[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 64 KB, 600x405, Denmark rules.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2126066 No.2126066 [Reply] [Original]

Since /sci/ wants to fix the world, I have an idea for a fun game.

Invent a new economic system, or drastically alter an existing one. Then discuss these systems. For example, my one is that each person gets to choose what to do with an equal portion of the resources produced. I haven't really made any efforts to figure out what the effects of this would be, but I hope this thread ends up being interesting.

Pic unrelated, I think?

>> No.2126068

>>inb4 technocracy

>> No.2126072

>>2126068
The economics of technocracy are rarely discussed. If the idea of technocracy is that the experts in each field make the decisions, that means the economists make the economic decisions. Not a huge fan of that.

>> No.2126073

Holy fuck those outlets are happy.

>> No.2126083

Whoa, I just looked up technocracy on Wiki and I suddenly realised how terrible modern democracies are. People who are knowledgeable should make decisions? What a bizarre idea!

>> No.2126090

>>2126083
A technocracy would already be on top of global warming. :-(

Instead we have politicians loudly denying its existence in order to get votes from their constituency.

>> No.2126094

>>2126072
I disagree, (standard) Economics wouldn't really apply, it would be replaced by some sort of sorting algorithm that allocated resources based on impact a new technology would have on a society. The experts in their other fields would raise concerns about what they need to make their next big break through and what ever had the most need and would make the greatest impact through out the society would get the most resources.

Economics is just a feedback system, and it emphasizes that the world has infinite resources and that trade and jobs mean the society is healthy, where in a technocracy by using technology the goal would be to eliminate jobs (robots are better workers).

>> No.2126100

>>2126094
I'd like to see even a rudimentary computerized economic replacement. That would be cool.

>> No.2126107

>>2126094
1. make robots
2. D/L consciousness of worthwhile people into robots
3. big-ass neutron bomb
/worlds problems

>>2126066
The only way to truly fix an economic system would be to eliminate greed. Good luck with that.

>> No.2126110

>>2126107
I'm asking for new ideas, doesn't matter if they aren't perfect.

>> No.2126121

>>2126110
OK then... make interest rates illegal. That right there would curb inflation.

>> No.2126146

OP, If you are serious about an alternative system to 'fix' the world, you better understand human behavioural psychology and then devote some time into actually reading about some solutions.

My favourite proposed solution is The Venus Project, as it fits in with the understandings of human behaviour and resource sustainability. It understands that every problem faced by a society has a technical solution and that these solutions must be arrived at using logic and scientific understanding, and are not subject to a politicians notions or religious leaders interpretations etc...

I would recommend reading this:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/aims-proposals
And then this essay:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/a-new-social-design/essay
And then find the answers to your questions here:
http://www.thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project-introduction/faq

>> No.2126148

>>2126100
I think you are over complicating what an economy is. All it really is is a database of resources or lack of and the needs for those resources to be allocated to something useful. Economists assume trade is good and that trade creates jobs is a good feedback for the quality of a society, this is not so, quality of life is.

So basically to make such an algorithm work would be people discuss what they need (without putting there ego in the way) to make the next advance, and the one that is needed most, gets priority. Basically it would be parsing through a tree and different expert fields have different branches on the tree, fields closest to the root of the tree have more priority to branches, because roots apply to more sciences then a branch and is therefore more important.

You could also factor in a hierarchy of human needs that makes preferences for medical stuff instead of race cars or whatever.

>> No.2126150

>>2126146
I've read plenty on the Venus Project. Perhaps I should have made it clearer that this is more of a brainstorming session (ending the inevitable /sci/ deterioration into mindless bickering, probably.)

I do agree that the Venus Project seems appealing, but the transition would be a bitch.

>> No.2126168

>>2126150
You sort of have to understand that there is nothing much to discuss.
Here's a presentation on the current system and then the empirical facts that a system must be built upon:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3932487043163636261#

Like I mentioned above, decisions are arrived at once all factors are taken into account and therefore this discussion is unnecessary as all factors have been taken into account with the design of the foundations of the Venus Project.

Also a radio clip about the transition:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/peter-joseph/2010/10/27/102710--peter-joseph-8-lectures-4-the-transitio
n

>> No.2126169

>>2126150
Yes, the "transitional government" seems reminiscent of another utopian idea that didn't turn out so well.

>> No.2126170

>>2126066
That's called ultra-naive communism, OP. The only kind of communism that works is one where the commune actually has a kind of unwritten hierarchy, and unproductive people don't get an equal say in things. In other words its fuzzy capitalism (which fuzziness makes it only work on small scales).

>> No.2126171

>>2126150
There's nothing in the Venus project that seems even remotely appealing to me.

>> No.2126180

>>2126168
Is this a farce or are these people actually serious?

>> No.2126198

Democracy WITH A TWIST.
You must take a test before you can vote. What is on the test would be decided by an independant commission. Once the voting is complete the test would be revealed, along with the answers. If the test is found to be objectionable (as decided by a court of logic, presided over by the most qualified) then the voting must be redone.

The test would be approx. 20-40 minutes long.
Voting would be compulsory.
The test would be on the political policices of the major parties running for election.

Failure to complete the test = no vote for you.

>Too much effort to do a test before you vote.
This is possibly the most important decision you make. It affects every person in your country. Too much effort to ensure you're qualified to make this deicision? You are weak and lazy and not suitable for this country and its values. Fuck off.

>Cost too much if we have to hold extra compulsory voting sessions.
It costs too much to ensure your country has a suitable and qualified leader as chosen by the suitable and qualified populace? You are greedy and lazy. Fuck off.

>Not a true representation of the country's will.
If it is too much effort for you to research the policies of each party before voting (which you SHOULD be doing anyway) then you deserve no say in how the country should be run. Fuck off.


ONE DAY I SHALL MAKE THIS A REALITY. MY PROMISE TO YOU /SCI/. PRIME MINISTER HERE I COME.

>> No.2126212
File: 58 KB, 610x409, 1289707485771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2126212

>>2126198
This. Seriously, this. I remember asking my mom this when I was 8 after I watched her vote, I said: "Hey Mom, why don't we have a test to weed out the stupid people. We don't want them voting, right?"

3 people gave me this "aww little kid says funny things" look (obviously not thinking it over), and my Mom gave off some sort of smugface. It pisses me off that I'm still serious about this to this day.

I remember some radio talk show interviewed people in Oakland, they recited John McCain's policies but said that it was Obama who was doing it. Example: "What do you think about how Obama wants to (insert McCain goal here)." I don't remember the last time I raged so hard.

>> No.2126222

>>2126212
I'm dead serious about this.

One day I will see this become a reality or I will die trying.

>> No.2126254

>>2126198
>Democracy WITH A TWIST.
is not democracy.

you have to let stupid people be stupid, else all kinds of illiberal shit follows

>> No.2126260

>>2126254
Don't give me slippery slope bullshit.
People still get to choose their leaders. Only this time the stupid people get no say. The test isn't a super exclusive STUDY FOR 2 HOURS EVERY NIGHT test.
Just a few relatively general questions to ensure you at least know who wants what.

Hurpers can still derp. They just can't derp HARD.

>> No.2126261

>>2126198
making a intellectual elite, that rules the world? i imagine the mentally retarded will no doubt be treated fairly... imagine the law that would have been past if this was the system say 100 years ago...

>> No.2126262
File: 41 KB, 1083x378, Political System.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2126262

>>2126198
Not bad, similar to something I had in mind: your carrier choices are determined not by what YOU want to do, but what you're best at. Similarly, promotions are decided by an independent board, not by superiors. This would mean that the country is run on a meritocratic basis, with the merit decided both by actual achievement and a standardized test of core competencies like problem solving, communication, organization, etc.

As for politics, I envision a system in which there's a national network of computers that track every aspect of each city's life, presenting the mayor with a range of options to choose from. Should he/she consider them all unsatisfactory, they may submit their own option, which is reviewed by a board of specialists.
The same layout is repeated for counties, regions, and finally, one controller computer presents the president with options. Police and other public services are paid by the central government, and every politician has a private bank account at the national bank that they receive their salary to, and they must close all other accounts when entering politics to prevent bribes and embezzlement.
Promotions are handled on the same meritocratic basis, with bonuses for achievements in the area under their control, or negation of bonuses and fines for bad performance. This would provide an incentive for politicians to view the goals of the city/county/nation as first, not stuffing their own pockets (which is rendered impossible by having only a monitored state account, making any attempts at bribery instantly noticeable and punishable by permanent banning from the world of politics).

>> No.2126308

>>2126262
>your carrier choices are determined not by what YOU want to do, but what you're best at.
NOPE.jpg
>Politicans can only have 1 bank account.
dowant.jpg

>> No.2126359

>your carrier choices are determined not by what YOU want to do, but what you're best at.

This fails simply because what you are best at is often, if not always, a result of what you have wanted to do in the first place.

Sports is a great example of this.

>> No.2126360

>>2126262
>your carrier choices are determined not by what YOU want to do, but what you're best at.

I assume you meant career and to that I'm going to have say a resounding no.

>> No.2126400

>>2126359
Often, but not always. Just take a look at the management of any corporation. Although you COULD argue that 'fucking up others' lives' is what they wanted to do in the first place...

>>2126360
Why is everybody so opposed to a meritocratic system?

>> No.2126421

>>2126400
Take a step back and ask yourself what we want with a society in the first place.

Do we want to create an awesome place to live... or a well oiled machine.

If you don't get to do what you want in life... what's the point?

Meritocracy isn't bad though.

>> No.2126424

>>2126400
merit is more based on your effort then doing what you are good at. And with practice you can become good at anything, and what you suggest limits people from becoming good at other things, except for maybe on there free time.

Plus for anyone to become good at something other then using a shovel they must practice something they are bad at, so you might as well let them choose what that bad thing is.

Of course you could do an intelligence test of sorts and vaguely guess what they are best at, but they would still be bad for a while.

>> No.2126479

The big question is, what criterion should we use to determine what is a good economic system and what is a bad one? A question related to this is if we can establish a more or less universal criterion, i.e. one which most people would agree with.

Quality of life has been mentioned and I see this as a good and uncontroversial criterion, any others?

>> No.2126504

>>2126424
You got me convinced, let's not restrict options, but still base promotions on their achievements as investigated by an independent board, no potentially nepotist superiors.

>>2126479
Sustainability?
For example, in soviet socialism, a standard of life was guaranteed, maybe not the best, but a comfortable level, but it wasn't sustainable, eventually collapsing on itself.

How about energy accounting?

>> No.2126540

>>2126479
1. Sustainability.
2. Hapiness.

In that order. When 1 is achieved, focus on 2 - without sacrificing 1 for 2.

>I.E. no LOL I BORROW 4000000000 DOLLA FOR HOUSE LOL RECESSION bullshit.