....whatever and ends up with the prettiest girl in town. Then another human trait, emulation, manifests itself.

Everything you have is available continually so why stockpile? It would be totally unnecessary.

I hoard a bunch of widgets and then I go and destroy the machines that make them. I now have the sole or largest supply of them and everyone will do my bidding to get them. What do I have to fear? There are no laws or prisons.

Criminal organizations would have no purpose to exist. They would have nothing to do. What would they do?

See my enterprise above. Other examples might be to modify the magic producing robots to provide certain people with more and others with less of something that is then controlled and sold.

Here come more comments of a Utopia right?

Look, this is not perfect. Perfection does not exist. It is just way better that the system we have now.

No, the system we have now actually works while what you're proposing is a hopelessly naive intellectual exercise. You are proposing we exchange a tangible, and functioning, reality for hopes, rainbows and puppy dog whiskers.

Pardon me if I'm incredulous.

Of course, this does not happen overnight but it doesn't happen in centuries either.

Unless you can re-engineer the human psyche it won't happen at all.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Wrong example.

I pass on assertion and skip straight to the demonstration; thank you.

(Hint: your above quote asserts something you have not demonstrated)

Let's go back and assume, hypothetically, that it can be done, but the costs of labor are far lower than the implementation of the automated system. Who would want to implement an automated system to get out of business?

Cost-effectiveness is a major reason for automation; another is increased productivity. Using the your guidelines, say the machine costs 150K and it will only replace two workers making 50K/yr. If the increased production (and subsequent sale of surplus goods) makes up for the added cost of automation (>50K), then it is still more profitable to automate than is the alternative.

 

[quarky]

money has become woo. What does it actually represent that's tangible?

 

[IchabodPlain]

Yes. True, automation is better for the business owner because they spend less on paying employees but full automation on a global or national level means no workers, no jobs, and no money being spent in the economy. It wouldn’t and cannot work in this system. There would be no one to buy thing from the business because everyone has no job to buy stuff. This economy needs consumers. Mass consumers.

There is no finite amount of work.

Automation is also better for the consumer. Decreased labor costs and/or increased production can result in lowered prices and a wider distribution of goods.

It’s simple. If automation took place there would be no work.

WRONG. Wrong, wrong, weoprng, wrong, wrrong. There is no finite amount of work. People will move on, and do something else.

Machines would do all the work. There would be, I dunno, %97 less jobs and they sure won’t be replaced by tech jobs. We don’t need a world of techs to maintain this new system. We would do other, more meaningful things with our time instead of many of our jobs we have now. Those jobs would be gone. If there was no money, and we used technology and the carrying capacity of the earth in an efficient way, it wouldn’t matter that there was no money. We wouldn’t need it.

The bolded begs the question. But again, there isn't a finite amount of work to be done.

Money is just in idea for a system, a system which is failing, cannot continue for much longer and does not need to continue for much longer. (Geez, don’t I sound rhetorical hehe)

No, money is a convenient medium of exchange.

I’m not sure you understand. In this new society there would not be a need for easiness on an arm or shoulder because there is no arm or shoulder. It’s the safest because no humans are doing the work so they will not get hurt. See where I’m going with this?

Seriously, red herring aside, put down the bong.

Why would someone want to invent a machine to do someone else's labor? What is the incentive for someone else to help get the first person's invention get off the ground? Where did we get all these engineer's who can build these robots? Where did we get the schools, teachers, resources, with which to learn how to be excellent engineers? What is the incentive to build a better machine than the one you already have?

 

[IchabodPlain]

money has become woo. What does it actually represent that's tangible?

Cigarettes. Booze. Any good or service that someone else is willing to exchange for money.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Well, We can clearly see the two camps that are playing here. The ZM's which is represented here by Mr_Mix, and the "that's impossible" of almost everyone else.

I'm somehow in the middle, I certainly would like to have a much better system, one in which production and consumption were ruled by something else than obsolete political ideologies (capitalism, socialism, free markets, democracy, you name it) and an economy based on money. I have provided concrete examples on why I consider the current system's efficiency lacking and some arguments in favor of a culture that would be motivated to be productive even when no money was placed as "an incentive".

And I put it this way because money is not an incentive, this is merely the way we have been taught to think about it. A different way to see this is to look at money as the physical limitation between you and your own survival. This is, arguabily, a society based on the concept that you owe your life to the state. And you are in permanent debt with everybody else, "you have to work for a living" is one of the dogmas that is taken as if it were a "natural law" of some kind. Well, I disagree, is not a "natural law" but a social construct, nothing but a custom.

Now, this does not automatically leads me to blindly accept something like the ZM or TVP. First I want to see how they solve some of the issues raised on this thread. For instance I'm not quite convinced in that every "mcjob" could be performed "by machines". I do believe it is an interesting field but one the approach (from both camps) so far seems to be naive.

Anyway... lets see if we can advance the discussion in to something valuable for everyone.

 

[Francesca R]

lets see if we can advance the discussion in to something valuable for everyone.

Not possible given your failure to get past question 1. You have four pages of waffle, with no "advancement" of any idea at all, other than a medium-sized debunking of creative-yet-flawed imagination.