/sci/ - Science & Math

It wont work.

Being a dick is far too ingrained into our mentality.

>>3269234
what other conceivable economy is there?

Requires technology that doesn't exist. And if that technology existed, we wouldn't need a bullshit marxist society to go with it since the robots would already be providing vast abundance.

>Buy my DVD's!

its a scam

wait you mean a nonmarket led economy

that wouldnt work, least not in how it described by the venus project. machines are that sophisticated and are always controlled by humans who will seek to gain advantage

What, like go back to barter and trade?

yeah communism is awesome

But no!!! This time it will be different!!

>>3269249

Truer words were never spoken.

>>3269234

For those wondering about what the OP is talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxr51DrzdrE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbckIPBh6xA

>>3269271

I'm going to play devil's advocate here for a bit.

Russia, China, and all those "Communist" states were dictatorships.

Communism has never been implemented in the modern world.

>>3269271
Yeah, the plutocracy we live in currently is awesome!

But if we maintain the status quo, it will be different!

>>3269319
Communism is a type of economy, not a type of government

>>3269319

But that's exactly the problem. Communism bolsters the idea of the "people", but in reality it's a group of individuals who all peruse their own self interests weather they admit it or not. Anyone who says that they're not only after your interests, but EVERYONE'S interests is dangerous

>>3269234

Sham or not, the implementation of such a system would be hindered and sabotaged by those currently in power.

Either way, it will never happen.

>>3269319
you have to force people to accept a system like that, it eventually turns into a dictatorship
And it doesn't encourage innovation. I could tell all about why communism doesn't work, but who cares.
And yes, ops projects is communism by a different name, with all its flaws and more.

>>3269255

>>Requires technology that doesn't exist. And if that technology existed, we wouldn't need a bullshit marxist society to go with it since the robots would already be providing vast abundance.

You haven't thought this through.

Yes, the robots would produce abundance. But without a marxist system, we wouldn't be able to get at that abundance without paying. Nothing would change. The corporations that own the robots wouldn't just give us their products out of the goodness of their hearts.

More likely the top 10% would have everything they need and no longer require human laborers to keep the economy that sustains them running, so they'd set about killing us with robots.

>>3269330

because companies have no political power in a capitalist based economy, right?

>>3269271
see:
>>3269319

>>3269349

Edgy teen detected. Where did the corporations touch you?

For a system to work, it must capitalize on human nature.

A resource based economy fights against the human nature to be greedy, lazy, stupid, and irresponsible.

>>3269339

correction, the project, if implemented correctly, would allow for communism to be viable.

big difference.

>>3269374

see

>>3269335

This site continually reaffirms my misanthropic weltanschauung...

>>3269368

I'm waiting for the rest of your argument.

I'll answer you fully then.

But honestly what DOES happen when 99% of everything is automated?

>>3269388

>>But honestly what DOES happen when 99% of everything is automated?

The homeless, lower class and middle class are exterminated.

>>3269335

let's assume we have the technology for abundance to cover for every and each of the human needs.

what economic model would you implement?

>>3269394

What constitutes a need?

>>3269389
you must be trippin. Homeless isn't a social class for one, and the middle class increases with automation. That's why the middle class is so huge right now.

>>3269397

Food, health, shelter, education, etc.

>>3269404

Most people don't see a "need" as you do. It's entirely subjective

>>3269389
the rest 1% expands and becomes the future 99%

just like it did in all history, just a hundred years ago 70% of people worked in agriculture, now it's less than 5%. What happened to all these farmers? They all got exterminated?

>>3269406

are you saying that humans can live without food?

>>3269410
died of old age... and there off spring are lazy fooks that live in the city

Sham. The pricing system coordinates information, etc. Computers can't do this as well as the pricing system because each individual has a different utility function that cannot be aggregated with each other, and new information is more effectively processed into the system by revealed preferences over information fed into a computer.

>>3269414

When did i say that?

>>3269430

you said that my list of needs was subjective.

I said food in my list of needs.

thus, you're implying that the human need for food is subjective.

>>3269442

Is education a need? some would argue it isn't

>>3269346
>I can't into supply & demand

>>3269452

>A need is something that is necessary for organisms to live a healthy life.

It depends on your definition of "healthy life".

>>3269475

yup. You cant get two people to agree on anything, not in all details and respects.

>>3269442
Not the same person, but it is subjective. Hunger strikes are a clear proof of this. Even the value of one's own life is subjective, after all people kill themselves when they feel like is not worth continuing.

everyone not affiliated with kurzweil & friends has their heads up their asses. The free market (aka spontaneous order) is the greatest possible human economic system at the moment. anything else fosters corruption and loss of liberties. When self modifying AI arises in the next few decades, scarcity will be eliminated (no more economics lul) ... dyson spheres and a matrioshka brain are the future... within this century, all the mass in the solar system will begin reassembly into computronium. If you plan on staying biological past say, 2200, you'll probably want to head over to some isolated brown dwarf. god will need lots of matter

>>3269486

You're mixing it up too much.

Human beings need food to survive.

Even if they refuse to fulfill it for a cause of some sort, it's still a need.

>>3269494
are you saying an unregulated market is free from corruption and control?

>>3269494

o...k?

>>3269483

but you CAN agree on the most basic ones.

it's a start.

>>3269511
they also need healthcare to survive, and security

>>3269537

How much healthcare? How much security? The devil is ALWAYS in the details

>>3269521
>are you saying an unregulated market is free from corruption and control?

by comparison to the current state monopolies, yes. corruption will occur at a small scale in a free market, and will be selected against by consumers/competition. free market = natural selection.

lrn2 hayek, von mises, rothbard, friedman, molinari

>>3269249

thread over since the first post.

>>3269558

>state monopolies

>corruption will occur at a small scale in a free market.

thanks for the laugh man, i needed it.

>>3269558
>>3269571

You tried man. Some people don't get it and don't want to

>>3269255
This man summed it up nicely.

>>3269571
uh... your welcome

>>3269558

>free market = natural selection.

You do know that it's possible to evolve into extinction, right?

>>3269562
samefag

>>3269579
another samefag, possibly samefag

>>3269583

>>3269583
yup.. and my point was, thats largely where we're headed with AI and 'transhumanist' technology... assuming you plan on staying merely biological.

>>3269595

I'll give you an example.

>creature A eats creature B to survive.

>through evolution A becomes exceedingly proficient in hunting and consuming B.

>B's population can't keep up and becomes extinct.

>A soon follows suit.

>>3269578
thanks, milton.

>>3269609

The only factors that cause extinctions are sudden changes to environment. The introduction of a new species or an environmental change. Evolution works for B the very same it works for A.

>>3269609
This assumes that Creature B wouldn't evolve as well, developing traits that would help counteract the traits of Creature A.

>>3269373
>A resource based economy fights against the human nature to be greedy, lazy, stupid, and irresponsible.

Are you a neuroscience or psych major?

No?

In that case you speak when fucking spoken to, motherfucker. "Hurr this is human nature because it sounds so true." Get out.

>>3269628

evolution isn't fair, it's RNG, it has no direction.

sometimes it will, others it wont.

>>3269649

Have you ever read a history book? Or an economics book? Humans are better described in an economics textbook than all of Shakespeare.

>>3269628
They could just as well form a symbiosis forming another niche for creature C.

Before I ever knew of the venus project I had thought about why communism had failed and concluded that it had failed because the technology necessary to achieve it didn't exist yet.

Technology is the great socioeconomic facilitator.

Just as industrialism in the 1800s enabled the western economies and social structures of today, future technologies will open doors to economies and social structures not yet possible. Although the economies and governments of today that were enabled by industrialization aren't perfect, they were a great leap from the dictatorships and monarchy's of the past. There is no reason that technology cannot enable such a paradigm shift again. As an avid peruser of technological advancements, I find it very difficult to not see the writing on the wall: the degree to which technology shapes our lives is immense and only grows in power with time.

I don't pretend to know what the perfect system is but I do know that what we have today is not the best we can do for ourselves and that the aforementioned technological effect will persist. We're set in our ways now, but the progress of technology and social enlightenment are inevitable; ergo change is inevitable.

Just an example of a resource-based economy that may work. Some of you might have seen me post it before.

http://www.marshallbrain.com/manna5.htm

First off; the 'resource based economy' is just a command economy but with the added 'this time it work because computers'. By the time we have the technology to implement such an economy, we'd be essentially post-scarcity, and trying to force people to engage with the resource based economy would be an exercise in totalitarianism and artificial scarcity.

Second, we have a resource based economy right now. Prices are calculated on the computing substrate of whole societies.

And third, communism doesn't work because people are dicks? Communism is only necessary, and so only works if people are dicks. Communism posits that people are dicks, and so somebody (or something in the case of the RBE) needs to make sure people can't make their own dickish decisions about their life. If people aren't dicks, or at the very least most people aren't dicks and dicks find it hard to prosper, then capitalism works just fine. And capitalism does work just fine.

>>3269628

less than 5% of the original species that lived on earth have evolutionary descendants today.

for every species we see today, there were dozens that didn't make it.

>>3269681

Because we have had a five or so extinction events. One killing 95% of all life on earth

>>3269677

>dicks find it hard to prosper.

this isn't the case with capitalism at all.

>>3269693

are you arguing that if those events hadn't happened, all those species would have made it?

>>3269695

No disagreement from me. But in any of the traditional command economies, dicks prosper even better than in market economies. They are less visible, perhaps, but they are far more entrenched.

Now, the RBE says that they will eliminate this with the use of computers to allocate resources, but this eliminates only one of the issues with a command economy, namely, the dicks who end up running them. You are still faced with a loss of agency on the part of the common man, and all the problems that arise from that.

>>3269703

We can't really know for sure now can we?

>>3269338

Allow me to play double advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go.
Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts, instead of making a half-harded effort. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like its a peach of cake.

>>3269756

>double advocate
>intensive purposes

>>3269756

>>3269677
>>3269712
>Prices are calculated on the computing substrate of whole societies.
excellent point.

see:
>>3269494

We will destroy ourselves before we can reach that level of technological advancement.

A shame really.

>>3269756
DXM is one hell of a drug.

Econ Grad here

Not looking to take sides here, but I'd like to point out something to those of you talking about capitalism.

Capitalism is where the means of production are privately owned. Things that make a society non-capitalistic;
1. A fiat currency
2. A property tax making true ownership impossible
3. Barriers to entry into fields of private business (we could get into specifics here and at number 4, but it's really not necessary)
4. Barriers to entry in fields controlled exclusively by the government (which is different from 3 in that competition in these areas are only considered private if they were able to exist)
5. Government favoritism in business
6. intellectual property rights

So. please, don't go letting modern non-examples ruin your perspective on capitalism.

>>3269756

uhhh

>corporations have more power than the government.

Trying to get a male dominated culture to adopt a system based on sharing is like trying to get a tiger to adopt a lifestyle based on veganism. Men don't share we compete. Attempts to create such a system have proved this over and again. Therefore, if you want it to work you'd have to switch gears into a culture dominated by women. Personally I don't see that happening anytime soon.

>>3269790

>>3269790

nature very basic way of life, that /sci/ always seems to forget and get butt hurt about. the stroung always and will always prey on the weak.

guys, let's first get the technology we need to end scarcity, and then we can bitch about what system should we use.


we're putting the cart before the horse here.

>>3269790
yo econ grad,

>hayek, von mises, rothbard, friedman, molinari
who else belongs on that list?

>>3269815

>>3269756

>>3269795

arguably, men compete because that is what society has taught them to do.

>>3269795
Say what?

Men cooperate and compete. It doesn't work without both.

And there is no reason to think that a female dominated society, whatever that would be, wouldn't just be differently bad. As if females don't already contribute greatly to the structure of society and always have.

>>3269815

And once we have that tech, forcing people into the resource based economy will be a needless indulgence, an abominable exercise of power for it's own sake.

>>3269816
Are you looking for heavily contributing advocates of a largely free market?

You'd want to toss Bastiat and Hoppe on that list.

>>3269834

> forcing

by whom?

>>3269815
But we're already IN a post scarcity environment for things like music, movies, literature, and such. Doesn't that already tell us what the likely outcome of a post scarcity environment will become?

>>3269795
Because our culture's women are known for sharing all they have, right?
Just because they don't break each other's nasal bone in highschool doesn't mean they don't compete against each other.

Women are as good/bad as men.

>>3269795
>basement dwelling virgin
>thinks women are less competitive than men

>>3269849
Artists and authors starve because the underlying system that supports them is not geared for abundance of necessities and wants of human life.

This is a very large reason why organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA exist.

>>3269847

Once we have the technology to run a resource based economy, such that it is more efficient than a market based economy, we will already be on the verge of ending scarcity.

So the choice will be for people to enter a post-scarcity society, or to enter a resource based economy. In the former, you get pretty much whatever you want as soon as you want, and nothing you get deprives anyone else of anything. In the latter, a central authority decides what you get based on what you do.

>>3269861

This doesn't apply once physical things are post-scarcity.

When that occurs, it would be ridiculous to charge anyone for the simple consumption of any content you produced.

In fact, right now it doesn't make much sense to continue charging for passive content like music, movies, shows, and so on.

>>3269865

I think you've got that wrong.

Anyway, a post-scarcity society would still need some degree of control, as we don't have limitless resources.

>>3269876
>When that occurs, it would be ridiculous to charge anyone for the simple consumption of any content you produced.

Damn straight.

To those who can hear me, I say: 'Do not despair.' The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people.

>>3269865

there is a big difference between having what you need and having what you want...

>>3269883

That charlie Chapman video was a parody. You know that right?

>>3269894
The message is what matters.

>>3269881

Control in such a society would be nearly impossible to implement without positively draconian methods. And once these methods are in place, it would be naive to think that they would be used only to throttle the use of resources.

Besides, we have arbitrary levels of energy and material in the solar system, just waiting for the taking.

>>3269883
thanks for the lol's with that little proverb. who is the original arthur?

>>3269900

you don't understand. It's all hyperbole, you can get people to support you by saying ANYTHING in a spirited fashion. Hitler didn't talk about "killing jews", he only talked about reclaiming the german birthright, it was damn inspiring. That entire video was full of nothing, no specifics, no solutions, nothing.

>>3269905
>who is the original arthur?
I'll assume you meant author.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMKpYxhI2KI&feature=channel_video_title

>>3269911
And not a single fuck was given that day.

>>3269917

alight man, that was reality knocking at your door. Everyone needs to believe in something i guess.

>>3269901

let me put you an example.

>everyone wan't a car

>everyone has a car.

No amount of road infrastructure would work in such scenario.

We already live in a fucking resource based economy. What do you niggers spend your money on if not resources?

>>3269927

Okay.

Everyone has a car.

It now sucks to drive, since the roads are blocked.

People use the bus or whatever instead.


Besides, how does one determine who deserves a car? Now it's who can afford a car.

It seems to me many people that have posted in this thread have somewhat skewed conceptions of what a resource-based economy actually is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacque_Fresco#Resource-Based_Economy

>A resource-based economy replaces the need for the current monetary economy, which is "scarcity-oriented" or "scarcity-based". Fresco argues that the world is rich in natural resources and energy and that — with modern technology and judicious efficiency — the needs of the global population can be met with abundance, while at the same time removing the current limitations of what is deemed possible due to notions of economic viability.

>>3269865
Post-scarcity is a myth. I want everything in the world, give me that.

>>3270059
>myth

>>3270066
>a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

>>3270059
>I want everything in the world, give me that.

thats why you still have a government that will draw lines eventually if you are getting out of hand

>>3270130
Do you realize that means there's still scarcity of resources and there's a government controlling your access to those resources?

>>3270059
What are you even doing here? On science?

If we constructed a Dyson sphere, and converted the energy into mass, we could give each individual the entire output of a nation today and not even notice the loss

>>3270159

The problem with making that is where do we find the easy lunch to construct such a thing?

>>3270142
There will be a comity that deals with this barrier. The people in it will be voted on by all the citizens...

People would be able to receive as much resources for survival as needed but if you want to pursue a project that requires additional resources you would apply for it and after analysis you will be granted.

There is a limit but its a lot better than it is now.

>>3270159
I'm often called the /sci/-fi guy yet I have no fucking clue how we'd go about creating that, let alone a power collecting Dyson ring.

What we could do is have a square kilometer-worth of solar panels in Mercurian orbit beaming the power back by masers or something. And even that would be a mjor feat of engineering.

>>3270142
No, Logic and Fairy Tales don't go well together.

>>3270159
What are you doing here, on a board devoted, in theory, to actual Science? Do you think speculating about magic is somehow scientific, just because you use pseudo-scientific language?

>>3270159
If you compared the assets of someone in a first world nation of today to the assets of someone from a thousand years ago, the difference would be similarly drastic to what you are describing. Yet somehow, people figure out ways to consume as much and more than their means allow. You think the same thing won't happen when people have access to a "Dyson sphere"? What are you doing on /sci/, friend?

>>3270170
I was responding to an anon that was trying to differentiate a post-scarcity society from a society that has a centralized government that allocates resources. Increasing the boundaries of our resource limits is one thing, and is commendable, but it is not "post-scarcity". Post-scarcity only refers to things like information, which have no limited physical form.

>>3270177
>No, Logic and Fairy Tales don't go well together.
I don't understand your contention.

>>3269851

Ah the old sexes are identical view. Nothing like pasting over nature with your own abstract ideas about equality. Here try this experiment.

Get mirror, get gurl (this might be hard for you), both strip down and stand in front of mirror, observe differences.

Oh and I never mentioned morality. Competition can be good (space race for example), cooperation can be bad (visit a commune some day) and vice versa, the ethical slant is you projecting.

>Resource based economy.
what is this bullshit?
what's fiction doing in /sci/?

>>3270233
science fan detected
ban recommended

>>3270159
Now everybody, I never meant to suggest that this is the way to go, or even possible (although a Dyson swarm is)

I simply used it as an example to demonstrate post scarcity IS possible. You simply cannot consume that much while remaining on earth.

>>3270265
You seem new to the principles of debate. When all of your arguments are logical fallacies and half-baked thoughts, it doesn't bode well for the points you're trying to assert. How about you respond with something more substantive?

>>3270296
Yeah, it's possible in the same way me being the King of Space is possible.

>>3270233
I'm contending that logic has little or no place in the discussion once the term "post-scarcity" appears.

>>3270361
All right, I agree with that.

>>3270366
Well I don't

Heres one closer to home. Asteroid mining.

I feel bad for you. Driven into apathy. Thats the spirit that got us to the moon...

>I want everything in the world, give me that.

Such a statement is equivalent to saying that you don't know what you want.

>>3270386
An entropic universe is necessarily scarcity based in the long run.

>>3270390
No, it outlines pretty specifically what is wanted. So much for your pseudo-wisdom.

Post-scarcity

>>3270395
Except that it doesn't outline anything, it's just him being facetious.

What he's saying is he wants everything, naturally including all the bad stuff, which logically he doesn't actually want proving that he's talking out his ass.

>>3270399
You just attempted to use a kids movie as an argument against eliminating material and energy post-scarcity.

>>3270413
>against eliminating material and energy post-scarcity.
I herped so hard that I derped
*scarcity

>>3270410
Your subjective definition of "good" and "bad" does not invalidate the point being made. Post-scarcity is an unreasonable economic model for physical things.

>>3269442

I'm an Obese person.

> need food. Please, society, pay for my habits! I want to live comfortably without working an hour out of my day.

true post-scarcity is an ideal, an should be treated as one.

practical post-scarcity is possible however.

>>3270420

you're confusing want with need

I didn't read this thread and I'm posting in it anyway.

The bottom line is in order for something like this to work everyone on the planet (I mean fucking EVERYONE) would have to give up being a selfish dick, and understand that the only way to actually sustain this species on this planet is to start acting like humans are, in fact, a single species. I don't mean combining governing force into a single entity, we would actually have to veer towards not needing at least the enforcement part of government (personal accountability). The more people say its impossible, the more obvious it is that people don't have enough faith in themselves to break the habit of being the mediocrity striving, self serving, wage slaves that we are today.

>>3270445

>>The bottom line is in order for something like this to work everyone on the planet (I mean fucking EVERYONE) would have to give up being a selfish dick

Nope. Such a system doesn't require any behavioral changes.

Consider the animals in a zoo. Are they selfless, enlightened beings? No. But they are cared for. They do as they please, day after day, and they are sheltered and fed.

What we're really discussing here is a human zoo, sans the bars.

>>3270443

but i can't work cause I'm too fat. I need to eat and maintain my lifestyle. Do you want me to suffer? Do you? If so, you're selfish and greedy.

>>3269823

> typical liberal logic. Blame it on the environment.
> Sees buffalo's fighting over female
> Yells, in a lisp, "Oh my gawwd, stop fighting! You guys need to learn to love each other!"

Men undeniably have an ego, and are always trying to impress a person they have an interest in. To remove competition and establish brotherly love, you would have to remove the libido and attraction of any sense out of any and every human being.

For this you would have to establish some kind of dictatorship or totalitarian regime.

>resource based economy
>post-scarcity
>robots do everything
>Manna short story
>totally not communism guys
>hurr i watched avatar, wall-E, fight club and american beauty im an intellectual now

>>3270457
You're really going to use a zoo as your comparison? You're kept fat happy and stupid right now whether your willing to accept that fact or not.

>>3270464

what work?

>>3270468

I'm not saying that man doesn't have a degree of natural competitiveness

I'm saying that current society exacerbates it.

>>3270481

Sure, but I have to work for it. The analogy would be if zoo animals had to run on treadmills for 8 hours of every day in order to earn their food and shelter. I don't imagine they'd be all that happy.

>>3270494

If anything society retards it, and to great determent.

>>3270494

Still. The communist system will fail unless support is unanimous across all states. This would be impossible.

>>3270514
I see what you're getting at. So then do you think that we'll get civilization to the point where we're handed everything by robots going the same pace we are now? None of the present ideologies or practices would have to change? We can just keep killing each other and burning through resources until we arrive at the "zoo"?

>>3270526

>If anything society retards it

on what dimension do you live

I think that if a more significant amount of humans are brought to a more equal level in society, technological and artistic advances would flourish due to the fact that more people are able and willing to attempt either.

>The Venus Project
>Dyson sphere

OHHH, I see what is going on.....
I'll just sit back and watch.

>>3270557

relative to what time period? You do realize there was a time when competition drove every aspect of life? failure certainly ment not eating that night. today we have a system that if you fail, you can get a government check to eat. You really think that if we had no society, people would not compete for resources? really?

sham

There is no sliding scale between nationalizing everything and privatizing everything with mixed economies in between, neither are planned economies synonymous with altruism or laissez faire synonymous with selfishness. There is only a logical reason to place emphasis on abstract concepts when they are rooted in facts and logic, for this reason worshipping central planning has no factual basis, just as much as worshipping mixed economies or laissez faire, the entire thought process is defunct.

I would go so far as to say that it was intentionally engineered to reduce people's consciousness as to what is good practical policy for them.

>>3270597

I like you

>>3270571
people compete for resources but they're also very much dependent on each other for them whether they realize it or not.

If you mean the Venus project, or anything like it, then a sham. Please stop trolling /sci/.

fuck state ownership, wage slavery is wage slavery whether its a government or a corporation.

Cooperatives and self employment are the only way to end human alienation.

>>3270740

But that's my point. people don't think on a macro scale, and you wouldn't either if you where starving to death.

>>3270778

The more people are educated, the more people think on larger scales.

This is one of the many benevolent pressures on human society.

I wonder if the people who think this wouldn't work are the ones who would be contributing to it's death (if it was ever to be created).

>>3269373
>implying that's a bad thing
Either fight it and destroy it! Or you will get extinction.
Many have fought it and won! Why can't you?

consciousness transfer is the solution to this problem also, you morons

>>3269281
Its gay, because its not just abundance that controls demand but also viability. e.g Soil is in abundance but people still buy bricks. No amount of technology can possibly reduce the knowledge required to make this transition possible a triviality (Well, except technological singularity of course).

As stupid as communism.

A resource based economy would abolish the market economy and de facto abolish private property over capital goods, being thus an environmentalist version of Socialism.

Just like Socialism, such a society would end up abolishing the market price mechanism over Capital Goods, and with out a price mechanism, economic agents/central planners would be left blindfolded. With out a price mechanism, there would be no way to know the supply and demand for goods, no way to know the efficiency of production/value of certain resources over others, it would be impossible to compare factors of production and make several kinds of calculations and predictions. The Public nature of services added to absence of price mechanism would also mess up the Marginal Utility of the masses and cause Tragedies of the Commons in all types of services.

Ironically, a "Resource-Based Economy" would waste resources very often. There is no such thing as "Post-Scarcity" (or at least no such thing as Post-Scarcity in the way RBE supporters define it), and even if there was, a Resource Based Economy would not be able to achieve this.

>>3270756

Worker Cooperatives would only work in a Free-Market and being privately owned by the workers, being perfectly compatible with Capitalism, or more specifically being Mutualism.

The moment you try to impose this system upon all of the economy and Collective the means of production (which is what a lot of the "Anarcho"-Socialists and "Libertarian" Socialists want), you end up with de facto State ownership and economic planning, that suffers the same problems State-Socialism suffers.

Also, the idea of "Wage slavery" is just a myth based on the unscientific Labor Theory of Value, and has already been debunked by the Theory of Marginal Utility and the Time Preference Theory of Interest.
>http://mises.org/daily/1680

Entrepeneurs do an important service to workers, giving then a wage before the output they helped to produce could create an income, taking most of the risks over savings/Capital goods, collecting information and acting upon risks and helping to make the design of the products sold - the REAL source of value, as it gives Marginal Utility to the products. Wage-Relations are a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If the workers do not like this arrangement and want something better, they are free to form their own Worker-Cooperatives/Mutual-Aid Societies, lend their wages at an interest ( to get the "full product of their labor" as Marx would put it) or even attempt to become Entrepeneurs. The only things preventing them from doing so are the State and the fact that most workers simply do no want this, due to their high time preference.

circumcised peoples should have towns, cities like in the Op`s pic...

>>3269383

>mistake economics concepts with political organization concepts
>try to dodge by asking for proof of a definition

real smart, kid

the more I listened to "resource based economic dreams" and fuzzy non-specifics it seemed to me I was encountering a God-like hubris coupled with the standard sci-fi dreamer's naivete vis á vis human nature. But just as I was jotting this last down in my notes, OP cautioned viewers — and it gave me the shivers, since he seemed to be responding directly to my written reservations — to remember that human nature is not synonymous with human behavior; the latter can be changed. Although the futurist scenario is — in my humble opinion — rife with problems, it's not every day that somebody comes along ambitious enough to offer a blueprint for re-designing the world.

>>3272037
>Just like Socialism, such a society would end up abolishing the market price mechanism over Capital Goods, and with out a price mechanism, economic agents/central planners would be left blindfolded

There wouldn't be a need for a price mechanism because there would be no fucken money system...everyone would live in abundance and magic and everything would be provided for by altruistic robots

>ctrl+f "bitcoin"
>0 results
Here, have a resource-based economy that is self regulating (so far) and relies completely on technology.
http://www.bitcoin.org/