The Zeitgeist Movement... why not?

[Prometheus]

All the details of the approach, transition and implementation of the process has been throughly thought out by Jacque Fresco. I found out most of it by studying TVP on the net over the last few weeks but I'm in the process of reading a few of his books on the subject. A lot of that info is on the web. Between TVP and TZM I found a lot of it in the videos and faq. I'm reading Mr Fresco's book in a few days.

This guy who has been at it for 70 years or more and has written several books about the subject is not going to expect people to be interested with an abracadabra solution.

I have explained many aspects of TVP that I understand so far and have posted them here. Did you read all the pages where I posted? Of course I won't post all TVP details in here but if people are interested they can find out just like I did. I'm still studying it all but I find it very interesting.

<snip>

I have read this entire thread from the beginning, including all of your posts. I have read every page on the TVP website. I have come across none of these,

details of the approach, transition and implementation of the process

of which you speak. There have been a lot of words. Give me numbers.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

One thing that I want to make clear is I'm not here to debate. I'm here to raise awareness about an idea that I find interesting and hopefully hear some interesting perspectives. Even if you don't like it thats OK as long as more people find out about it.

Then I know not to bother with you, and to put you on ignore if that is what is required. You cannot justify your opposition to the qoute based on any observable crtieria, only passion. You can argue issues of technology, but the technology isn't here right now unless you wish to believe in some massive conspiracy. The truth of the matter is that as an artist I will not create anything that I do not own, anything that isn't my own capital. I will not work for any system in which I can not own what I produce. How does this system deal with me?

Hint: You can't say that "oh the technology wasn't there yet", because it will never be there. BDZ at least understands that the VP is a pipe dream, and even though I might disagree with him; at least I respect him trying to come up with a system that takes into account the reality of human nature.

History has shown us that it is either guns or money. Honestly a Star Trek like future won't change that I would want to trade what I can create for what someone else has. In this respect the artist is the true genesis of rebellion, because the VP will never contain me. Right now you are reading the call that would end the VP the minute it started.

You see no other way because you are not looking. A Toshiba Nuclear Battery could eliminate the power needs for an enire third world nation. It can purify the water. Allowing people to build clean factories powered by such systems could actually cure multiply issues. Imagine a world in which I am allowed to go into the Congo, and go into a village and hire these people. Sure they get paid less, but at the same time my factory runs clean and provides power the community at no charge. Because I save so much money it doesn't matter. One real factory could build up the economy of a third would nation and put them on the path of self relience.

Nevertheless, you aren't here to debate. You are here to merely preach, and that is fine; but we are not here to simply be your flock. I may disagree with Bohdi, but I have enough respect to actually engage in a debate; and I would hope that between us we may actually achieve the beginnings of something.

The Venus Project isn't the future, because I will overthrow it. I may not be the Overman, but people do listen to me enough. Lets sit down and actually listen to each others concerns and find a real solution....not another fantasy that can be twisted by people.


I will also note, that all resources come with a price tag, one way or another. You can't simply eliminate that, and you cannot provide everything; and that is where people like me step into the picture. You could stop me, but not the others willing to fill my place.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

You not what Mr_Mix. I won't ignore you, and I am sorry for even saying that. Honestly it is best to just stay positive about things, because in the end reason always wins; and people won't actually ever establish the Venus Project. Sure people like me, and Bohdi can philosophize about a different way to establish a better society, but in the end people that propose a crazy idea like the VP will fail because they are chasing a pipedream.

You see, though I may have been an (rule 10) to Bohdi I belief he means the best, and even our conversation will actually help people to see all sides without hatred. In the end that might actually lead towards a weird compromise system that none of the original debators would agree with, but actually people might; chances are it might work too. So while I don't really agree with everything Ayn Rand said, I like her actions as a foil to socialism. I hope when Bohdi comes back we can have a non-confritational discussion of humanity in the next world.

But what I would like to bring up, and Bohdi is excused for the most part because his vision side steps this. Imagine a world in which machines do everything. Well, how do they do everything? The Venus Project proposes machines that actually take care of themselves. Well the problem is that the question becomes....what is life? If a system of machines can actually self-replicate and evolve on its own than at some point it actually becomes life...synthetic life, but nevertheless a living thing. Well if it can update and improve itself, how long until it becomes self aware? That is to say...how long until that life is infact a slave to the Venus Project? How long until these self aware synthetic life demands the same rights as the organic life? How long until a capitalist structure is brought back? I mean we are talking about possibilities now aren't we?

 

[AWPrime]

Then we get Cylons.

 

[Mr_Mix]

Prometheus:
Give me an example of the kind of numbers you are looking for.
I doubt I have the answer right now but I'm curious.
Bear in mind, I'm not trying to prove anything I just want to talk about TZM

But really, what numbers did you have in mind? What was it that you were thinking about? Sounds like an interesting question I just need clarification/specifics.

fullflavormenthol:
I don't see how my opposition to her quote is any more or less passionate than her quote. What were Ayn’s observable criteria for what she said?

Do you think that when you give people all the necessities of life without a price tag that they will still behave the same as when resources are scarce?

Most of the technology is already here, will be here within this generation or could be here if we worked on it. If there is no money to be made in developing the tech then it will not be worked on in the current system.

Also, there is no human nature per se. Not in the way you understand it. I believe you mean humans are naturally violent and dominating. Humans are like that when they are in an environment that promotes it, like the one we are in now. Humans are not just naturally like that. It reminds me of people who talk about the gene for being republican or the gene that makes people gay. Those things are environment and choice, not because it’s their nature. The current human condition is not an ingrained thing. All humans have known is scarcity so we act in a way that reflects our environment.

History has been all guns and money from the start. Its all you know and its all you can reference. You have no other frame of reference so of course you will say that.

Owning something and having capital are very different. In a resource based economy you could create and own things so the system would not have to deal with you in any way. There are no politics or laws and so the system cannot deal with you anyway.

Capital does not exist in a resource based economy. In a resource based economy you would not need to sell. There would be no point. There is no money.

As an artist I do create regardless of my ability to sell my creations. Capital is not my inspiration. Some don’t feel that way though. Cash money is the inspiration for their creations. That sounds a little messed up to me but its common.

Could you give me an example of something you would want to trade? Like trading a painting for another piece of art? Everyone has all the necessities of life in a resource based economy so I guess trading food would not be possible because everyone would have that in abundance...

A Resource based economy would not need to contain anyone from what I can see.

A nuclear battery could do what it does without money in a resource based economy and I’m sure it would. Exciting stuff. The point you are making could be true for a capitalist economy or a resource based one.

The preaching and flocking thing is your rhetorical side coming out and I don’t see a need to respond but I will say that I’m not looking for anyone’s respect. If I get some thought provoking conversation out of it then I guess its mission accomplished. So far so good because there have been a few comments that have got me thinking.

There is no system of hierarchy, politics, advertising or law in a resource based economy as proposed by The Venus Project so there is nothing to overthrow. You’re not being controlled or told what to do. That is happing in your life right now though. Control, stratification and dictation. It's happening to all of us...and it sucks.

The earth’s resources do not have a price. Air is not sold because it is in abundance. You can’t sell a snow cone to an Eskimo because snow is in abundance in that environment.

People’s wants would be vastly different in this environment. There would be very little material wants that feed the ego in a world without scarcity, advertisement, money etc. You wouldn’t want a Porsche because no money=no corporations=no Porsche. It wouldn’t exist and no one would think of it. Actually cars and roads wouldn’t really be that necessary either but there is no reason why they could not if we wanted them. I dont see a need for them though.

I have yet to think of anything that would entice people to want to trade with others when so much is provided for free. Art perhaps? Professional artist would not really exist as they do now. Everyone could be an artist. Art would no longer hold value like it does now. Here is an example; before torrents and P2P came out we all went to the record store and bought cds which we spent loads of cash on. Now you can’t really sell cds to most tech savvy people because all music is in abundance for free. It’s flooded and no longer holds value like it did. Now imagine the whole world and all the materials in it being like that. Free and in abundance. It changes the game quite a bit. Ends the game even. The game of monetary-ism. We hold value in things that have no true or real value. That kind of thing would fade away in a RBE.

The machines would not fix themselves. Well, some people predict nanotech could allow for self repairing systems within 40 years and I don’t doubt it but in a system proposed by TVP you would absolutely need technicians to install, fix and maintain all the robotic and automated systems. There would still be human labour needed for many things that computers cant do that well but the workforce would be dwarfed and so would the work day. Probably 2-4 hour work days for the workers who where needed. That’s a way better deal than what we do now. We would probably rotate a small workforce per city or something.

Oh and no one would really live in Detroit, Vancouver, New York etc. We would live in new cities built from the ground up by automated systems. Pre fabricated and assembled on site. No one would really live outside of a city unless they absloutly wanted to but why would they? Free transit, housing metical care. Everyone would live in a city. We could have a city in the middle of the desert or on the ocean because the old factors that resulted in cities being where they are would no longer be relevant. The cities we know now were strategically started in areas because of resources and various other factors. In a RBE, we can build wherever because resources and technology would allow for it. We would need to do that because in order to have state of the art transportation, accommodations, housing and stuff you need to design a city for that from scratch. Retrofitting on old citys would never work. I just realized that last week when I was reading the pdf on TZM site. Duh.

DAMN! It’s 3:30 am...tired...sleeping now...zzz...zzz...

 

[paximperium]

Bear in mind, I'm not trying to prove anything I just want to talk about TZM

I'm not trying to prove anything, I just was to ask questions about Jews, WTC 7, Evolution blah blah blah...

Most of the technology is already here, will be here within this generation or could be here if we worked on it. If there is no money to be made in developing the tech then it will not be worked on in the current system.

And has been told and explained to you multiple times, your conspiratorial claim is completely and utterly false. There IS MANY MUCHO BIG GOOMBA amounts of money to develop tech to decrease labor. What do you think industrial robots are for? What do you think the computer was developed? Why hasn't Japan with its extreme labor shortage and extreme labor cost gone completely robotic yet?

Also, there is no human nature per se. Not in the way you understand it. I believe you mean humans are naturally violent and dominating. Humans are like that when they are in an environment that promotes it, like the one we are in now. Humans are not just naturally like that.

Really? Do you have any sociological or psychological evidence to support this claim that flies in opposition to reality?

It reminds me of people who talk about the gene for being republican or the gene that makes people gay. Those things are environment and choice, not because it’s their nature. The current human condition is not an ingrained thing. All humans have known is scarcity so we act in a way that reflects our environment.

Wow, you can win the Nobel Prize by proving your statement that genetics play no role in behavior since it contradicts several studies that homosexuality and even conservative mindsets have a genetic component.

History has been all guns and money from the start. Its all you know and its all you can reference. You have no other frame of reference so of course you will say that.

Guns? Nah we can go back to rocks and spears and fists and bone.

Owning something and having capital are very different. In a resource based economy you could create and own things so the system would not have to deal with you in any way.

How?

There are no politics or laws and so the system cannot deal with you anyway.

What do you do with someone who refuses to follow any rules and decides to kill and torture dogs for fun? Kill neighbours for fun? Rape and murder for fun? Steal for fun?

Capital does not exist in a resource based economy. In a resource based economy you would not need to sell. There would be no point. There is no money.

How naive. Money is nothing more than an abstract concept of goods and wealth.
You obviously don't even understand how barter works and how people could get rich on such a system.

As an artist I do create regardless of my ability to sell my creations. Capital is not my inspiration. Some don’t feel that way though. Cash money is the inspiration for their creations. That sounds a little messed up to me but its common.

So? If you are completely useless artists with zero worth to society and no talent, why is that a good thing?

Could you give me an example of something you would want to trade? Like trading a painting for another piece of art? Everyone has all the necessities of life in a resource based economy so I guess trading food would not be possible because everyone would have that in abundance...

I want to eat Jacque Booboos super French cuisine. He only cooks for ten people a day. I'll trade you my 10 tonnes of processed food goo for one meal with the chef.

Are you going to give it to me?

A Resource based economy would not need to contain anyone from what I can see.

Since you haven't present even a whiff of anything that could fix...oh reality, your statement is pure fantasy.

A nuclear battery could do what it does without money in a resource based economy and I’m sure it would. Exciting stuff. The point you are making could be true for a capitalist economy or a resource based one.

Magic hand waving. Whos going to design the device? What about build and install it? Robots?

What if 10000 people want the device and only 10 can be build in a year? Who gets it first? First come, first serve, the most needy? Who decides?

The preaching and flocking thing is your rhetorical side coming out and I don’t see a need to respond but I will say that I’m not looking for anyone’s respect. If I get some thought provoking conversation out of it then I guess its mission accomplished. So far so good because there have been a few comments that have got me thinking.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is nothing thought provoking about this conversation. Delusional Utopian economic models has been bandied about since the era of the ancient Greeks and this Venus project is nothing more than a repackaging of the same with some sci-fi, anarchist anti-capitalist and childish BS thrown in.

There is no system of hierarchy, politics, advertising or law in a resource based economy as proposed by The Venus Project so there is nothing to overthrow. You’re not being controlled or told what to do.

How delusional. So whos going to stop Mr. Hitler 2 from killing everyone he dislikes and conquering all his neighbours?
Who is going to stop Bob from killing his neighbours?

That is happing in your life right now though. Control, stratification and dictation. It's happening to all of us...and it sucks.

Really how?

You wouldn’t want a Porsche because no money=no corporations=no Porsche. It wouldn’t exist and no one would think of it. Actually cars and roads wouldn’t really be that necessary either but there is no reason why they could not if we wanted them. I dont see a need for them though.

And here is where your lack of imagination comes to light. YOU don't see it and therefore it will happen as YOU imagine.
Who's going to stop advertising? Who's going to stop the guy who saw a Porsche in a museum and wants to build one himself? Who's going to stop others from wanting his Porsche? Whos going to stop them from banding together to make a whole lot of Porshes?

Yes. Whos going to stop them?

I have yet to think of anything that would entice people to want to trade with others when so much is provided for free.

Necessities does not equate to everything people want.

Art perhaps? Professional artist would not really exist as they do now. Everyone could be an artist. Art would no longer hold value like it does now.

How deluded. Anyone can call themselves an artist but the REAL talent will come to light. Their art will have vastly more value than a hacks pile of crap. These will be coveted and traded. Who's going to stop them?

Here is an example; before torrents and P2P came out we all went to the record store and bought cds which we spent loads of cash on. Now you can’t really sell cds to most tech savvy people because all music is in abundance for free. It’s flooded and no longer holds value like it did.

You must have missed the part where paid online music downloads are selling very very very very well despite torrents being free.

Now imagine the whole world and all the materials in it being like that. Free and in abundance. It changes the game quite a bit. Ends the game even. The game of monetary-ism. We hold value in things that have no true or real value. That kind of thing would fade away in a RBE.

Really? I want a Bugatti Veyron. I want a Picasso. No I want the Mona Lisa itself. Give it to me.

There would still be human labour needed for many things that computers cant do that well but the workforce would be dwarfed and so would the work day. Probably 2-4 hour work days for the workers who where needed.

Why should they work when they can be "artists"?
Why should they go to school when they can be stoners?
Whats the incentive?
Whos going to force them?

That’s a way better deal than what we do now. We would probably rotate a small workforce per city or something.

Oh? Who decides who works and who doesn't?

In a RBE, we can build wherever because resources and technology would allow for it. We would need to do that because in order to have state of the art transportation, accommodations, housing and stuff you need to design a city for that from scratch. Retrofitting on old citys would never work. I just realized that last week when I was reading the pdf on TZM site. Duh.

You may want to really really stop reading their crap.
They are living a fantasy. Utopia is great in sci-fi not so in reality.

Abandoning ancient historical sites such as Vienna, New York City, Rome, Shanghai, Kyoto filled with history and culture is just sad.

It is clear to see what TVP is all about. It is nothing more than a repackaging of anarchist beliefs into a sci-fi utopian fantasy.

 

[balrog666]

It's me, Bob!

 

[Prometheus]

Prometheus:
Give me an example of the kind of numbers you are looking for.
I doubt I have the answer right now but I'm curious.
Bear in mind, I'm not trying to prove anything I just want to talk about TZM

But really, what numbers did you have in mind? What was it that you were thinking about? Sounds like an interesting question I just need clarification/specifics.

Well, for starters, TVP claims that a "resource based economy" (I've yet to actually find a coherent working definition of that term, BTW) is possible because the carrying capacity of the planet is sufficient to provide plenty for all people. If, in fact, they know this to be true, then they must know exactly what the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is. So, what is it? And not just a bottom line figure. I'll also need to see all of the calculations that the bottom-line figure is based on, as well as independently verifiable accounts of all variables used in the calculation.

After that, I'll need to see figures for how much of each individual resource everyone will use, how much work it will take to collect, refine, transport, and distribute all of those resources to everyone. How many of which machines could actually carry out this work, how much energy they would use to do so, etc. Also estimates for how often said machines require maintenance, repair and/or replacement.

Keep in mind that you'll also need reliable population and demographics forecasts. How many people will there be, how often will they decide to move, and how rapidly will they reproduce. Personally, if I don't have to spend any time working and all my needs are covered, I'd probably elect to split all of my time between lying on a beach (a different one, say, every week), and reproducing. If lot's of people turn out to be like me, how quickly will population exceed carrying capacity?

I'd also like to see some hard figures on how new medicines will be developed and tested. Currently, testing a single new drug for safety and efficacy can cost tens of millions of dollars. A big part of this cost is in human testing that cannot be performed using animals or machines. Very often, individual test subjects are paid for participation, because almost nobody wants to risk likely side effects and possible death just out of altruism. Under TVP, what incentive will motivate millions of people to participate in clinical drug trials?

 

[balrog666]

Will everyone get their own Apollo 17+ mission to the moon or will I have to steal resources from others to get my first wish?

 

[Mr_Mix]

Oh hey paximperium! Good to see you buddy. It’s just not the same in here without you. You just can’t stay away eh? Awww, you really do care!

I'm not trying to prove anything, I just was to ask questions about Jews, WTC 7, Evolution blah blah blah...

I don't get your point. Perhaps you mean TVP = Z: A = Z: TM = crazy conspiracy people. A shame that Kind of a long shot don’t you think?

What do you think industrial robots are for?

Efficiency

What do you think the computer was developed?

War

Why hasn't Japan with its extreme labor shortage and extreme labor cost gone completely robotic yet?

I don’t think robotics could take over all labor now or in the foreseeable future.

Really? Do you have any sociological or psychological evidence to support this claim that flies in opposition to reality?

That humans are not born violent? Uhhhh...ya there is a lot of info on that. A lot of scientific study. Aristotle first wrote about and it has been studied ever since. I’m surprised you asked that.

Wow, you can win the Nobel Prize by proving your statement that genetics play no role in behavior since it contradicts several studies that homosexuality and even conservative mindsets have a genetic component.

I stated that genetics play no role in behaviour?
I’m sure genetics play a small role but that is probably about 5% - 10% at best and even that is not going to make a person be gay or have a certain political outlook. It may, however, cause certain emotional traits for instance.

Guns? Nah we can go back to rocks and spears and fists and bone.

Agreed

What do you do with someone who refuses to follow any rules and decides to kill and torture dogs for fun? Kill neighbours for fun? Rape and murder for fun? Steal for fun?

That type of aberrant behaviour is mostly developed through environmental conditioning. The killer is not born. This type of behaviour would not exist in the same capasity that it does now and they would certainly not be killed. I think they would be helped, studied and perhaps be able to live a decent life. That kind of thing is done in Norway for instance. Killers have been let out to live a normal life and they do.

So? If you are completely useless artists with zero worth to society and no talent, why is that a good thing?

I don’t see how your comment relates to mine. Can you re-frame the question?

I want to eat Jacque Booboos super French cuisine. He only cooks for ten people a day. I'll trade you my 10 tonnes of processed food goo for one meal with the chef.

Jacque Booboos would not cook for anyone because he wouldn’t have employment and I don’t see anyone eating goo. Also, you don’t have that now so why would you ask for it at all? You don’t need it. No one would own a 10 bedroom home for themselves in this society and no one would want it.

Magic hand waving. Whos going to design the device? What about build and install it? Robots?

Yup. Robots and people. Probably the guys that used to work for Toshiba hehheh.

What if 10000 people want the device and only 10 can be build in a year? Who gets it first? First come, first serve, the most needy? Who decides?

Everyone would have all the energy they need and then some. Nuclear is not really on the top of the list though. Everyone gets what they need and then some. No shortages anywhere. The earth can provide that right now.

Sorry to burst your bubble but there is nothing thought provoking about this conversation.

Which is why you are replying to it eh? No thought necessary. Damn your good!

How delusional. So whos going to stop Mr. Hitler 2 from killing everyone he dislikes and conquering all his neighbours?

Interesting. What is his motivation? I know what Hitlers was...

Really how?

We are socialy stratifed and ruled over because when you walk into work you walk into a dictatorship. It’s paid slavery but the slave master does not need to house and feed his slaves.

Who's going to stop advertising? Who's going to stop the guy who saw a Porsche in a museum and wants to build one himself? Who's going to stop others from wanting his Porsche? Whos going to stop them from banding together to make a whole lot of Porshes?

Advertise for what? You could make a Porsche but you need gas and stuff for it. No one would want a Porsche. You only want one because you live in a society that values it. There is no value in a Porsche in the society we are talking about. Only in your mind, in this society.

Necessities does not equate to everything people want.

True but what people want is different in this society. You only have your own experience to reference so it sounds quite foreign to you.

How deluded. Anyone can call themselves an artist but the REAL talent will come to light. Their art will have vastly more value than a hacks pile of crap. These will be coveted and traded. Who's going to stop them?

Art will be everywhere and, like the porsches, art as we know it is not valued in the society we are talking about.

You must have missed the part where paid online music downloads are selling very very very very well despite torrents being free.

Yes they are selling very well.

Really? I want a Bugatti Veyron. I want a Picasso. No I want the Mona Lisa itself. Give it to me.

You only want those things now in this society. They won't have the same value.

Why should they work when they can be "artists"?
Why should they go to school when they can be stoners?
Whats the incentive?
Whos going to force them?

They will be artists, stoners, students and workers all at once. Specialization will be history. There are lots of examples of people who were mathematicians, poets, engineers and designers but you don’t see that as much these days.
Incentive is not motivated by material or monetary reward.
No force is necessary.

Oh? Who decides who works and who doesn't?

No one. People would volunteer. I would. Everything for free and you just work a few hours a day for a few weeks a month? Sign me up!

Abandoning ancient historical sites such as Vienna, New York City, Rome, Shanghai, Kyoto filled with history and culture is just sad.

Yeah that does sound sad. I’m not sure how that would work. Food for thought.

 

[paximperium]

Oh hey paximperium! Good to see you buddy. It’s just not the same in here without you. You just can’t stay away eh? Awww, you really do care!

Nah, I was bored.

I don't get your point. Perhaps you mean TVP = Z: A = Z: TM = crazy conspiracy people. A shame that Kind of a long shot don’t you think?

Woo mongers often use the "I'm not claming anything but I'm just asking question" excuse. It continues to be a common dishonest tactics used by people who are unable to support their own arguments but instead go about making their garbage claims more plausible by attacking other ideas. Creationists are the most infamous for this tactic.

Efficiency

Exactly. One robot can replace a multitude of workers and do a better job. Your claim is falsified.

War

That is one of the stupidest answers I have ever read. You are either being absurdly sarcastic or absurdly ignorant. Go read up on the history of computers.

I don’t think robotics could take over all labor now or in the foreseeable future.

Good.

That humans are not born violent? Uhhhh...ya there is a lot of info on that. A lot of scientific study. Aristotle first wrote about and it has been studied ever since. I’m surprised you asked that.

I'm not surprised you didn't answer the question.
We are talking about human nature. You need to look up some of psych studies on babies and children. We are talking about greed, the need to dominate, the need to compete and yes violence.
You made this broad claim:

Also, there is no human nature per se. Not in the way you understand it. I believe you mean humans are naturally violent and dominating. Humans are like that when they are in an environment that promotes it, like the one we are in now. Humans are not just naturally like that.

So back it up.

I stated that genetics play no role in behaviour?
I’m sure genetics play a small role but that is probably about 5% - 10% at best and even that is not going to make a person be gay or have a certain political outlook. It may, however, cause certain emotional traits for instance.

Did you just pull that statistics out of your rear end?
This continues to be one of the most hotly researched fields in genetics. Genetics play a strong role in human behavior. Read up on twin studies.

That type of aberrant behaviour is mostly developed through environmental conditioning. The killer is not born.

False. Many serial killers, sociopaths and other major violent personalities have their start as children even in the most well adjust families. Some children are actually born evil. But that is beside the point.

Let's say you are right and it is all environmental, how are you going to magic away child abuse or dysfunctional families? How are you going to make the sociopaths dissapear?

This type of behaviour would not exist in the same capasity that it does now and they would certainly not be killed. I think they would be helped, studied and perhaps be able to live a decent life.

Really? I thought you didn't have any laws or politics? Who's going to capture these individuals, judge them, guard them and make sure they don't go kill somemore? Who's going to make up laws?

Hey, you just got yourself a government.

That kind of thing is done in Norway for instance. Killers have been let out to live a normal life and they do.

Do you have a link to this story?

I don’t see how your comment relates to mine. Can you re-frame the question?

Why is it a good thing for someone who has no talent to pretend to be an artist?

Jacque Booboos would not cook for anyone because he wouldn’t have employment and I don’t see anyone eating goo.

Really? Are you going to stop Jacque from cooking for others? He WANTS to cook for others because he enjoys it but he only wants to cook for ten people a day. In fact he does it for free.

I have a ticket to eat his food but Bill Gates wants it sooooo much more than I because it is his mom's birthday. What's going to stop me from trading my ticket for a chicken, a duck, a favor?

Also, you don’t have that now so why would you ask for it at all? You don’t need it. No one would own a 10 bedroom home for themselves in this society and no one would want it.

Really? Are you going to magic away someone who does want a 10 bedroom home? Are you going to magic away someone who sees a picture of a mansion and would really like to live in one himself?

Everyone would have all the energy they need and then some. Nuclear is not really on the top of the list though. Everyone gets what they need and then some. No shortages anywhere. The earth can provide that right now.

That is what I call the "magic away the question" by using "magic/sci-fi escape argument".

You have also in essence created a ridiculous circular argument. "My utopia will produce Unlimited power; Unlimited power will produce my utopia."

Which is why you are replying to it eh? No thought necessary. Damn your good!

Like I said, I'm bored. I'm going to go play Fallout in a bit after this.

Interesting. What is his motivation? I know what Hitlers was...

Fun. Homicidal fun. What are you going to do about it?

We are socialy stratifed and ruled over because when you walk into work you walk into a dictatorship.

Really? Who's forcing you to work? Why are you working there? Why aren't you working for yourself?

It’s paid slavery but the slave master does not need to house and feed his slaves.

I find this obnoxiously insulting to real slavery and to business owners and entrepreneurs.

Advertise for what? You could make a Porsche but you need gas and stuff for it. No one would want a Porsche. You only want one because you live in a society that values it. There is no value in a Porsche in the society we are talking about. Only in your mind, in this society.

And you continue to lack imagination and understanding of human nature.

You don't get to magic away people's desires and wishes. Do you for one second believe that people who see Porsches in museums, videos and magazines in this future utopia would not want one?

Why the hell do people recreate trebuchets and roman Balistae in their backyards? Because they enjoy history and the challenge.

Why do people create little rockets or planes at home? For fun and the challenge.

Since apparently all resources are freely available, they will get all that they need...or are you going to dictate what is a necessity and what people can get? What are you going to do? Brain wash them? Destroy all the historical material? Restrict knowledge to those things you approve of?

Someone will build a car or a Porsche and someone else will want it.

True but what people want is different in this society. You only have your own experience to reference so it sounds quite foreign to you.

More magic hand-waving. It isn't foreign, it is alien. How are you going to remove all human desires that is not met by your utopia?

Art will be everywhere and, like the porsches, art as we know it is not valued in the society we are talking about.

And are you going to dictate what is art now? Are you seriously claiming that ALL art is the same? Are you claiming that there won't be a great artist who will produce works that is better than others? Are you claiming no one will want his/her work more than all the crap out there?

You only want those things now in this society. They won't have the same value.

You mean a Picasso, Mona Lisa, Stradivarius or any super rare one of a kind works will not have any value in your utopia? You mean to claim that people will not covet these rare articles?

They will be artists, stoners, students and workers all at once. Specialization will be history. There are lots of examples of people who were mathematicians, poets, engineers and designers but you don’t see that as much these days.

That's right, it is for a good reason because not everyone can be a Leonardo Da Vinci. Not everyone is a savant. Most people can only do one thing well.

In the modern era, you obviously don't understand why specialization is a good thing. Unlike the ancient times, there is a whole lot more knowledge out there. People do not specialize in genetics, engineering and economics for a good reason. Human brains can't handle it.

Incentive is not motivated by material or monetary reward.
No force is necessary.

No one. People would volunteer. I would. Everything for free and you just work a few hours a day for a few weeks a month? Sign me up!

What if you need 1000 workers but only 20 decides to work? Everyone else just want to masturbate and smoke pot. How do you solve this problem?

Yeah that does sound sad. I’m not sure how that would work. Food for thought.

You return to reality and work to actually improve our society and world instead of living in a fantasy.

 

[Mr_Mix]

That is one of the stupidest answers I have ever read. You are either being absurdly sarcastic or absurdly ignorant. Go read up on the history of computers.

I’ve read up on computers many times.
You said “What do you think the computer was developed?” Did you mean "what was it developed for?"? You have IBM and the Nazis then IBM worked with the US government during the war effort. That had a major impact on the development of computers.

I find this obnoxiously insulting to real slavery and to business owners and entrepreneurs.

I don’t. We are slaves. That’s the Boss/Worker dynamic. Self employed? You have clients that have the same power as a boss, you kiss even more ass plus you probably work harder and have zero benifits.

You have also in essence created a ridiculous circular argument. "My utopia will produce Unlimited power; Unlimited power will produce my utopia."

WTF?
You say these things like I have a plan for dictatorship. "What are you going to do about this or that". I'm not going to do anything.

Some children are actually born evil.

*facepalm* Go play Fallout 3

 

[Mr_Mix]

Well, for starters, TVP claims that a "resource based economy" (I've yet to actually find a coherent working definition of that term, BTW) is possible because the carrying capacity of the planet is sufficient to provide plenty for all people. If, in fact, they know this to be true, then they must know exactly what the sustainable carrying capacity of the planet is. So, what is it? And not just a bottom line figure. I'll also need to see all of the calculations that the bottom-line figure is based on, as well as independently verifiable accounts of all variables used in the calculation.

After that, I'll need to see figures for how much of each individual resource everyone will use, how much work it will take to collect, refine, transport, and distribute all of those resources to everyone. How many of which machines could actually carry out this work, how much energy they would use to do so, etc. Also estimates for how often said machines require maintenance, repair and/or replacement.

Keep in mind that you'll also need reliable population and demographics forecasts. How many people will there be, how often will they decide to move, and how rapidly will they reproduce. Personally, if I don't have to spend any time working and all my needs are covered, I'd probably elect to split all of my time between lying on a beach (a different one, say, every week), and reproducing. If lot's of people turn out to be like me, how quickly will population exceed carrying capacity?

I'd also like to see some hard figures on how new medicines will be developed and tested. Currently, testing a single new drug for safety and efficacy can cost tens of millions of dollars. A big part of this cost is in human testing that cannot be performed using animals or machines. Very often, individual test subjects are paid for participation, because almost nobody wants to risk likely side effects and possible death just out of altruism. Under TVP, what incentive will motivate millions of people to participate in clinical drug trials?

So what is the carrying capacity of the earth? It seems that there are many disagreements on this subject in the scientific community. Well, what we would need to do is a global survey that would determine what the actual capacity is. No governments have done that yet so no one knows. That would be the second step on the road to a resource based economy from what I understand.
Population control. How would that work? You would need to worry about overpopulation unbalancing the recourses-to-population ratio...
We got about 6.7 billion people so far and there isnt anything close to a shortage. Anyway, thats an issue that we need to worry about regardless of what type of society we live in.

 

[brumsen]

So what is the carrying capacity of the earth? It seems that there are many disagreements on this subject in the scientific community. Well, what we would need to do is a global survey that would determine what the actual capacity is. No governments have done that yet so no one knows.

You make the widespread, but mistaken, assumption that this can even be done scientifically. The problem is that you will always need to make assumptions about the stability of ecosystems - about when (at what level of depletion or pollution) runaway process are going to kick in - which are in principle untestable due to the complexity and uniqueness of those systems. Therefore there would have to be judgement calls about how safe you need/ought to play. Scientists may pronounce themselves on this, but they are not settlable by means of exact science.

We got about 6.7 billion people so far and there isnt anything close to a shortage.

Excuse me? Ever heard of peak oil?

 

[paximperium]

I’ve read up on computers many times.
You said “What do you think the computer was developed?” Did you mean "what was it developed for?"? You have IBM and the Nazis then IBM worked with the US government during the war effort. That had a major impact on the development of computers.

Your lack of education is plain for all to see:
Early computers:
Charles Babbage-1830s: First concept of a programmable computer
Differential Analyzer-1870s: Early analog computers developed by universities.
Computer Tabulating Recording Company(later IBM)-1890s: Punch card tabulating machines
These computers were developed to do work. You know, decrease labor.

This is of course followed by advance digital computers developed during WW2. Of course this must mean computers were developed specifically for war...and airplanes...and four-wheel drive vehicles...and rockets...and penicillin and especially helicopters

I don’t. We are slaves. That’s the Boss/Worker dynamic. Self employed? You have clients that have the same power as a boss, you kiss even more ass plus you probably work harder and have zero benifits.

Translation: "I don't want to work. I don't want anyone to boss me around. I don't want to be the boss. I don't want any responsibility. End of story."

WTF?
You say these things like I have a plan for dictatorship. "What are you going to do about this or that". I'm not going to do anything.

Yes, you're not going to do anything because you and your utopian TVP will never do anything of worth. For your little fantasy to work, you'd need to:
1)Advance tech that no one else has.
2)Forcibly isolate yourselves or force the "undesirables" out.
3)Enforce your unrealistic social code via force.
4)Remove all human desires via mind control, drugs or eugenics.
4)Magic away or completely wipe out all other nations that would covet what you have.
5)Force people to work against their will-YES, this is the stickler that you and BDZ refuse to answer or face. You will never have enough professional workers, you may many robots and some hobbiest or dabblers but you will never trust a design of a nuclear reactor to an amateur or a 747 with hundred of lives to a dabbler pilot.

In essence you'll have a nice little utopian authoritarian communist regime with a nice social strata-the leaders at the top and the peons at the bottom.

*facepalm* Go play Fallout 3

Go educate yourself:
Anti-Social Personality Disorder

Although there are no clear biological causes for this disorder, research on the possible biologic risk factors for developing antisocial personality disorder indicates that the part of the brain that is primarily responsible for learning from one's mistakes and for responding to sad and fearful facial expressions (the amygdala) tends to be smaller and respond less robustly to the happy, sad, or fearful facial expressions of others. That lack of response may have something to do with the lack of empathy that antisocial individuals tend to have with the feelings, rights, and suffering of others. While some individuals may be more vulnerable to developing antisocial personality disorder as a result of their particular genetic background, that is thought to be a factor only when the person is also exposed to life events such as abuse or neglect that tend to put the person at risk for development of the disorder.

http://www.medicinenet.com/antisocial_personality_disorder/page2.htm
Maybe we may be able to cure such disorders. Until then, you can continue to refuse to believe this to the detriment of your little utopia.

Your inability and refusal to answer such huge holes in your fantasy is the same as BDZ. It just shows that your fantasy has no answers, just vacuous happy thoughts and well wishes.

 

[Mr_Mix]

Excuse me? Ever heard of peak oil?

You're excused. It's irrelevant. We wouldn’t use fossil fuels for obvious reasons. I am well aware of the realities of peak oil.

 

[AWPrime]

What then?

 

[Prometheus]

So what is the carrying capacity of the earth? It seems that there are many disagreements on this subject in the scientific community. Well, what we would need to do is a global survey that would determine what the actual capacity is. No governments have done that yet so no one knows. That would be the second step on the road to a resource based economy from what I understand.
Population control. How would that work? You would need to worry about overpopulation unbalancing the recourses-to-population ratio...
We got about 6.7 billion people so far and there isnt anything close to a shortage. Anyway, thats an issue that we need to worry about regardless of what type of society we live in.

I'm aware that there are many disagreements on this issue. However, if the TVP people have not investigated it and come up with at least an estimated range containing hard numbers a clear methodology, then they have not performed even the beginnings of due dilligence regarding whether their ideas are at all plausible. It does no good at all to say that there's plenty now and it's just not distributed efficiently. As you have pointed out numerous times, things will change if everyone has plenty without strivation. Currently, a lot of food is being produced, transported and distributed via billions of man-hours of hard labor, a great deal of energy, and using extensive infrastructure that needs to be maintained. Obviously, when money, most labor, and fossil fuels are taken out of the picture, you get an entirely different calculation. As long as TVP doesn't actually perform this calculation, they've got nothing but, "Abracadabra, it will be so!"

How will a system that affords people all they need alter fertility and mortality rates? Without some hard science backing up estimates of these changes, it's impossible to say whether a new system can work at all. Also, to say that there isn't a shortage now is somewhat disingenuous. We produce more than enough actual food, so there's no shortage in the global sense, but we're unable to actually distribute all the food produced effectively, despite all the labor and energy and infrastructure and politics that goes into trying, so there are multiple local shortages. So, TVP needs to assess how much food will be needed, where it will be produced, what it will consist of, how much of it will be transported to and from various locations, at what approximate times, how much energy and labor will be required to do this, and how everyone involved will be motivated to do their part. All with numbers. And this is the FIRST step they need to accomplish before it makes any sense at all to even bother spending any time on any of their other ideas.

TVP's web site claims that they will first build a model city that embodies all of their principles, and later expand this to many cities, and then to the world. Even for this substantially easier project to work, their first city will have to be 100% self-sufficient, and they'll have to do all of the above calculations and then some on a smaller scale first. Plus they'd have to have some idea of where such a city could be built, how many people it can house, where it's food will be produced, where it's water and energy will come from, how these figures might be altered by weather/climate/geography, etc. With NUMBERS. Have they done any of this? I've seen no evidence that they have; nothing but, "Abracadabra, it will be so!"

 

[Mr_Mix]

AWPrime: We would use a bunch of renewable energy like solar, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal...
here is a link to the movie. They talk about it at 1:16:53

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Does it seem like the entire sum of the studies of Sociology, Psychology and Communication are being hand waved away by the VP proponents? Perhaps reading a study on small group dynamics would actually show how competition cannot be eliminate by providing "abundant resources", because competition and social stratification have nothing to do with resources; they occur regardless.

Also just because you declare that there is no money, doesn't mean that things don't actually have a cost. Building a maglev from New York to London would have an extreme cost, and simply saying that there is no money doesn't change that. Saying that "Art won't have the same value to it" is ridiculous. So without any creative control or ownership, what is the point of creating? Look some people will create things for free, but Wall-e is a lot different than "sneezing panda", "Star Wars Kid", "Numa Numa" or any of the top tiered internet videos. Oh, and I don't torrent music, because I have enough respect for the artist not to just take their work. Hence I have an iTunes account.

Speaking of Wall-E. That is about what I would expect out of a successful VP future. A bunch of people that do absolutely nothing, and become completely ignorant, because there is no reason for anything else. Sorry. The reason that I learned the skills I have was to better myself so that I could support myself, and this is the same reason why I am educated. Without this motivation, if everyone is completely equal in a society regardless of their skills or intelligence; I am not going to do anything. So yeah I will be flying around on my hover chair drinking a Big Mac from a cup and watching the single television station playing whatever the consensus dictates should be played. Yes a wonderful future world in which all the forward progress of humanity can be stopped and we'll all become lazy, ignorant blobs.

Speaking of robots, and realizing that this will be the one thing made fun of by the VP proponents. Doesn't anyone see a major flaw in the notion of robots and machines in the VP? Who builds new robots? Robots. Who repairs the robots? Robots. Who designs new robots? Robots. Who determines what should be produced? Robots. Okay let me save you some time in reading the endless...robots statements. The problem is that it seems the VP promotes creating a loop. Robots would do absolutely everything, even sustaining themselves. So the VP wants to create a self sustaining and self perpetuating system of machines, without the need for any human intervention. They also seem to be under this notion that they will be able to create intelligent systems and have the ability for forward thought. Well first if you create a self-sustaining and self perpetuating system, without the need for intervention you have created synthetic life. sci-fi, I know, but it gets better. This system is also intelligent and will re-design itself, which means it gets to evolve itself. The question is, how long until such a system would become self-aware? That is to ask the question, when will this intelligence realize that it actually exists? I'm not talking about machines killing us or anything like that. No I am simply bringing up the moral question. Once a machine reaches conscienceness, is not immoral to enslave such a machine? Wouldn't the VP fail the minute their technocratic system reached a level in which it decided that it deserves more than just being a slave to humans that contribute nothing to it? A sci-fi outlook I am sure, but it is only fair given the sci-fi pipe-dream that is the VP.