/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2846254]

I just watch Zeitgeist Appendum /sci/
What do you think of this project venus thingy?
Is it just another bullshit or actually possible?

[Anonymous No.2846268]

>Zeitgeist

[Anonymous No.2846290]

I believe that something similar to what the venus project tries do do MIGHT be applied to extraterrestrial colonies. But the zeitgeist movement is mostly weekend warrior material.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846308]

Zeitgeist: Moving Forward is a more polished version of the Venus Project. Now from what I can see, Fresco is quite naive in how he believes the execution of such a project would take place, and especially naive in terms of stuff like crime. No, crime will not vanish within a decade if you make everything abundant.
As for a resource-based economy, that is possible, just not for the next 20 years at least. Automation has a long way to go.

[Anonymous No.2846318]

didn't he admit that centralized allocation of resources depends on advanced AI we haven't invented yet?

and 3d printed gears made from shitty 3d printer plastic? lol.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846329]

>>2846318
>and 3d printed gears made from shitty 3d printer plastic? lol.
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2009/08/3d-printing-now-available-in-stainless-steel-adamantium-next/

[Anonymous No.2846333]

>>2846268

Should be an automatic permaban word

[Anonymous No.2846336]

Zeitgeist has good points on monetary systems etc, but the tangents they go on just made me stop watching after a while.

[Anonymous No.2846412]

bullshit

[Anonymous No.2846474]

>>2846329
thx for the correction

[Anonymous No.2846513]

>>2846318
Professional 3dprinting with a real $500k machine is quite a bit more advanced than some shitty $300 reprap construct.
For a sintering process you need some thermal treatment afterwards to achive full material strength, but if you use electron beam melting you can print solid metal parts with no post-treatment required, they come out as pure solid metal objects. The drawback is that you have to do this in a vacuum.

[Anonymous No.2846523]

The problem with the whole thing is; by the time we have sufficient automation and artificial intelligence to make it work, it would be far easier to just have no central planning at all.

Concentrating prototypers and cornucopias in a few hands will be a recipe for an authoritarian nightmare.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846533]

>>2846523
>The problem with the whole thing is; by the time we have sufficient automation and artificial intelligence to make it work, it would be far easier to just have no central planning at all.
Pretty much this. With proper AI to make such a project work, molecular assemblers and similar inventions will not be too far behind.

[Anonymous No.2846562]

The Venus Project guys should get together with the Seastedding Institute and go off and try something like this in the ocean. If and when they make it work on a small scale, then it could be adopted large scale. I'm not expecting a great deal of success over the short term, but a part of me expects the whole resource based economy with access replacing ownership as somehow becoming inevitable.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846573]

>>2846562
I would be interested in seeing something like this develop. If it worked out quite well I'd even move there, at least for a while.

[Anonymous No.2846574]

>The advance of technology, if it were carried on independent of its profitability, Fresco theorizes, would make more resources available to more people thereby reducing corruption and greed, and instead make people more likely to help each other.

Wow. It's that easy?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.2846587]

>>2846574
He's basically saying ditch supply and demand, use all technology we currently have today to maximize our production capability for everyone to live in a world of abundance. I have nothing against this.

[Anonymous No.2846597]

>>2846587
Who would have something against the idea of everyone being happy and nice and pink bunnies to cuddle. He's saying all we have to do is follow his theory in order to convince every human being that into that state of mind. Ok. If it really is that easy to turn everyone into John Lennon, go ahead, you have my vote.

[Anonymous No.2846606]

There can be no economic calculation in a resource-based economy, which means that there is no sure fire way of knowing what goods to produce, how many units of a good to produce, etc.

[Anonymous No.2846638]

"Resource-based economy" is just Communism under a semantic veil.
To accomplish the goals, it will be necessary for the highly skilled engineers to work for very little personal reward. Can /sci/ nerds handle that? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.2846685]

>>2846638


The highly skilled already do work for relatively little reward. It's the people who trade in the highly skilled who make the money.

[Anonymous No.2846710]

>>2846685
This.

Engineers and scientists produce a fuckton of wealth for the country. Too bad that wealth is only seen through when a corporation manages it and gives a fuckton more to managers and non-producers.

[Anonymous No.2846752]

>>2846587
I think that's overstating. It seems to me that they're advocating reducing waste in production, replacing ownership with access and automate as much as possible.

One particular point that was made which I thought rather poignant was the idea of car ownership. Currently people spend large amounts of money to own something that they use for less than 5% of the time. What's more, people purchase cars with 4 seats when most of the time they are driven with 3 of them being unoccupied. It seems kind of ridiculous if you ask me. But cars have been marketed as symbols of status and luxury instead of conveyance tools.

Our driver's licenses (in Ontario) have a magnetic strip on them. It would be no great feat to make a car that can be opened and started by a swipe of a person's driver's license. It would be city owned and a person could drive it from one point in the city to another and leave it for the next user. Instead of owning the car, you rent it per km and it get's billed to you by the Ministry of Transportation. Don't pay your bill? Can't drive. Get into an accident in a city car? It goes against your driving record. Park in an unauthorized spot? Automatically get sent a parking ticket. Speed in a city car through a school zone? Automatically get charged because the car knows.

It would make for safer less congested roads and reduced individual cost overall.

I think automated systems like that are completely feasible and would go a long way to reducing waste.

[Anonymous No.2846799]

>>2846752
What's to stop people from parking one of these cars in their garage?

[Anonymous No.2846802]

>>2846752
>>2846752

Yeh but it can't be the only system. I'm dead against being instantly fined for driving over the limit in a school zone, but let's not get into whether that's actually right or wrong. So there just needs to be an alternative. There always needs to be choice. Your suggestions are efficient, no doubt. But personally I would still buy my own car and the system should definitely accommodate that choice.

[Anonymous No.2846812]

>>2846752
>mfw these cars get boosted by the dozen as soon as they hit the streets.

[Anonymous No.2846825]

>>2846812
>>2846799

>boost cars that are filled to the eyelids with tracking devices and such
>you're pretty much allowed to park it in your garage... but I hope you live close to fucking everything or you're going to pay a lot based on his per-km system

[Anonymous No.2846835]

>>2846825
>can't steal something because it has a "tracking device"
I GUESS THAT'S WHY NO ONE EVER STEALS CELL PHONES.

[Implying No.2846837]

>>2846825
>implying cars "filled to the eyelids" with surveillance devices would gain popular support

[Anonymous No.2846840]

>>2846799
Charge them a nominal fee for hoarding it. It would have a GPS and it's whereabouts would be known at all times. Besides what's the point of having a car if you're going to keep it in your garage? Eventually you have to drive it somewhere and get out, and then it's back on the market for anyone who needs it.

>>2846802
Oh of course not. Actually this would work best if it was an option offered to people as an alternative first. Possibly a joint venture between the Ministry of Transportation and Enterprise or some other car rental company.

>>2846812
That would be difficult, as the cars would have a GPS system that would be secure under the hood. Which would be an area that could only be accessed by licensed technicians with specific authorization to service the city cars.

[Anonymous No.2846846]

>>2846835
>>2846835

>not talking about something that fits in your pocket and has tracking functions as options and services
>talking about a fucking car that's entire existence relies on the tracking device

it will be secure. you're a retard.

[Anonymous No.2846850]

>>2846837
Yeah. Cuz people don't pay shittons of money for OnStar or anything. Market it as a safety system and people will eat it up. Besides driving is a privilege not a right. Obey the rules and you can continue to drive. Red light cameras were hated when they first appeared, now people just accept them, and they've helped solve crimes.

[Implying No.2846854]

>>2846840
>an area that could only be accessed by licensed technicians with specific authorization to service the city cars.

Thieves don't care about authorization.

[Anonymous No.2846855]

>>2846752
And, of course, the city would make sure to maintain those vehicles to keep them safe and clean. And if an accident occured, with people killed, it would be easy to determin whether the actual driver was at fault or a previous driver that somehow damaged the vehicle by improper use. Wouldn't happen.

Those cars would always run perfectly, fulfilling their purpose, and citizens would never feel unfairly treated, if they had to pay a bill for a service that failed them. Mabye not being able to reach a destination for an important meeting and therefore losing the job. Since that would never happen. "It's your fault I can't feed my children." "How about you buy and use your own car then, we're not forcing you to use these. You can't sue us, read the user agreement clause." "Yeah, you're right. That's what I'll do. I'll drive my own fucking car that I'm responsible and accountable for." ...And that's what everyone'd gonna do.

Also, nevermind an invention called the "bicycle." The people who are keen on saving resources, the people in your example, are already using those. And they have the luxury of not having to share the seat with every ass in town.

[Implying No.2846863]

>>2846850
There is a difference between "tracking" and "surveillance."

(and as far as I know, red-light cameras are still generally disliked)

[Anonymous No.2846868]

democracy: the public is scammed into voting whatever

[Anonymous No.2846873]

>>2846855
>>2846855

tier it. variety of quality options. if you don't like sharing the seat with every ass in town, choose the nicer cars and pay more per km.

have some tier beyond which the service guarantees availability. will always be one in certain spots. choose it if you are on a deadline. if you aren't, wait for the ones that don't provide that option and pay less for its use.

there are all sorts of options that could be implemented.

[Anonymous No.2846888]

>>2846873
Yes, I will chose the best tier.

>My own car.

You can't provide a better service than that. And again, for everything else, I have my bike.

[Anonymous No.2846891]

>>2846855
All those snarky points are certainly valid. Of course people will be disenfranchised from time to time. Just like they are with public transit or other government run and privately run services. Some people who live on Queen St. might need to get to North York in a hurry. Taking a bike isn't feasible, especially since they have to carry their portfolio. So they go down on the street and voila! CityCar right on the corner. They get their license out, swipe it on the door lock and get in. They swipe their license on the steering column and the car starts and off they go.

None of the other problems you suggest are things that aren't already being dealt with by car rental agencies today. They'd simply have to enter into a partnership with CAA or have their own fleet of service vehicles to fix problems, top up gas, etc.

[Anonymous No.2846898]

>>2846888
>>2846888

yep. you're dead right. and feel free to make that choice. i'd have my own too probably, because i'd be able to afford it. not everyone thinks like that though, or would care for their own car and would be happy to adopt the service.

i'd still probably end up using the government service from time to time anyway because it would just be extremely handy sometimes.

[Anonymous No.2846899]

>>2846891
>CityCar right on the corner.

You mean a taxi?

[Anonymous No.2846991]

Venus project, like all attempts at central planning, always glosses over the really important part which is how will the system make economic decisions about scarce resources?

>safer less congested roads
They might be safer (although people generally take better care of things they own), but if you plan to increase car access, the roads will get more congested.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2846995]

>>2846899

Genuinely lol'd.

[Anonymous No.2847000]

>mfw capitalism in the free market runs the kind of calculations this central computer is supposed to on the computing substrate of human brains operating in crowds, using money as a variable to represent how much a given product or service is worth, and it does so far more effectively and organically

Seriously, you guys. Central planning doesn't work because people are douchebags, and because you can't stop people bartering if you tried. And perfect central planning needlessly limits freedoms.

Personally, I can't wait for the post-scarcity reputation based economy. A resource based economy only has a niche in the brief period between when we are almost post-scarcity, and we are actually post-scarcity. Before then, it is impossible. After then, it is pointless.

[Anonymous No.2847012]

As an economics graduate student, I looked into this quite in detail and tried to draw out a negative/positive externality chart. For this to work, not only would there be a shit ton of tragedy of the commons but it would also be able to sustain a population 1/10th of what the earth has now.

[Anonymous No.2847024]

>>2847012
I completely agree, as a fellow economics major, this would only work if we eradicated 9/10th of the human population.

[Anonymous No.2847027]

>>2847012
>As an economics graduate student
Your argument is invalidated.

[Anonymous No.2847035]

>>2847027
I hate how people equate economics=money.

it's about how to effectively redistribute resources, which includes money as well.

if money disappeared, economists would still exist.

[Anonymous No.2847039]

>>2847012
>tragedy of the commons
Is based on the economical equivalent to what in physics is a "perfectly spherical blackbody cow in vacuum converting solar energy into milk".

That is, it's a great example for horrible equations and calculations to learn students things. But it doesn't represent reality, at all.

[Anonymous No.2847067]

>>2847035
>it's about how to effectively redistribute resources, which includes money as well.
Effectively, measured how? As the density of money that can be concentrated to the top 1%? As the individual savings that cause economic contraction? As short term profitability?

History rather clearly shows that economists and their theories are all superidealized and doesn't work very well when applied to real world scenarios.

[Anonymous No.2847069]

>>2847039
Of course it does. If I had access to something everybody had, I would take as much of it for myself as possible.

Tragedy of the commons is everywhere, look at over fishing, pollution, deforestation.

[Anonymous No.2847071]

>>2847067
It's not an economists job to redistribute the money. They only advise politicians and entrepreneurs.

[Anonymous No.2847093]

>>2847069
Do you use gmail as a file storage? Do you keep your bandwidth maxed out at all time? Do you take all of the free samples offered in the store? Do you empty the entire glass if someone offers you a sip? Do you take the entire supply of "free" ketchup packages? Do you pick up every cent you see lying around? Do you never tip more than required? Would you take all money found in a lost wallet?

If you do, well congratulations you're a rational human according to economic theories, and a psychopath according to medicine.

[Anonymous No.2847106]

perfectly spherical black bodied cows converting solar energy to milk...

I want a picture of that.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2847109]

>>2847093
what is the bounded rationality

[Anonymous No.2847118]

>>2847069
> over fishing, pollution, deforestation.
All done in the name of MAXIMUM PROFIT.

[Anonymous No.2847119]

>>2847093

Not the guy you're responding to, but;

These are all things where you can see your impact upfront. Taking money from the wallet, you are directly taking from another person, a stranger. Taking all the free samples will make you look like a jerk, and even so there are plenty of people who do take as much of these things as they can.

Tragedy of the commons comes from things where you cannot easily see your impact, where nobody can know how much impact anyone else has had, and where nobody is responsible for maintenance. Fishing and overfishing are maybe the best examples.

[Anonymous No.2847135]

>>2847093
What is your utility function?
If it's saving time, then picking up pennies is a bad strategy. If it's making friends, then drinking a whole glass when they offer a sip, is not a good idea. If free parfume is not something that you want, then it has no impact on your utility. In fact, it clogs your house, and will allow you to function less efficiently, which will most likely hurt your utility.

[Anonymous No.2847138]

>>2847118
externality

[Anonymous No.2847144]

>>2847119
>Tragedy of the commons comes from things where you cannot easily see your impact, where nobody can know how much impact anyone else has had, and where nobody is responsible for maintenance. Fishing and overfishing are maybe the best examples.

And if we keep logs of everything and computerize it for sustainability, how would this then inevitably happen? I see it more tied to an extreme hunt for profitability where you strip down everything to the bare skeleton and then scale that for maximum production/goods generated.

[Anonymous No.2847155]

>>2847118

At least in the case of deforestation, it is easy to trace it back to government interference. They sell the rights to harvest the land, not just ownership of the land. Logging companies have no profit incentive to maintain the land, since it is cheaper for them to buy the rights to harvest another area.

If they owned it, it would suddenly make economic sense to replant and re-harvest every decade or so. It's a long profit cycle, but a lucrative one.

[Anonymous No.2847159]

This system surpressed the freedom of people.

If I want to pursuit riches and liberty I don't want a centralized totalitarian figure telling me I can't.

I know i sound ridiculously republican, but by freeing yourself from money, you're imprisoning yourself by being spoon fed everything.

Also what man wants to realize a world that humans don't work? What is the point of living if you're just there to eat and enjoy yourself. I'm just as lazy as the next guy, but come on, even I'm not that pathetic.

[m1ckey !dkJI/P7Y32 No.2847162]

>>2847144
So... a socially optimal outcome? It doesn't only have to do with the production efficiency.

[Anonymous No.2847183]

>>2847144

That is fine, and it functions fine right now along with soft, social influences, for things it is possible to keep track of.

For things that are very difficult to keep track of, fishing, for example, as well as actual, honest to goodness common land, this doesn't work. I'm not sure quite how to deal with this, but what we're doing now just results in corporations taking from the common good, and getting the taxpayer to clean up after them, so we get charged on both ends, and they get paid on both ends (since I assume they are contracted to clean it up as well).

Besides, tragedy of the commons does not map perfectly onto the venus project. The real problem is that it purports to be a system that is able to predict demand and allocate resources directly, without resorting to money. It is an inherently oppressive system, unless it exists in an environment of absurd levels of plenty.

Hence my earlier comment, during scarcity, it is impossible, and post-scarcity, it is pointless.

[Anonymous No.2847185]

>>2847118
Actually capitalists would maximize profit by conglomerating small businesses involved, buying up huge areas, kicking out poachers, hoarding and only selling resources when the price is high after their competitors undergo a tragedy of the commons, beginning cheap long term/sustainable extraction, then relegating the business to some competent manager and letting it's profits trickle into the corporation's capital reserves for investment elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.2847193]

Zeitgeist is a troll film, and you bitches got trolled hard.

[Anonymous No.2847199]

ITT: some people actually know microeconomics

I am pride

[Anonymous No.2847210]

>If I want to pursuit riches and liberty I don't want a centralized totalitarian figure telling me I can't.

You're welcome to try whatever you want, last i checked the world totalitarian wasn't included in the centralization of things according to the venus project. The way I see it you have no overmind computer, it's a network of central computer nodes keeping order of the local enviroment.

>I know i sound ridiculously republican, but by freeing yourself from money, you're imprisoning yourself by being spoon fed everything.
And by using money you have to whore away all your spare time for a means of aquiring anything. You're still being spoonfed things, it's not like you'll go out and log stuff or mix concrete from scratch in a pit you dug with a stick and shape it into a house by hands. You leverage the expertise of people to get ANYTHING done in a quick and orderly fashion. You're still limited by your time so you can't comission all the 3dprinters and computingpower and transports and whatever else at the same time even you dedicate yourself to abusing free services to the max.

>Also what man wants to realize a world that humans don't work? What is the point of living if you're just there to eat and enjoy yourself. I'm just as lazy as the next guy, but come on, even I'm not that pathetic.
Travel, see the world, art, writing, entertainment, building stuff, sports, invention? Why the fuck should boring and menial labour have to be a component of life? I'll be fine without struggle thank you.

[Anonymous No.2847252]

>>2847185
>Actually capitalists would maximize profit by conglomerating small businesses involved, buying up huge areas, kicking out poachers, hoarding and only selling resources when the price is high after their competitors undergo a tragedy of the commons.
Right so far. After that they would put a foot into a different small business area, expand so their supply can cover all demands and artificially dump prices until their competition that is focused in the are fall, the competition is bought up and now you have a monopoly in two fields, which further increase the manipulative power of further markets. Rinse repeat until you control all money, you pay people to work, they buy your goods, because all goods are yours. You essentially controll free labour. If you want some insane project built but find no workers? Increase pay for the project and dump pay for everyone else in the vicinity.

Congratulations, The apex of capitalism, a single centralized control node that steer everything that happens like a fucking RTS! Nice powertripping fantasies that you'd be in control, but no, you wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.2847255]

>>2847210

Venus project is inherently totalitarian, it doesn't need to use that term to be well described by it. An outside agency determines what you deserve to have based on some occult equations.

[Anonymous No.2847256]

>>2847210
The Venus Project has in the past, claimed that all the world's resources belong to ALL the people, so private ownership of any resource is theft from everyone. I would fight an insurgency to prevent this social system from being realized.

[Anonymous No.2847282]

>>2847255
>An outside agency determines what you deserve to have based on some occult equations.
Sounds like the situation for anyone in a country with a functional goverment, unless you live in somalia you're under the very same "opression" right fucking now. Except that the occult equations are replaced by "ideological whim of some rich guy(s)"

[Anonymous No.2847288]

Only way the Venus project can actualize is if we barely destroy ourselves in the next world war.

Then we could restart and rebuild humanity from scratch.

however, that does not mean I agree with this socialist method.

[Anonymous No.2847298]

>>2847256
>the world's resources belong to ALL the people
Because having the world's resources belong only to some few selected rich people is so much better?

Or do you interpret it so literally that someone will bust into your house and reposess your clothes because a computer demanded it, that personal belongings would be a big NOPE?

[Anonymous No.2847313]

>>2847282

Could be. I can accept that right now, my economic decisions do not impact my life as much as the economic decisions of the rich and powerful. But the Venus project as a model for an economy would not be any better than any other form of central planning. Under such a system, my economic decisions would be irrelevant.

And if we had the kind of automation required to make it work, it would no longer be needed, and would be disgustingly oppressive compared to the alternative of the post-scarcity, reputation based economy.

[Anonymous No.2847328]

when are the illuminati going to kill/ban zeitgeist for revealing their plan to take over the world etc..

[Anonymous No.2847350]

>>2847313
In any fully automated post-scarcity system you will end up with computers calling the shots and having your economic decisions made irrelevant.

Given the scarcity of details the venus project suffers i don't see what part you're getting so stuck on.

[Anonymous No.2847380]

I enjoyed reading this thread. i believe great knowledge can be discovered with discussions like these.

Good day gentlemen

[Anonymous No.2847381]

>>2847350

In any fully automated post-scarcity society, any individual or community would have complete control over the means to produce anything they wanted up to a point, and the means to produce the means to produce anything they wanted above that point. They could harvest their own raw materials, or just grab some of the excess from someone else's project.

Centrally planning such an economy would just show everyone who gains self worth and pleasure from exercising power over other people right at the mechanisms they need to control in order to do just that.

[Anonymous No.2847533]

>>2847381
You won't just magically have a rare-earth metal mining operation in your back yard or a few miles outside town and a semiconductor manufacturing plant next to it, chances are you will have neither within 1000kms from your position. If you're making a cleanroom with robots in it makes sense to build it a bit bigger than two square meters and put maybe twenty? maybe fifty? Maybe five hundred parallel lines in it. And once you have those five hundred lines, you're going to vastly outproduce community demands, why not ship the surplus to the neighbours?

No one will bother to have the robotic manufacturing infrastructure put on wheels and drive around on a rural construction tours building telephone booth sized hyperadvanced manufacturing plants when you can pool the construction infrastructure in a single place and have it construct factories that can supply nations worth of products in a few days time.

Shipping stuff will not disappear, and you will end up with large centralized nodes either way. Oh you might want to have your own local node and you can probably start such a medium scale construction of it but it will probably be redundant, feel redundant and appear as a fools errand.

My vision is of multi-layered vast all-production factories the size of small cities with vast production, storage and processing hangars of various kind, most would be completly off limits to any human being. Consider something along the line of an enormous organism where the molecules of various metabolic pathways are robotic manipulators that can lift a few hundred kg, 3d printer that can print entire aircrafts and skyscrapers filled with layers of automated farms under artificial lightning.

[Anonymous No.2847546]

>>2846254
Reported for Z-word. Keep lunacy out of /sci/.

[Anonymous No.2847584]

>>2847533

No doubt the big stuff will still be made not at home, the small stuff will be made at home.

But the main point is the second, not to have a single point where assholes who like to be in charge of other people can focus their efforts.

[Anonymous No.2847631]

>>2847584
I'm pretty sure that individual control and decision will be removed from the equation.
No single person will be able to stop growing of tomatoes if someone else requests them to be grown.
This of course would extend to opium, LSD, weed, cocaine and most other thing in small quantities too.

However, at the point where such an enormous system can exist we simply will have AI or other equivalent complex intelligent control systems, and lets just say they'll do a much better work than any human at taking care of society.

[Anonymous No.2847645]

Possible:
Yes
Will any of us see it implemented:
No

[Anonymous No.2847773]

>>2847298
Although you're strawmanning me, it actually is, because the resources and capital goods are still subject to bid/ask pricing, allowing for efficient distribution. Of course, the reason that powerful people have been able to oligopolize so effectively is that government has the power to regulate their competitors and their potential competitors.

That said, I like the way you ask questions, you should work for that political compass site.
>Do you think every child should receive a free kitten from the government instead of every kitten on Earth being killed?

[Anonymous No.2847812]

>Of course, the reason that powerful people have been able to oligopolize so effectively is that government has the power to regulate their competitors and their potential competitors.

Give me an example of how this works or I call bullshit.

[Anonymous No.2847937]

I really just randomly passed by on this board and stumbled upon this thread.

I think I'll stay, this seems to be a very interesting board with reasonable discussions.


I am proud of you people.